Talk:Mandatory detention in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Flag
Portal
Mandatory detention in Australia is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mandatory detention in Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Mandatory detention in Australia is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] earlier comments

This article presents the immigration policy in (in my opinion) a rather negative light. As such, I have marked it POV. The article should be updated to reflect recent changes to immigration policy, e.g. children and their families have all been released from detention, and the Palmer report. That would be a step forward to increasing the neutrality of the article. - unsigned comments from 203.102.170.114

I've added a government response to the criticisms of Mandatory detention, to try and balance the article. It certainly needs to be updated with information on recent events, however, so I've chagned the POV tag to an update tag. If you think the article is still POV, I encourage you to edit it and make changes or add additional information. - Borofkin 02:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The article is justly negative because the majority of public comment has been in criticism of this policy. The policy has been criticised by many well known agencies including the United Nations and therefore to paint it in a positive light would be political rather than factual.

[edit] Merges

Hmm. Seems someone has suggested a merge without discussing why. At a glance, I would support merging Mandatory detention, although there's not much to merge. Pacific Solution seems to be worth a page of its own, plus a paragraph on this page. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't merge - they are different things - the Pacific Solution is about the offshore processing of asylum seekers; it's different to mandatory detention. (JROBBO 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
I certainly oppose merging this article with Pacific Solution. I'm not so sure about Mandatory detention, though. Is the term used anywhere else? - Borofkin 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
After 2 opposes, and no reply since for almost 2 months, I'm removing the merge tag. (JROBBO 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Incorporation of new text into article

I tried to incorporate the changes of special:contributions/130.194.13.103, mostly the changes to the introduction, into the article. The changes seemed to add good information, but some were biased against the practice of mandatory detention. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to intro

I've made a few minor changes to the introduction to reflect the fact that mandatory detention is not used only for 'boat people' and that detainees are not necessarily transferred to a facility.

[edit] Please clarify

"Australia's longest serving detainee Peter Qasim was detained for over 7 years without charge or trial before being released in 2005"

Immigration detention is not a criminal process so there isn't any cause for being "charged" or "trial" as would happen in a criminal offence ie. robbery. It's just detention. The statement is more emotive than factual. - 4 April 2006 09:45 (AET)

[edit] NPOV

I think this article needs a review. For example, certain terms are being used not merely for descriptive purposes but for their emotional effect. E.g. "...pursuant to which all persons entering or remaining in the country without a valid visa including children are compulsorily detained and may be subject to deportation." Surely it's obvious that "all persons" includes "children" so it serves no obvious benefit to add them separately to this sentence.

GuyIncognito 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia is unusual in its detention of children, in Sweden the maximum time a child is kept in custody is six days. The fact that children are detained for long periods is very significant against various human rights conventions. Explict mention of this fact is reasonable.--Wm 07:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you mentioning those facts within the body of the article, but not in the introduction. The fact is that the group "all persons" includes children so it's an unnecessary qualification.

GuyIncognito 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has no reasons supporting mandatory detention. Even if you oppose the policy you should at least mention the reasons why Keating and Hawke imposed the policy in the first place Kransky 09:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Mandatory detention in Australia refers to the Australian federal government's policy and system of mandatory detention, under which all persons entering or remaining in the country without a valid visa are compulsorily detained[1].

all remaining without a visa are detained? Firstly, this is inconsistent with other parts of the intro article that state that a bridging visa is normally provided, and secondly is it actually correct? I suspect it isn't. are all those overstaying British backpackers locked up in Villawood? I doubt it.

I also removed the reference to deportation in that first sentence - deportation is not really the issue here. A potential for deportation has always been the case, and not just in Australia but most countries.

Also, who gave the name Pacific Solution. Something tells me it is not the policy's official name. If it is not the name then the term so-called (or equivalent) should precede the phrase, and the Pacific Solution article should be updated.

I also removed unneccessary use of the term pursuant. That belongs more in a legal text book or contract rather than a general-use encyclopedia. No value added by using it.

And do we really need to have the name of the contractor mentioned in the intro of what is a reasonably lengthy and broad article? --Merbabu 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The article title should be changed to "Mandatory detention of refugees in Australia" to clarify the target population of the policy. Nicktropical 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing else that "mandatory detention" refers to in Australia, so there's no need to clarify the title. I've heard it mentioned in the media as just "mandatory detention". Graham87 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also incorrect to refer to those detained as "refugees". A refugee is a person who has been through a successful process to determine the legitimacy of their claim to asylum. An asylum seeker is a person who has claimed asylum, i.e. requested that a decision be made on their status. What this article is about is Mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals to Australia, however I agree with Graham that the term "mandatory detention" is unambiguous, and therefore the title should stay as it is. The only other form of mandatory imprisonment of which I am aware is known as mandatory sentencing. - Borofkin 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)