Amanda Vanstone and the Papuans

In todays issue of 'The Australian' Amanda Vanstone has some comments that suggest some double standards-inconsistency about rights to immigrate to Australia. The last Papuan is refused protection because of the fact that his mother was a Japanese, although the immigration official (dealing with the case) finds that the man has 'a well-founded fear of persecution'. It is further reported that his mother renounced her Japanese nationality in the 1960's. The man is believed to be 29, so in any case the mother was not Japanese when he was born.

Amanda Vanstone goes on to comment the rejection:

'......If you have a right to reside somewhere else, you can't have a claim that you must be protected by Australia, because you have a right to reside in another country'

So I guess that A.V. says that this man has the RIGHT to reside in Japan. Is this based on Japanese laws and regulations? Or is it based on her understanding of Australian immigration based on close relationships to (ex)Australian citizens?

Being the father of an Australian citizen and married to an Australian citizen I do not have the RIGHT to reside in Australia, (and I am actually forced to leave Australia later this year because of an 8503 condition imposed on my visa).

As everyone in this forum knows there is no such thing as the RIGHT to reside here; DIM(I)A decide this (based on extensive criteria).

To base a rejection on something which is either wrong or based on the more humane rules of other countries, is really appaling. Again it shows the cynicism and pragmatic views of the Howard Government.

Geir