The Guardian 24 August, 2005
Vanstone, Minister for Unlawfulness
Jules Andrews
When is someone counted as having been wrongfully detained? Is it from the very moment when the citizen, permanent resident or tourist is hauled off the street, herded into a black van and locked up behind bars?
Or is it from the moment it is realised that the person is legally in Australia, but through neglect/incompetence/nastiness they continue to be held in detention? Or does this travesty of justice only become "wrong" when someone finds out about it?
Of the 201 people who have been detained by the Immigration Department even though they were legally in Australia it has been revealed that 56 of them were detained for longer than three weeks.
Asked how the Department could possibly justify detaining for over three weeks people who were legally in the country, the Minister explained:
"It may be among those cases, there are cases where it, just for a variety of reasons, took far too long to ascertain that someone had been lawful all along, even though a proper decision may have been made at the time that they were unlawful."
But how can locking up people who are legally in the country be "proper"? The Minister explains it thus:
"If you had a reasonable suspicion at the time that someone was unlawful, you’ve rightfully detained them."
Apart from that, Ms Vanstone was reluctant to talk about people in detention.
The Minister declined to answer a question as to whether or not the Hwang children — abducted from their school classrooms and held for over four months — were part of the 201 cases referred to the Palmer Inquiry.
She then declined to say if there were any further cases of wrongful detention since April 2005. Finally, she declined to answer when asked how many of those unlawfully detained were citizens or residents, and what the longest period of detention was.
Dismissing the questions, and twisting the knife in each one of those 201 people waiting for justice, the Minister replied that it was all "old news".
It is not old news to Vivian Solon Alvarez, who to this day remains in the Philippines negotiating for her security and care when she returns to Australia.
A lawyer speaking on behalf of Ms Alvarez, George Newhouse, said in an email to parliamentarians this week:
"All she asks is for basic accommodation, an allowance to live on, and a sibling to accompany here to Australia and care for her. These are not unreasonable requests given her pathetic circumstances."
The Immigration Department has moved some way towards Ms Solon’s requests, offering her free medical care, free transport to health services, a lump sum resettlement payment of undisclosed sum and a mobile phone with $500 credit.
They have also offered free accommodation and the right for her to have a relative stay with her in Australia for six months.
"Vivian, her family and her legal adviser know that six months after she returns to Australia the Commonwealth will turn off her accommodation and sibling care arrangements", said Mr Newhouse.
"When that happens an invalid woman will be forced to fend for herself or rely upon her sons — two Brisbane schoolboys who have not seen their mother in over four years".
The Sydney Morning Herald published a series of articles last week revealing the long paper trail left over four years by a series of indifferent and obstructive Immigration officers as Ms Solon’s ex-husband, Robert Young, attempted to track her down.
At one stage Immigration authorities told Mr Young that his ex-wife could not have been deported because she was an Australian citizen.
The Department’s mistake was realised in 2003, but Mr Young was stonewalled for another two years. It wasn’t until the Cornelia Rau scandal broke this year that Department officials demonstrated any urgency in locating Ms Solon.
Meanwhile, the Immigration Department’s handling of detainees is not "old news" to the Commonwealth Ombudsman either, who has requested an additional 10 full-time staff to deal with the additional workload being caused by the Department.