Maqsood Alshams was released from Sydney's Villawood Detention in April after 16 months of imprisonment and abuse. He was interred under Australia's racist mandatory detention policy for asylum seekers.
Maqsood sought asylum in Australia because he faced certain persecution in his home country of Bangladesh due to his political activities against the Awami League government. The Howard government has now demanded Maqsood pay $63,753 to cover the cost of his imprisonment or again face detention and deportation.
Since his release Maqsood has become active in the Sydney-based Refugee Action Collective (RAC) which has campaigned ceaselessly to expose the Australian government's callous neglect of the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
Below is an abridged version of an address Maqsood delivered to the Foreign Correspondents Association of Australia and the South Pacific on July 19:
I feel honoured at having this opportunity to present a few words here to let Australian people know of what's going on in Villawood behind the razor wire.
Although it is called and known as Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, in short Villawood IDC, in reality it is an arbitrary medium security prison.
Mandatory detention of "unauthorised" asylum seekers commenced in September 1994 and continues despite all international human rights covenants. This process sees people being detained and treated or abused as if they are animals or condemned prisoners, though they have not committed any crime.
The saddest fact is that none of the prisoners inside the detention centres know when their "sentence" will end. It is like a "prison without limit" and unfortunately I've spent 475 very painful days inside an Australian detention centre before eventually being released on April 27, 2000.
I want to speak today, not only about detention, but also about the grave problems with the refugee determination system.
Firstly, the primary decision maker, DIMA [Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs], does not have an efficient work force to look after the various asylum claims. Nor do their decision-makers have adequate knowledge on the social and political situations in other countries.
DIMA job applicants are not required to be experts on the refugee law and determination process and not are not necessarily graduates on the related field of studies from a recognised university. But the cruel fact is that these people are responsible for deciding the most sensitive question of every individual asylum seekers' life and death and the duration of imprisonment under their custody.
During the last 16 months I have had a wide opportunity to look into many cases and often found that DIMA decisions are full of errors.
Review tribunal
The harsh reality is that the Australian courts have extremely limited jurisdiction to review those arbitrary decisions. The Federal Court is precluded from reviewing many unreasonable decisions as "errors of fact" are not considered significant by Australian politicians. The Federal Court can only review cases on the points of "bias" or "legal error" made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).
The problem with this is that there is now little incentive for the RRT to make factual findings which are independent of DIMA because the RRT is actually so closely linked to DIMA — although they shamelessly pretend they are an independent body. The minister for immigration uses his power to review the position of RRT members every few years. This power has enabled him to define any aspect of determination made by the "independent body".
There are credible reports and evidence that many cases were rejected by DIMA merely because the DIMA was not happy with the applicant. The DIMA Compliance Section made arbitrary interference in some particular cases in retaliation for detainees attracting media attention towards detention problems or detainees becoming spokespersons for fellow inmates etc.
It is not possible to describe fully here the crimes, corruption and violation of human rights often committed toward asylum seekers by this particular department, especially on the helpless detainees incarcerated in the various detention centres throughout Australia.
Although there are provisions that any client of DIMA has the right to access their documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), DIMA obstructs disclosure of any controversial documents that are critical to their volatile administrative procedure.
As I said earlier, the RRT is an "independent body" under the complete control of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In my experience I have found the RRT to have acted in a prejudiced manner with preconceived ideas and concepts based on the influence of DIMA and departmental files.
Tribunal members' minds are not open to persuasion based on the evidence of the asylum seekers. It is perceived by me to be a "court of the Alibaba regime" acting on the whim and will of his emperor. I've been told the Australian expression for this is a "kangaroo court".
I have had the opportunity to attend RRT hearings three times. Ultimately, the RRT rejected my appeal merely because I did not immediately apply for refugee status upon arrival in Australia. I held a valid visa at that stage and was then under no threat of being deported to my country of nationality to face persecution.
After RRT's refusal I appeared before the Federal Court of Australia to review my case. The judge was perplexed with the RRT's comments and did not agree with the tribunal's findings. The court found that I'm still at risk of harm, and that there is a real chance of persecution if I was deported to my country of origin. But the case is not reviewable under Section 476 of the Migration Act as there was not 'error of law.'
@subh= Minister inflames racism
I also appealed to [immigration minister] Philip Ruddock to allow me to remain in Australia on humanitarian grounds under Section 417 of the Migration Act.
Despite having about 20 supporting letters from various Australian community organisations the minister refused to exercise his special powers. The minister has not bothered to answer letters asking for explanations about my case, including a letter from the human rights commissioner, Chris Sidoti. It is clear that the minister is not simply being rude. His silence is intended to discourage people from supporting the refugees and their claims.
With due respect, I and my fellow asylum seekers would like to ask the people of Australia for their definition of the "public interest" in your country. Are the Australian people demanding that the foreigners seeking help to save their lives from obvious persecution be detained and brutally tortured within the so-called detention facilities?
Is it in the public interest to ignore all refugee advocacy bodies, to ignore their letters in support of individual asylum claims?
Is it in the public interest to promote racial disharmony and prejudice within the community?
Is it in the Australian public interest to publicise vague information overseas about detention and not give media and advocacy groups access to detainees inside the detention centres?
If the minister and his team are doing the right thing, why are they refusing foreign journalists the right to come and see what is going on in their prisons?
Why is the government so reluctant to allow the UN committee on arbitrary detentions to investigate and let people know what's going on in the detention centres under the name of "protection"?
Refugees have been subjected to a disgraceful campaign of vilification and scaremongering by politicians. Despite the relatively small numbers (Australia accepts far fewer refugees than many smaller and poorer nations), terms such as "flood" and "tidal wave" have been used to describe the arrival of refugees by boat. Refugees have been called "illegals", even though it is perfectly legal to request and enjoy protection according to domestic and international law.
As the minister responsible for refugees, Philip Ruddock has inflamed racist opinion by falsely suggesting that the refugees are criminals, terrorists or a health risk to the general public. The government tells people that the refugees are "queue jumpers" when in fact there is no queue for people seeking asylum.
The government has said that Australia is considered a "soft touch" for refugees. In reality, Australia has one of the harshest laws for asylum seekers in the world. The United Nations and Amnesty International (among others) have condemned the Australian government's treatment of refugees.
The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee have stated that the treatment of refugees is "inconsistent with Australia's human rights obligations".
Australian taxpayers are paying at the rate of $115 per person per day to treat asylum seekers like prisoners or animals, to have detainees assaulted and mentally tortured and to have detainees kept hungry for the whole day due to the shortage of food.
I saw on television that the minister told the broadcast media a few weeks back the immigration "system is purpose-built". I'm persuaded to believe that the last 16 months of inhuman mistreatment my fellow asylum seekers and I have received are the gifts of the Honourable Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. It will not be appropriate just to lay the blame for this treatment on the shoulders of the employees, as they are only the people who follow the orders from the policy makers.
[To get involved in RAC contact Paul on (02) 9687 5134 or Maqsood on 0401 267 385 and