Post by elizabeth on Mar 20, 2012 19:24:27 GMT 7
Very early into our investigations, the Human Rights Police has uncovered evidence of SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES and a simultaneous COVER-UP within the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs of the Australian Government.
On the 24th of February 2011, Senator Rachel Siewert of the Australian Greens asked two questions in the Australian Senate, two questions directly relevant to the DSP Overseas Movement, and on the 12th of April 2011 these questions were answered, by Fahcsia, and most likely personally authored by Andrew Hatch, Michalina Stawyskyj and/or Philip Moufarrige, or some combination of these persons.
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/c....fahcsia/078.PDF
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/c....fahcsia/079.PDF
Let us look very closely at the second question and the answer given:
Senator Siewert asked:
Has or will the Government get legal advice on whether the right of freedom of movement
under Australia's international obligations are compromised by the proposed changes to
DSP?
If so, are the changes consistent with our international obligations?
Answer:
All legislation is drafted taking account of Australia's international obligations.
Now let us look at a question asked by Senator Claire Moore, Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, to Andrew Hatch, Philip Moufarrige, and Michalina Stawyskyj, at the Senate Inquiry on the 15th of November, 2010; a question referring to the same legislation that Senator Siewert referred to in her question (above):
CHAIR:I have got some quite specific questions from previous witnesses. The first witness asked
whether you had sought any legal advice on human rights processes in bringing in this legislation.
Ms Stawyskyj: No.
Mr Moufarrige: No.
CHAIR: Had the issue of breaching of human rights law on the rights of people with disabilities been
raised at all in the discussions about this legislation?
Ms Stawyskyj: No.
Mr Moufarrige: No.
.......
There appears to be some contradiction in these answers.
Our investigations are continuing.............
On the 24th of February 2011, Senator Rachel Siewert of the Australian Greens asked two questions in the Australian Senate, two questions directly relevant to the DSP Overseas Movement, and on the 12th of April 2011 these questions were answered, by Fahcsia, and most likely personally authored by Andrew Hatch, Michalina Stawyskyj and/or Philip Moufarrige, or some combination of these persons.
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/c....fahcsia/078.PDF
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/c....fahcsia/079.PDF
Let us look very closely at the second question and the answer given:
Senator Siewert asked:
Has or will the Government get legal advice on whether the right of freedom of movement
under Australia's international obligations are compromised by the proposed changes to
DSP?
If so, are the changes consistent with our international obligations?
Answer:
All legislation is drafted taking account of Australia's international obligations.
Now let us look at a question asked by Senator Claire Moore, Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, to Andrew Hatch, Philip Moufarrige, and Michalina Stawyskyj, at the Senate Inquiry on the 15th of November, 2010; a question referring to the same legislation that Senator Siewert referred to in her question (above):
CHAIR:I have got some quite specific questions from previous witnesses. The first witness asked
whether you had sought any legal advice on human rights processes in bringing in this legislation.
Ms Stawyskyj: No.
Mr Moufarrige: No.
CHAIR: Had the issue of breaching of human rights law on the rights of people with disabilities been
raised at all in the discussions about this legislation?
Ms Stawyskyj: No.
Mr Moufarrige: No.
.......
There appears to be some contradiction in these answers.
Our investigations are continuing.............