From: Brian Bond [bpbond@spp.edmundrice.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 July 2002 10:54 AM
To: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject: Submission

Dear Senators,

I write as convenor of the Edmund Rice Justice Network in Victoria and
Tasmania to make a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
References Committee in relation to the Migration Legislation Amendment
(Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002.

I continue to be deeply troubled at the Australian Governmentıs treatment of
those who seek refuge from persecution in our country.

I will confine my submission to two points of reference for the committee
(a) the implications for border security and (e) the Migration Legislation
Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002.

In regard to term of reference (a) I simply wish to make the point that the
proposed Bill will have no effect in deterring asylum seekers from
attempting to enter Australia. Those who seek to flee a situation of great
danger to themselves and their families will take whatever risk is necessary
to escape such situations. This Bill will only make it more hazardous for
them to do so.

In regard to the latter term of reference I wish to make the following
points:- 
(i) the proposed Bill is a denial of the basic right to enter a country for
the purpose of claiming asylum. The Migration Act 1958 recognizes the right
of a person to claim asylum and this right is respected and identified as a
basic human right in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Article
14 and Catholic social teaching (see John XXIII Encyclical letter "Pacem in
Terris", 1963, 106)
(ii) the content of this  Bill has already been rejected by Parliament when
introduced as a regulation (Migration Amendment Regulations 2002 (No 4)) on
18th June 2002. The Government by re-presenting the same proposition
previously rejected by Parliament is ignoring an important Westminster
Parliamentary tradition and is thus seeking to subvert the Will of
Parliament.
(iii) the proposed Bill if enacted will be unnecessary as public policy
instruments are in force eg Migration Legislation (Excision from Migration
Zone) Act 2001 which already address this issue.

I therefore would like to make the following recommendations:-
(i) The proposed Bill should be rejected because it will not provide the
border security as desired by the government
(ii) The proposed Bill should be rejected because it is in direct opposition
to a universally accepted basic human right, a right that Australiaıs asylum
seeker policy is predicated upon as evidenced in the Migration Act 1958
(iii) The proposed Bill should be rejected because it sets a dangerous
precedent that undermines a fundamentally important tradition of respecting
the Will of Parliament when Parliament has made a decision regarding a
particular proposition.
(iv) The proposed Bill should be rejected because it is unnecessary.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Bond
7 Amberley Way,
Lower Plenty, 3093
03 9431 3844