as posted here ... �CPA - The Guardian - #1457
Dr Hannah Middleton
The federal government’s Defence White Paper released last year began the largest military build-up in Australia since World War II, ultimately costing at least $310 billion, on top of military spending that year of $29 billion with a guaranteed annual increase of three percent.
The 2010-11 federal budget continues this over-the-top irresponsible government spending on the military. Military spending is one of the few areas protected from government spending cuts, although some of the promised massive military capital investment has been delayed to help get the federal budget more quickly back in the black.
The government is forcing the Department of Defence and the ADF to find more than $1 billion in savings in the coming year. That billion and the $797 million it says Defence saved over the past year will be reinvested in equipment and operations.
Overall over $30 billion has been allocated for the military and security in the current financial year, and spending is due to increase again in 2013-14.
The Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, Greg Combet, is quoted in the Australian Defence Magazine as saying:
“This year the government has committed to total Defence resourcing of $30.8 billion in 2010-11.
“This compares to the 2009-10 estimated actual of $29.4 billion.
“Over the 2010-11 budget year and the three forward estimates years, we will have committed $122.7 billion to the defence of the nation.”
Afghanistan
In the budget the government has chosen to focus on providing increased protection for troops in Afghanistan with $1.1 billion earmarked for technology and equipment to protect the troops from rockets and improvised bombs that are the biggest killers of coalition troops in Afghanistan.
The only way to protect the lives of the young Australian men and women in uniform is to bring them home immediately and to end Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan.
Instead of helping to end this brutal and immoral occupation of Afghanistan, the budget sets aside about $218 million to buy weapons that are causing massive civilian deaths and fuelling the fury of communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The US-built “Shadow” Unmanned Aerial System – a battlefield surveillance drone – will be purchased for the Special Operations Task Group serving in Afghanistan.
The 2010-11 budget allocates $1.4 billion for operations in Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands. $915 million of this is earmarked for Afghanistan and the Middle East Theatre of Operations.
Defence will also get $20 million to support the Rudd government’s program to increasingly “civilianise” its contribution to the military occupation of Afghanistan.
More spying
The budget includes funding for a major increase in surveillance across our region.
The government has merged the funding of key agencies into a $4.3 billion national security budget which will pay for greater powers of agencies including ASIO, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the Defence Signals Directorate, a military agency that uses satellites, ships, submarines and aircraft to sweep up intelligence.
The government says these agencies will increasingly deal with criminal activity rather than direct threats to national security posed by foreign states and their agents.
Atomic veterans compensated
One positive in the 2010-2011 budget is $24.4 million allocated to the 2,700 military personnel who survived the atom bomb tests at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Monte Bello Islands and dependants of those who died young as a result of their experience.
Choices to be made
The budget raises again serious questions about Rudd government priorities.
Australia can have 100 strike fighters and lousy schools. It can have 12 submarines and 3 warships and deteriorating hospitals, it can have drones and a damaged environment.
In reality the majority of Australians would prefer good services, jobs and a flourishing clean environment rather than a beefed up military machine.
Only 30 percent of Australians support increased military spending, according to public opinion polls.
With the federal election only a few months away, we need candidates for a new kind of government that will bring in policies of peace, security and sustainable development instead of Labor’s military madness.
public news and things I spy ..
Wednesday 2 June 2010
Two-year wait for Egyptian wife | National News | Breaking National News in Australia | Rockhampton Morning Bulletin
as posted here ... Two-year wait for Egyptian wife | National News | Breaking National News in Australia | Rockhampton Morning Bulletin
ROCKHAMPTON’S Ryan Boswood is frustrated he could have to wait another two years to be reunited with his Egyptian wife.
Mr Boswood, 31, says Elhan Gaber’s visa application was denied in August last year and he’s been told authorities may not start assessing her appeal until February 2011.
It could take a year from then to assess.
Mr Boswood says he has nothing against asylum seekers but has aired concerns about government policy, saying it wasn’t right his wife had to wait so long to be assessed, while those in detention centres were checked in a far shorter timeframe.
“I am a Labor voter and I will vote Labor again, but I think this policy is wrong,” Ryan said.
“I don’t want to see other people going through what we are.
“This time period is bordering on ridiculous and certainly not reasonable.”
He produced a southern media report which said ASIO had had to divert resources from other visa categories, such as onshore migrants, to deal with the number of asylum seekers.
“I honestly feel that undocumented asylum seekers are treated better than my wife, who went about applying for a visa and then lodged an appeal through legitimate avenues by paying fees, filling in forms and supplying 48 supporting documents,” Mr Boswood said.
He said his wife’s visa application was rejected on the grounds that their relationship was not believed to be genuine and continuing.
Authorities say the relationship was too brief and the couple didn’t communicate – points Mr Boswood strongly contests.
He said he met his wife when a friend of his married her sister in February 2008.
They married in June 2009.
In August he came back to Australia for work purposes. It took a couple of months for the couple to get the visa application prepared. This was rejected in December.
Mr Boswood said he’d spent thousands of dollars paying for the appeal with the Migration Review Tribunal and getting the documentary evidence to support his claim.
“I’ve submitted 485 pages of information to the Migration Review Tribunal,” he said.
He said his wife couldn’t believe what was happening.
“What she sees is us waiting, waiting, waiting,” he said. “We just want to be together. If this doesn’t happen, I will have to go back there.
“It’s a nightmare; our lives are on hold. At this stage we should be thinking about having children and the rest of our lives.”
A spokesperson for the Migration Review Tribunal said tribunals were required to give priority to cases involving persons held in immigration detention under the Migration Act 1958.
“Bridging visa cases, however, comprise only about 120 of the more than 6000 cases that the Migration Review Tribunal has decided this financial year,” the spokesperson said.
“Overall less than 5% of Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal cases involve persons in immigration detention, noting that the Tribunals do not have any jurisdiction in relation to the overwhelming majority of persons who arrive by boat.”
The spokesperson referred The Morning Bulletin to the caseload management guideline (see accompany fact box).
“These rules set out a range of circumstances in which cases are given priority over other similar cases, including special circumstances of a compassionate and compelling nature.”
Moving on migration
Case guidelines:
Bridging visa (detention) cases – seven working days from lodgement to decision;
Protection visa cases – 90 calendar days from receipt of the Department’s documents to decision;
MRT visa cancellation cases – 150 calendar days from lodgement to decision (and 90 calendar days from constitution to decision);
All other MRT cases – 350 calendar days from lodgement to decision (and 150 calendar days from constitution to decision).
The Tribunals aim to decide at least 70% of cases within these time standards.
ROCKHAMPTON’S Ryan Boswood is frustrated he could have to wait another two years to be reunited with his Egyptian wife.
Mr Boswood, 31, says Elhan Gaber’s visa application was denied in August last year and he’s been told authorities may not start assessing her appeal until February 2011.
It could take a year from then to assess.
Mr Boswood says he has nothing against asylum seekers but has aired concerns about government policy, saying it wasn’t right his wife had to wait so long to be assessed, while those in detention centres were checked in a far shorter timeframe.
“I am a Labor voter and I will vote Labor again, but I think this policy is wrong,” Ryan said.
“I don’t want to see other people going through what we are.
“This time period is bordering on ridiculous and certainly not reasonable.”
He produced a southern media report which said ASIO had had to divert resources from other visa categories, such as onshore migrants, to deal with the number of asylum seekers.
“I honestly feel that undocumented asylum seekers are treated better than my wife, who went about applying for a visa and then lodged an appeal through legitimate avenues by paying fees, filling in forms and supplying 48 supporting documents,” Mr Boswood said.
He said his wife’s visa application was rejected on the grounds that their relationship was not believed to be genuine and continuing.
Authorities say the relationship was too brief and the couple didn’t communicate – points Mr Boswood strongly contests.
He said he met his wife when a friend of his married her sister in February 2008.
They married in June 2009.
In August he came back to Australia for work purposes. It took a couple of months for the couple to get the visa application prepared. This was rejected in December.
Mr Boswood said he’d spent thousands of dollars paying for the appeal with the Migration Review Tribunal and getting the documentary evidence to support his claim.
“I’ve submitted 485 pages of information to the Migration Review Tribunal,” he said.
He said his wife couldn’t believe what was happening.
“What she sees is us waiting, waiting, waiting,” he said. “We just want to be together. If this doesn’t happen, I will have to go back there.
“It’s a nightmare; our lives are on hold. At this stage we should be thinking about having children and the rest of our lives.”
A spokesperson for the Migration Review Tribunal said tribunals were required to give priority to cases involving persons held in immigration detention under the Migration Act 1958.
“Bridging visa cases, however, comprise only about 120 of the more than 6000 cases that the Migration Review Tribunal has decided this financial year,” the spokesperson said.
“Overall less than 5% of Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal cases involve persons in immigration detention, noting that the Tribunals do not have any jurisdiction in relation to the overwhelming majority of persons who arrive by boat.”
The spokesperson referred The Morning Bulletin to the caseload management guideline (see accompany fact box).
“These rules set out a range of circumstances in which cases are given priority over other similar cases, including special circumstances of a compassionate and compelling nature.”
Moving on migration
Case guidelines:
Bridging visa (detention) cases – seven working days from lodgement to decision;
Protection visa cases – 90 calendar days from receipt of the Department’s documents to decision;
MRT visa cancellation cases – 150 calendar days from lodgement to decision (and 90 calendar days from constitution to decision);
All other MRT cases – 350 calendar days from lodgement to decision (and 150 calendar days from constitution to decision).
The Tribunals aim to decide at least 70% of cases within these time standards.
Peace prize winner in bid to save sheikh
as posted here ... Peace prize winner in bid to save sheikh
THE Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu is among international human rights leaders who have condemned Australia for its impending deportation of a Muslim cleric, whose battle will draw 1000 protesters to Canberra in a convoy of buses tomorrow.
"In South Africa we used to have detention without trial," says Bishop Tutu. "In Australia you have deportation without trial.”
The anti-apartheid hero and former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town has joined the campaign for the Iranian preacher Sheikh Mansour Leghaei, who will be forced to leave Australia on June 27 after the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, refused to overrule two adverse security assessments by ASIO.
Dr Leghaei has raised his family in Sydney for the past 16 years but the intelligence organisation suspects him of acts of foreign interference, although it has never told him what they are and – as the High Court has ruled – it has no obligation to do so.
More than 700 protesters on 11 buses from Sydney, and another 300 people expected from Melbourne and Canberra, will march on Parliament House tomorrow to deliver an appeal to the Prime Minister that Australia is in breach of its United Nations-sanctioned obligations.
But Senator Evans is unmoved. His spokeswoman said yesterday that his decision followed careful consideration and: "We expect Dr Leghaei to meet his commitment to leave Australia on [June 27]."
Today, the retired Anglican bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, George Browning, will be among speakers supporting Dr Leghaei, who leads an Islamic centre at Earlwood but has also chaired an inter-faith committee.
Bishop Tutu's message is among those of international supporters posted yesterday on savethesheikh.com. Another Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Máiread Corrigan-Maguire from Northern Ireland, writes that the deportation would breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party. The UN's Human Rights Committee has asked Australia not to deport Dr Leghaei while it considers his case.
Hans Köchler, an Austrian philosophy professor and president of the International Progress Organisation, writes: "There can be no fair hearing of the case if the authorities refuse to disclose the allegations against Sheikh Mansour."
Dr Leghaei says he has only a few hints as to why ASIO might suspect him. When he returned from a visit to Iran in 1995, his luggage contained $10,000 – a donation from the Islamic Propagation Organisation, a publisher of Islamic texts in Tehran, to an Islamic centre in Melbourne.
Also in his luggage was an exercise book containing his student notes, in which he had quoted scholars on the subject of jihad. It was not until 2002, when he launched legal action against ASIO, that Dr Leghaei learned authorities had secretly copied these notes and, he claims, obtained a false translation which added inflammatory material about the killing of infidels. ASIO later accepted its translation was flawed and paid Dr Leghaei's costs.
Senator Evans's spokeswoman said: "For more than a decade, Dr Leghaei has accessed the Australian judicial system and has been afforded multiple appeals to a range of bodies, including the Immigration Review Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Full Federal Court and the High Court."
Ben Saul, co-director of the University of Sydney's centre for international law and one of the human rights barristers who went to the UN for Dr Leghaei, says they wrote to ASIO, suggesting it encourage the government to follow its international obligations.
A response arrived yesterday from the Australian Government Solicitor. It said: "ASIO's function is to advise the government in relation to matters of national security. It is not ASIO's function to advise the government in relation to matters of international law."
Dr Saul says they also wrote to the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, but got no reply. In 1997, as an opposition MP, Mr McClelland wrote a letter in support of Dr Leghaei, describing him as an asset to the Australian community. The minister's office has said Mr McClelland was not privy, at that time, to the content of the security assessments.
THE Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu is among international human rights leaders who have condemned Australia for its impending deportation of a Muslim cleric, whose battle will draw 1000 protesters to Canberra in a convoy of buses tomorrow.
"In South Africa we used to have detention without trial," says Bishop Tutu. "In Australia you have deportation without trial.”
The anti-apartheid hero and former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town has joined the campaign for the Iranian preacher Sheikh Mansour Leghaei, who will be forced to leave Australia on June 27 after the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, refused to overrule two adverse security assessments by ASIO.
Dr Leghaei has raised his family in Sydney for the past 16 years but the intelligence organisation suspects him of acts of foreign interference, although it has never told him what they are and – as the High Court has ruled – it has no obligation to do so.
More than 700 protesters on 11 buses from Sydney, and another 300 people expected from Melbourne and Canberra, will march on Parliament House tomorrow to deliver an appeal to the Prime Minister that Australia is in breach of its United Nations-sanctioned obligations.
But Senator Evans is unmoved. His spokeswoman said yesterday that his decision followed careful consideration and: "We expect Dr Leghaei to meet his commitment to leave Australia on [June 27]."
Today, the retired Anglican bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, George Browning, will be among speakers supporting Dr Leghaei, who leads an Islamic centre at Earlwood but has also chaired an inter-faith committee.
Bishop Tutu's message is among those of international supporters posted yesterday on savethesheikh.com. Another Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Máiread Corrigan-Maguire from Northern Ireland, writes that the deportation would breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party. The UN's Human Rights Committee has asked Australia not to deport Dr Leghaei while it considers his case.
Hans Köchler, an Austrian philosophy professor and president of the International Progress Organisation, writes: "There can be no fair hearing of the case if the authorities refuse to disclose the allegations against Sheikh Mansour."
Dr Leghaei says he has only a few hints as to why ASIO might suspect him. When he returned from a visit to Iran in 1995, his luggage contained $10,000 – a donation from the Islamic Propagation Organisation, a publisher of Islamic texts in Tehran, to an Islamic centre in Melbourne.
Also in his luggage was an exercise book containing his student notes, in which he had quoted scholars on the subject of jihad. It was not until 2002, when he launched legal action against ASIO, that Dr Leghaei learned authorities had secretly copied these notes and, he claims, obtained a false translation which added inflammatory material about the killing of infidels. ASIO later accepted its translation was flawed and paid Dr Leghaei's costs.
Senator Evans's spokeswoman said: "For more than a decade, Dr Leghaei has accessed the Australian judicial system and has been afforded multiple appeals to a range of bodies, including the Immigration Review Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Full Federal Court and the High Court."
Ben Saul, co-director of the University of Sydney's centre for international law and one of the human rights barristers who went to the UN for Dr Leghaei, says they wrote to ASIO, suggesting it encourage the government to follow its international obligations.
A response arrived yesterday from the Australian Government Solicitor. It said: "ASIO's function is to advise the government in relation to matters of national security. It is not ASIO's function to advise the government in relation to matters of international law."
Dr Saul says they also wrote to the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, but got no reply. In 1997, as an opposition MP, Mr McClelland wrote a letter in support of Dr Leghaei, describing him as an asset to the Australian community. The minister's office has said Mr McClelland was not privy, at that time, to the content of the security assessments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)