Palmer United Party Deal Revives Uncertainty For Asylum Seekers | newmatilda.com

Palmer United Party Deal Revives Uncertainty For Asylum Seekers | newmatilda.com

Palmer United Party Deal Revives Uncertainty For Asylum Seekers

By Max Chalmers

Keywords: 

clive palmer

scott morrison

asylum seekers

temporary protection visas

The
Palmer United Party has joined forces with Immigration Minister Scott
Morrison to re-introduce the infamous 'Temporary Protection Visas'. Max
Chalmers reports.

A
new deal struck by the Palmer United Party and Scott Morrison will
prevent asylum seekers currently held in detention centres in Australia
from ever being granted permanent protection visas, even after they are
found to be genuine refugees.


On Thursday morning PUP leader Clive Palmer announced his party had
reached an agreement with the Coalition to back the reintroduction of
Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) which will allow refugees to settle in
Australia for just three years before they have their claims to asylum
reassessed.


Those placed on TPVs will have work rights, and will be offered access to social security.


As part of the deal, Palmer announced a new class of visa called the
Safe Haven Enterprise Visa, which will enable regional businesses and
communities to make a request to have TPV holders come and fill jobs in
their area.


The changes have been touted by Palmer and Minister Scott Morrison as
a way to deal with the so-called ‘legacy caseload’ of around 30,000
asylum seekers who are currently in Australia and waiting to have their
claims processed.


Palmer said those being held on Christmas Island will be eligible for
the new visas but Morrison confirmed asylum seekers already moved to
Manus and Nauru would not. Any new arrivals will be sent to offshore
processing and will not be eligible for settlement in Australia.


Morrison said people currently being held on Christmas Island would
not be moved to Nauru while the legislation is examined and debated by
the Parliament.


Refugee advocates have accused Morrison of deliberately going slow on processing these people, a claim that has been backed by evidence presented at the AHRC’s children in immigration detention inquiry.


In response, Morrison has attacked the Greens and Labor for refusing
to allow the previous attempts to reintroduce TPVs through the
Parliament.


“The introduction of TPVs is a key element of the Government‘s border
protection strategy to combat people smuggling and to discourage people
from making dangerous voyages to Australia,” the Bill’s explanatory
memorandum states.


TPVs have long been opposed by asylum seeker advocacy groups, who
claim they place legitimate refugees in limbo and reinforce the
psychological harm inflicted by indefinite detention.


The visa changes are part of a broader package introduced to the
parliament today, which includes amendments altering the way children
born in detention are classified and the relationship between
Australia’s international obligations and domestic law.


The Human Rights Law Centre has been quick to raise concerns about
the Bill, which looks likely to pass the Senate once it gets out of a
committee review.


HRLC’s Daniel Webbs said Morrison was trying to escape Australia’s obligations under international law.


“The Minister has trumpeted the TPV issue but that’s just the tip of
the iceberg. Lurking beneath the surface, today’s Bill contains a suite
of appalling reforms which impact on the way asylum seekers will be
treated both here and at sea,” Webb said.


“If these changes go ahead, some babies born in this country will be
subject to mandatory detention and mandatory removal to Nauru as soon as
possible.”

Print  
 
 
g

Sharia Law Breaches Sect 44 Of Constitution Claims Palmer United Adviser | newmatilda.com

Sharia Law Breaches Sect 44 Of Constitution Claims Palmer United Adviser | newmatilda.com

Sharia Law Breaches Sect 44 Of Constitution Claims Palmer United Adviser

By Max Chalmers

Senior
Palmer United staffer Rob Messenger pictured (ironically) on the far
right with Jacqui Lambie, Clive Palmer and Glenn Lazarus.

Keywords: 

rob messenger

jacqui lambie

clive palmer

palmer united party

dr ghena krayem

Yes…
that would be the section of the Constitution that explains how you can
ban an MP from parliament. Oh the irony. Max Chalmers explains.

A
senior Palmer United Party adviser is standing by a series of alarming
predictions he made about the threat Sharia law poses to Australia,
despite facing criticism from an expert in both Australian and Islamic
law that he does not understand either.


Rob Messenger, Chief of Staff to PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie, told New
Matilda he believed anyone in Australia practicing sharia was in breach
of the Australian Constitution, and that he had not changed his mind
since authoring a series of posts defending Dutch anti-Muslim politician
Geert Wilders and calling on leaders to speak out against “extremist
Islamic religious ideology”.


“I’m concerned about any law that’s not Australian operating in
Australia. Any law other than Australian law indicates a divided
loyalty, is a breach of section 44 of our constitution and possibly
treasonous,” he said in an email.


The Palmer United Party remains tangled in a public feud after
Messenger’s boss called for supporters of Sharia law to leave Australia,
but then failed spectacularly to define the term ‘Sharia’ when probed on ABC program Insiders.


Despite signs of division in the PUP camp, Messenger was not backing away from the issue when quizzed on Monday evening.


In his correspondence, Messenger posited his own definition of Sharia.


“It’s a law that’s not Australian and being promoted by terrorists, extremists and murderers,” he said.


But Dr Ghena Krayem, a lecturer in law at the University of Sydney,
ridiculed Messenger’s understanding of both Sharia and Australian law,
saying the former had nothing to do with terrorism or extremism.


“That’s an incredibly ignorant definition,” Dr Krayem said.


“Sharia is not just the legal code that we associate it with, so it’s not just about law.


“Sharia is the whole framework that Muslims live by, their day-to-day
things like how they pray, their interaction with people, the food that
they eat, all of the things that we don’t normally associate with any
legal system.


“It’s kind of like our moral code.”


Dr Krayem said that banning Sharia would in effect mean banning
Islam, an act that, ironically, would not be supported by the Australian
Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


“Perhaps Mr Messenger hasn’t heard of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution,” Dr Krayem said.


She also noted that Section 44 of the Constitution, cited by
Messenger, outlines the conditions under which someone may be banned
from sitting as an MP in the House of Representatives.


“I’m not sure what he’s talking about there,” she said.


A former member of the LNP and of the Queensland Parliament,
Messenger has previously compared the danger Islam presents to modern
Australia to that faced by the people of Germany in the 1930s.


“There was a time when the German people could have emphatically said
‘No’ to the Nazis’ special message of hate and crazy,” Messenger wrote in a May 2013 letter to the Brisbane Times.


“We are living in similar times and face a similar evil. And the
world will suffer a similar fate as the generation of 1930s and 40s, if
we do not loudly condemn the leaders and followers of the extremist
Islamic religious ideology driving this current world madness.”


Asked if he had gone too far in the comparison, Messenger upped the
ante: “Given the recent level of barbarity displayed by the sharia
extremists - the comparison didn't go far enough.”


Pushed to expand on the number of “extremists” he thought were active
in Australia, Messenger replied: “We're in a new world. It only took 19
sharia extremists to bring America to its knees at 9/11.


“There are hundreds of Australian extremists fighting overseas. It’s
not a case of numbers it is a case of capacity and motivation to inflict
harm. The extremists have both.”


Dr Krayem said that in her experiences researching Sharia in
Australia, no-one she met had advocated establishing a parallel legal
system.


“My research indicates that certainly the overwhelming majority of
Muslims in Australia would find that it’s their legal and moral code
that makes them feel comfortable to be Australian and to abide by
Australian law,” she said.


“I mean I’ve heard repeatedly from the Imams that have been
interviewed that your first obligation here in Australia is to abide by
the law of the land.”

A screenshot from Messenger's blog

While still an MP, Messenger also introduced a bill calling for the “pre-emptive banning of Islamic Sharia Law” in Queensland.


“Not one media outlet reported on my speech,” he lamented in a blog
post. “Not one member of the LNP or Labor Party spoke to support a
debate on this matter.”


On Monday, Lambie hit back at her critics in Parliament, defending her Sharia stance.


“I’ve been criticised by some because I couldn’t properly define what
Sharia law is. It’s not going to come as a shock when I tell you that
I’m not an Islamic scholar,” she said.


“However, I will tell you what I do know about the supporters of
Sharia. Every major terrorist attack on Western world citizens and
Australian citizens — 9/11, the Bali bombings, the Boston marathon
bombings, recent beheadings and massacres — have all been carried out by
supporters of Sharia law. If people want more detail on this law, my
advice is to google ‘Sharia’.”


Days earlier, the Senator was called out for sharing an image from
her Facebook page showing a Muslim woman dressed in a burqa and holding a
pistol, with text superimposed calling for the burqa to be banned.


Lambie was apparently unaware the image was of Afghani policewoman
Malalai Kakar, who had formed a women’s crimes unit and been
assassinated by the Taliban as a result of her work.


Messenger denied being responsible for the Kakar post but said that,
with Lambie’s permission, he took a role on advising in all areas,
including policy matters relating to Muslim communities.


“Senator Lambie and I have been working together as a political team since before the last federal election for about 18 months.


“We’ve done so because like most politicians and their [Chiefs of Staff] we share similar political views,” he said.


Dr Krayem said she intended to offer her assistance to Lambie in
understanding Sharia and its Australian context, but that Messenger’s
assumptions appeared to be on shaky legal ground.


“I think maybe he should come to some of our Constitutional law
classes 101, because he’s got to get some basic facts straight,” she
said.


“Before Mr Messenger or Jacqui Lambie talk about banning anything, they need to get their facts right first.”


In his letter to the Brisbane Times, Messenger said “Islamic
terrorists… cleverly hide amongst us” and made alarming predictions
about the kind of weapons they would use to do harm to Australians.


“One of the greatest risks our children face is that meat cleavers,
knives, home-made bombs and guns will be replaced with sophisticated
modern weapons of mass destruction - poisonous chemicals, nuclear bombs
and deadly viruses,” he wrote.


New Matilda asked Messenger why he had singled out “meat cleavers” at
two points in his letter to the Brisbane Times, and whether he saw any
need to restrict the sale of the implement.


“The use of "meat clever" [sic] was a direct reference to one of the
weapons that the killers of Trooper Lee Rigby used. The letter was a
direct response to that horrifying event,” he replied.


“Your simplistic, leading question disturbs me because it indicates a
complete lack of knowledge about that extraordinary terrorist attack
and a predetermined editorial position.”


For the record, New Matilda has no editorial position on the sale of
meat cleavers. We do, however, have pretty strong views on ignorance.

Print  
 
 
googleplus 

The 'Clive Palmer pattern' repeats, and it's proving costlier than ever | Lenore Taylor | World news | theguardian.com

The 'Clive Palmer pattern' repeats, and it's proving costlier than ever | Lenore Taylor | World news | theguardian.com

The 'Clive Palmer pattern' repeats, and it's proving costlier than ever

Backroom deals excluding stakeholders are Clive Palmer’s way of doing deals – but they don’t make for good policy

• 
  
  
  
  
• • 
    
    
    Lenore Taylor, political editor
  • 
    
    
    
  • 
    theguardian.com,
    Tuesday 2 September 2014 18.00 AEST
    
  • 
    Jump to comments (203)
    

Clive Palmer outside Parliament House in Canberra.
Photograph: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE

Tony Abbott was jubilant after his government persuaded the party of
a mining magnate to repeal a mining tax. The deal – while “imperfect” –
proved Labor was irrelevant and the Coalition was getting on with the
job, he said.


It also proved, once again, that Palmer is an easy touch in
behind-closed-doors negotiations, and that neither Palmer, nor the
government, are all that keen on Australia’s world-leading system of
retirement savings through compulsory superannuation.


Which is strange since the Coalition is so keen on reducing
government spending. Compulsory superannuation means more people can
finance their own retirement and fewer will need the aged pension.


The millionaire Palmer United party leader had presented himself as
the protector of the little man – determined to keep three of the
programs that had been “paid for” from the mining tax and that the
government had promised to axe along with it.


He said he would never agree to the axing of the low income
superannuation contribution – $500 a year paid by the government into
the super accounts of people earning less than $37,000 a year – or the
schoolkids bonus – a means-tested payment of $420 for every primary
school child and $840 for high school students – or the income support
bonus – a $200-a-year supplement to help pensioners get by.


But in fact he did agree to their abolition, just delayed by three
years. And the trade-off was that he also agreed to freeze for seven
years the superannuation contribution paid by all employers to all
employees.


That was also another big broken promise for a government that had
pledged “no further adverse changes” to superannuation – although the
prime minister (who takes a black is white approach to these questions)
insisted it wasn’t a broken promise at all because he had promised a
two-year freeze and a seven-year freeze was pretty much the same thing.


Not really, according to examples provided by Labor. A seven-year
freeze would mean a 25 year old earning $55,000 will have $9,215 less in
retirement savings by 2025 and a 35 year old earning $75,000 will have
$12,977 less.


And as for that hero of the little guy, Palmer, he saved the
$500-a-year low-income super payment for someone on $37,000 a year for
the next three years, but cost them so much in superannuation payments
that in the long term that they’ll be $10,000 worse off by 2025. Great
deal, Clive.


Perhaps it’s because, like some in the government, Palmer is not so keen on compulsory superannuation in the first place.


Abbott once described compulsory super as “one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people”.


Palmer said on Tuesday it was “just the way to allow merchant banks
to make large fees out of the Australian population, or many union
movements that manage their own super to have a good time.”


And they both made the point that superannuation increases come at
the expense of wage rises – meaning families have less disposable income
now in order to have more money for their retirement later. Abbott said
this proved superannuation was not a “nirvana” – whatever that might
mean. Palmer suggested it showed super was in fact a bad thing because
lots of people would be dead before they ever received it.


At the end of the last chaotic session of parliament I wrote that a “Palmer pattern” was emerging
– cause maximum disruption and then support the government after
extracting cobbled-together concessions during chaotic backroom meetings
from which all stakeholders are excluded.


This time it is worse – far-reaching changes to a crucial economic
policy in a last-minute deal without any scrutiny. Yes, the government
has abolished the flawed mining tax, as it promised, and just in time to
tick the box for its first year anniversary. And yes, it had no choice
but to deal with Palmer. But it came at a very high price for public
policy.