The decision by Nauru to go "open" is part of a pattern of...

The decision by Nauru to go "open" is part of a pattern of behavior that will actually expand the scope of service provided by TSE by an immigration minister desperate to show the rest of the world just how dangerous it can be dilly dancing with your eyes wide closed on a red hot bed of coals.

On 14/08/2015 when Transfield set the record straight for shareholders in regards to media reports raising serious allegations in Nauru being dealt with open transparency and integrity, did it mention anything about the threat of reprisals to its workers in Nauru who cooperate with investigations, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants that would soon be forced to cancel his visit as a direct result of those reprisals, the Australian Human Rights Commission report which led to the serious concerns that prompted the UN investigation, or calls from the same Human Rights Committee now urging responsible businesses to divest from their interests in Transfield. What about all the legal filings against the Commonwealth of Australia and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that are starting to pile up in the High Court... Keep your eye on the latest one being heard today because this one alone may be enough to seal Transfield's fate.


25/09/2015 - Migrants / Human rights: Official visit to Australia postponed due to protection concerns
GENEVA – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Francois Crépeau, today announced the postponement of his planned official visit to Australia due to the lack of full cooperation from the Government regarding protection concerns and access to detention centres. The human rights expert was originally scheduled to visit the country from 27 September to 9 October 2015, to gather first-hand information about the situation of migrants and asylum seekers in the country and in Australian off-shore detention centres based in neighbouring Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

“In preparing for my visit, it came to my attention that the 2015 Border Force Act, which sanctions detention centre service-providers who disclose ‘protected information’ with a two-year jail sentence, would have an impact on my visit as it serves to discourage people from fully disclosing information relevant to my mandate.

“This threat of reprisals with persons who would want to cooperate with me on the occasion of this official visit is unacceptable,”

“The Act prevents me from fully and freely carrying out my duties during the visit, as required by the UN guidelines for independent experts carrying out their country visits.” The Special Rapporteur requested the Australian Government to provide a written guarantee that no one meeting with him during his visit would be at risk of any intimidation or sanctions under the Border Force Act. “As the Australian Government was not prepared to give the written assurances required by the official terms of reference* for fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs, it was not possible for me to carry out the visit in my capacity as a UN independent expert.

The terms of reference require, among other things, complete freedom of inquiry, access to all detention centres, and official assurances that no one who has been in contact with the Special Rapporteur will for this reason be subjected to judicial proceedings. Since March 2015, I have repeatedly requested that the Australian Government facilitate my access to its off-shore processing centres,” Mr. Crépeau said. “I was also extremely disappointed that I was unable to secure the cooperation needed to visit any off-shore centre, given the international human rights and humanitarian law concerns regarding them, plus the Australian Senate Inquiries on the off-shore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which raised concerns and recommendations concerning these centres.”


02/10/2015 - Sydney Criminal Lawyers
Visits by the Special Rapporteur usually occur after an invitation by a member country. This normally occurs after concerns are raised about suspected human rights breaches relating to migrants, especially children. The purpose of the visits is to investigate what is happening at ground level, with input from a range of people including workers and the people whose rights are suspected of being abused. After completing an investigation, the Special Rapporteur submits a report with recommendations designed to protect the rights of migrants. There have already been visits to Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Human Rights Law Centre’s Executive Director Hugh de Kretser says that the UN’s cancellation is “unprecedented for a western liberal democracy.” It seems that a further consequence of the much-criticised Border Force Act is to alienate Australia from the international community.


07/10/2015 - Triggs Puts Spotlight on Divestment and Human Rights
Australian Human Rights Commission President, Professor Gillian Triggs, has described the role of the business and the corporate world as “vital” in protecting human rights putting a spotlight on divestment. Delivering the Monash Law Faculty Annual Costello Lecture, Professor Triggs said that business, especially in respect of employment, was both the cause of many breaches of human rights and the solution for better human rights protection. She said the Australian Human Rights Commission has a statutory mandate to hold the Government and the private and business community to account for compliance with the international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.


07/10/2015 - recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

08/10/2015 - Plaintiff M68/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors

05/11/2015 - Fernando by his Tutor Ley v. Commonwealth of Australia & Anor

06/11/2015 - Plaintiff M64/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

12/11/2015 - Wei v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection