Category: Immigration

  • Robert Manne. Human Rights Commission and Gillian Triggs.

    Current Affairs

    The Australian government and The Australian are at it again, attacking Gillian Triggs. I re-post below an article by Robert Manne from earlier this year.  John Menadue

    Readers of John Menadue’s blog will be aware that a vile attack is at present being launched against both the Human Rights Commission and its President, Professor Gillian Triggs.

    The Australian has been the media orchestrator of the campaign, led by its editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, legal reporter, Chris Merritt, and its reactionary columnist, Chris Kenny. The Australian has clearly been orchestrating the campaign in close collaboration with the Abbott government. Last week the Prime Minister recovered from his near-death experience to label the most recent report of the Human Rights Commission a political “stitch up”. His Attorney-General, the once-liberal George Brandis, has more or less admitted that as a consequence of this report he has called upon the President of the Human Rights Commission to resign.

    It is strange, and probably impossible for those who have not lived in this country for the past twenty years to believe, that the cause of the attack on the Human Rights Commission and its President is the fact that last year, on the tenth anniversary of an earlier report into the same question, the Commission decided to investigate the harm inflicted on children by onshore and offshore indefinite mandatory  detention–the internationally unique manner in which Australia treats those asylum seekers who arrive by boat without valid visas.

    There is no question that raises the issue of the respect for human rights in Australia more profoundly than this country’s imprisonment of thousands of children over the past twenty years. As a consequence, there is simply no question more appropriate for the Human Rights Commission to investigate than the impact on these children of their detention in Australia and the offshore processing centres.

    Readers of this blog will be aware that—as a result of the lethal dangers of the boat journey from Indonesia and the many hundreds of drownings, as well as the rapid escalation of the numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat in 2012-13—I no longer find the question of asylum seeker policy morally or politically straightforward. (See  https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/blog/?p=2006) However it is obvious that no matter what one’s views on the future direction of asylum seeker policy, it is impossible to feel easy about a longstanding and bipartisan policy practice that has wholly or partly destroyed the lives of thousands of children.

    Like individuals, nations have moral characters. As with individuals, nations’ moral characters develop over time. With regard to some questions, for example family violence, the nation’s moral character has become finer. With regard to other questions, like the treatment of asylum seekers, the national moral instincts have gradually grown coarser.

    We have now arrived at a situation where it is possible—and where for many citizens it does not seem grotesque—for Australia’s government and its leading national newspaper to launch a bullying attack on the Australian Human Rights Commission and its President for no other reason than they think it their duty to draw the attention of the nation to the spiritual, mental and physical wellbeing of the thousands of babies, infants, children and adolescents that our asylum seeker policy has placed behind barbed wire in many cases not for weeks or months but for years.

    The attack on the Human Rights Commission and its President represents in my view an attack on the liberal tradition in Australia. It is an attack on that liberal tradition in two quite distinct senses.

    The liberal tradition rests on the state’s willingness to respect the independence of certain institutions it funds. With the attack on the Human Rights Commission that dimension of Australian liberalism is under threat. If that form of liberalism was still alive to us we would treat the Attorney-General’s admission that he has called for the resignation of the President of the Human Rights Commission as a consequence of her decision to investigate the impact of indefinite mandatory detention on children as evidence of his obvious unfitness for the office he holds.

    The liberal tradition also embodies the idea of respect for the dignity of all human beings. If that dimension of the tradition was fully alive in contemporary Australia we would see, without any need for reflection, that a Prime Minister who launches an attack on the Human Rights Commission and its President as a consequence of the decision to investigate the incarceration of asylum seekers’ children is unworthy of the leadership of the nation.

    In the life of a nation there are certain crucial, culturally defining moments. The attack that has been launched on the Human Rights Commission and its President by the Australian government and The Australian newspaper is one such moment. It will be a bitter blow to the idea of liberal Australia if the attack on the Human Rights Commission and its President is allowed to succeed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Peter Hughes. Citizenship Revocation: a very limited tool in the fight against Jihadists

    This is a repost of an article by Peter Hughes which appeared on 20 February 2015.  This repost is relevant in light of recent discussion on revocation of citizenship.

     

    Liberal Federal MP, Andrew Nikolic, has put back on the agenda the question of changing the law on Australian Citizenship revocation as part of the fight against Australian Jihadists.[1]

    He writes:

     “…the issue of state citizenship – particularly that of dual nationals – will be an increasingly important battleground in the continuing War on Terror”

    “Those who persist in associating themselves with terrorist causes must be identified and wherever possible ejected from the state.”

    Current Australian Citizenship law sets a high bar for revocation. Before it can even be considered, the person must have been convicted of a serious offence (primarily, fraudulent acquisition of citizenship) committed before becoming a citizen. Offences committed after becoming a citizen are a matter for the criminal law and are not a basis for revocation of citizenship.

    To deal with the Jihadist problem, the government already has available to it criminal sanctions as well as the ability to withhold or cancel travel documents (as opposed to the substantive status of Australian Citizenship) to limit their ability to travel.

    So, what difference would it make to the Jihadist cause if the Australian government could revoke Australian Citizenship for those who are dual nationals?

    In practice, it would likely be a very limited tool.

    There is little or no public information which tells us whether or not the Jihadists about whom our security agencies are concerned are dual nationals. If they are not, the proposed change in the law would be irrelevant.

    Then there’s the question of nature the “offence” that would lead to citizenship revocation and the process by which revocation would take place.

    Nikolic targets”those who persist in associating themselves with terrorist causes” and writes about “letting our law enforcement and intelligence agencies act on the basis of reasonable suspicion”.

    These are very loose tests and to adopt them would seriously weaken the certainty and status of Australian Citizenship.

    Assuming for a moment that the citizenship of some dual nationals of concern in Australia could be revoked, this does not necessarily mean that they would leave Australia. One course open to them may be to rid themselves of their second citizenship by renouncing it so that they were no longer dual nationals. In some cases, foreign governments refuse to accept their own nationals back if the person concerned does not want to return voluntarily.

    If the person is outside Australia when their citizenship is revoked, return to Australia is prevented, but the government already has some capacity to prevent this with denial of Australian travel documents. Either way, the individual would be free to pursue extremist causes and political violence elsewhere.

    Nikolic cites the fact that some foreign governments, including the United Kingdom, have changed their citizenship law to use it against extremists. It is unclear whether this has made any substantive difference to extremist behaviour in the UK or elsewhere.

    Australia is a country of immigration and Australian Citizenship has, since its inception in 1949, played an important role in integrating newcomers into society.  Easy deprivation of Australian Citizenship on loose criteria, without due process, would seriously devalue it. Why bother to become an Australian Citizen if it can be taken away on suspicion? Some communities would definitely feel targeted by such legislation and their sense of alienation would be increased rather than diminished.

    The Australian government is right to be concerned about the activities of violent Jihadists and to be considering its options.

    However, it would be very wise to consider carefully the efficacy of any changes to citizenship law, and possible collateral damage, before deciding to use revocation as a tool.

    Prosecution, conviction and incarceration of those who have broken Australian law are likely to be much more effective weapons. Domestic programs to reduce the likelihood of radicalisation, as well as denial of travel documents to those seeking to travel abroad to pursue violent extremism, also have an important part to play.

    Peter Hughes is a former Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. He is now Visiting Fellow, Crawford school of Public Policy, ANU.

    This article first appeared in The Lowy Institute Interpreter.

    [1] “Let’s Confront Passports to Terror”, Andrew Nikolic, page 12 , The Australian, 16 February 2015.

  • Richard Woolcott. Australia and Indonesia.

    For Australia no bilateral relationship will be more important, complex and challenging in the future than that with Indonesia.

    The relationship is, however, going through a difficult period at present, especially due to the reaction in Australia to the execution of the two Australian citizens for drug smuggling.  The necessary improvement will take time and require sensitive management by both Governments.  Efforts to improve knowledge and reduce suspicion in the wider communities in each country of the other will be necessary.

    Globally, Indonesia is also of growing importance to major powers such as the United States, China, Japan, Russia, and India. This is because Indonesia ,with a population of some 250 million, is now the fourth most populous nation in the world.  It is the largest Muslim country by population.  Some 81% of its people are Muslim.

    Despite a high degree of continuing poverty, it is a country with 94% literacy, an expanding middle class and a rate of economic growth of between 6 and 7% per annum.  Indonesia is a member of the G20 and the World Bank predicts it will have a larger economy than Australia within the next two or three years.  Australia needs to acknowledge the reality that its relationship with Indonesia is asymmetrical.  Indonesia is more important to us than Australia is to it.

    Prime Minister Abbott has stated that Australia should pursue a more “Jakarta less Geneva” policy.  I consider that in the context of the great changes underway in the Asia Pacific region Australia does need a fundamental change in our national psyche.  We need to focus more on South East Asia, North Asia and the South West Pacific than on our well established links with the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe.  We need a continuous and sustained approach rather than a spasmodic one more focussed on the countries of Asia.

    The rise of Asia is closely linked to the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the West to the East, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which seems likely to continue into the foreseeable future.  This seismic shift is driven by the spectacular growth of China, in particular, but also by the rise of India and the established economic strengths of Japan and South Korea in addition to the growing potential of Indonesia itself and Vietnam.  This constitutes a historic global turning point to which Australia must respond, if we are not to find ourselves left behind.

    It follows that the Australian Government will need to craft a more appropriate and updated balance in our relations with the United States and China, as the emerging superpower.  This will be necessary to reinforce the Government’s rhetoric about our role in the Asia Pacific region with action and adequate funding.

    In what is widely referred to as the Asian Century, Australia should maintain an unambiguous policy to the Australian public, as well as to the United States and Chinese Governments, that while we are in a long standing alliance relationship with the United States and while we have some different values and a different political system from China, we welcome the rise of China and oppose policies directed at the “containment” of China.

    A failure to co-operate with a rising China could, if mismanaged, lead to instability and frustrate progress towards Asia Pacific regional co-operation.  All countries in the region need continued peace and stability if economic growth is to be maintained and to deal with competition within the region for resources, including food and water.

    Turning back to the Australia – Indonesia relationship, when the reaction to the executions is behind us, we need to resume regular and improved consultations on a wide range of policy issues.  Australia should consult Indonesia at Head of Government, Ministerial and Senior Official level, on major global and regional issues, especially those involving the current complexities in the Middle East.  On our continuing involvement in Afghanistan and our most recent additional involvement in Iraq we should consult Indonesia especially as it is by population the largest Muslim country in the world.

    We have tended to consult mainly the United States, the United Kingdom and, on some occasions, Canada and New Zealand on issues such as the second invasion of Iraq in 2003.  In 1989 the Hawke Government consulted Indonesia and other South East Asian countries with Muslim majorities, like Malaysia, or substantial minorities like Singapore and The Philippines on our participation “Desert Storm” in Iraq.  Since 1996 we may have notified Indonesia of our major foreign and security policy decisions but I understand that high-level regular consultations have not taken place, as distinct from notification.  If we are serious about our role in our neighbourhood this practice should be reinstated.

    A recent example of our failure to consult Indonesia in advance on policy issues which could affect that country was the hasty decision of the Gillard Government, subsequently rescinded, to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia.  Another was and still is the handling of the refugee / asylum seekers issue in the region, an issue which is much less of a priority for Indonesia than it is for Australia.

    Another decision which was not fully canvassed in advance at a Head of Government level with Indonesia was a decision, announced during President Obama’s visit to Australia in November 2011, to rotate 2,500 US marines through Darwin.  Such a decision should have been announced by our Prime Minister in the Australian Parliament.

    A group from the NSW branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, which toured Indonesia after President Obama’s announcement, said that one of the main impressions the group had formed was that Indonesia would like to see Australia follow a more independent foreign policy not based on either compliance with American wishes, or a fear of China.

    Former Prime Minister Rudd put this well when he said that “compliance did not equate to alliance” in respect of the United States;  similarly, “understanding did not equate to agreement” in respect of China’s policies.

    It is clear that Australians and Indonesians need to know much more about each other.  It is regrettable that many Australians still regard Indonesia mainly as a  mysterious and corrupt country in which the rule of law is weak.  According to the Lowy Institute’s polls many Australians still see Indonesia as a potential security threat.  This is largely because of historical fears, its size, its proximity, its assumed political instability and the violation of human rights in West Papua.

    The great majority of Indonesians are largely ignorant about Australia.  Those who do know Australia still tend to see it as part of the “Anglosphere”.  In terms of Indonesian culture many see Australia as uncouth and still harbouring undertones of racism and religious intolerance.  These suspicions go back to the days of the White Australia policy and more recently to public statements of politicians, such as Pauline Hanson, which are considered in Asia to be racist.  The fact that Australia’s Head of State is still the Queen of England also reinforces our association with the “Anglosphere”  and detracts from a more distinctive international and regional Australian identity.

    Many Indonesians I have encountered still express uncertainty about the depth and sincerity of our commitment to our Asian and South West Pacific neighbourhood.  While Indonesia, like Australia, welcomes a constructive and continuing United States involvement in the Asia Pacific region there is some concern in both countries about what the “pivot to Asia” – now referred to as “rebalancing” – really involves.  What is expected of Australia?  How will Indonesia react to this?  I am aware of concerns in Indonesia that the Cocos islands, so close to Indonesia and Malaysia and now part of Western Australia, might be used, including by drones, for security purposes in the South East Asian and Southern China region.

    In the context of global Islam and the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, Indonesia is the most tolerant of all Islamic countries.  Historically it is mainly Sunni but Islam in Indonesia has been influenced and softened by Hinduism and Buddhism.  Indonesia has generally dealt firmly and effectively with Islamic extremists and domestic terrorism.  Despite occasional acts like banning Lady Gaga from performing in Indonesia, it remains a moderate, secular state.  That it is so is of fundamental importance to Australia and other countries in the region.

    The election of Joko Widodo – known generally as Jokowi – formerly a small businessman with limited experience of international affairs and who is not a member of the established political elite, was seen as an important break from Indonesia’s past.  Jokowi was largely seen as a man of the people who would govern for the “orong kacil” (the poor and less influential people ) and who was seen as a challenge to the established elite.  In fact, after eight months in office Jokowi, according to a number of commentators in Jakarta and Australia, has not so far lived up to the hopes expressed after his election.

    In this context it is of interest to note that when President Jokowi ceased to be the Governor of Jakarta and became President of Indonesia, he was succeeded as Governor of Jakarta by his Deputy who is a Christian, ethnic Chinese.

    Time Magazine, in a cover story last October on Jokowi, described him as “A New Hope” which indicated a break from a corrupt political elite dominated past and a fresh beginning.  Initially, in Indonesian polls he enjoyed 75% support.  Recently, however, this has dropped to 60%.  It has been a problem for him that Jokowi  does not lead a political party and secured the Presidency in part through the support of a former President, Megawati Sukarnoputri, the current leader of the PDI – P.

    Megawati has used her position as party leader to play a role in nominating the Cabinet, some members of which were not Jokowi’s choices.  Also, for example, Budi Gunawan was pushed by Megawati for the role of Police Chief.  Initially Jokowi did not withdraw Budu’s nomination although the Corruption Eradicaton Commission (KPK), one of the most respected institutions in Indonesia, had announced he was under investigation. He has since done so.

    Jokowi is aware of the need to streamline investment procedures, including in respect of mineral developments.  He has established co-operative relations with a number of Indonesian business leaders.

    Australia’s relations with Indonesia, as I have noted, are complex and have entered another difficult phase when the Australian Governments’ and Parliaments’ pleas for clemency for Sukurmaran and Chan have failed.  This will reflect a perception that Australia is still essentially a Western country, more influenced by the other Anglosphere countries, especially the United Kingdom, than it is by its neighbour Indonesia.

    Under President Jokowi Indonesia remains a nationalist, sensitive, post-Colonial society which will not buckle under what it sees as intrusive Western pressure.  As I warned both the Government and the Opposition in January – too late as it turned out – public political pressure could be counter productive and would actually reduce the prospects of clemency.

    The pressures, related to widespread domestic opposition to the death penalty, were also seen as inconsistent (the Howard Government had supported the death penalty for Saddam Hussein and the Bali bombers), “gesture” politics related to Australian domestic politics, which put Jokowi, a new and nationalist President, into a position in which he and his supporters considered he could not yield to foreign, including Australian, pressure.  We would be well served if we lectured less and consulted and listened more.

    Jokowi also has difficulties with the Indonesian Parliament (DPR) as up till now he and his supporters do not command a Parliamentary majority.  This is a complicating factor which could change depending on Indonesian domestic policies as Jokowi’s term unfolds.

    To conclude, the importance of our future relations with Indonesia, and in the context of the Asian century, cannot be overstated.  It is essential that each country comes to know more about its neighbouring country.

    As a nation we need to be genuinely and continuously engaged – not just in a rhetorical sense or in going through the motions – with our very large neighbour of increasing regional and global importance.  It is vital that Australia does not allow single issues, such as the problems related to East Timor, or the execution of the two Australians convicted of drug smuggling in Indonesia, to influence excessively a bilateral relationship of paramount scope and importance.   Both countries will share this neighbourhood for the rest of time.

     

    RICHARD WOOLCOTT AC, Founding Director, Asia Society Australia; Former Ambassador to Indonesia (1975-78); Former Ambassador to The U N ( 1982-88); Former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (1988-92); Chairman, Australian Indonesia Institute (1992-1998)

    This article was first published in the Asia Society Australia Newsletter. 

     

     

  • John Menadue. The price we are paying for the Greens.

    The recent successes of the Greens in state elections in Victoria and NSW show us how populist nonsense can succeed at least in the short term. It has also shown the failure of the ALP to counter the threat of the Greens.

    There are two major issues on which the policies of the Greens have brought disastrous results for Australia. When it really mattered on climate change and asylum seekers, they sided with Tony Abbott.

    The Greens literally shed tears over the plight of asylum seekers. But they must bear a heavy responsibility for what we now see on Manus and Nauru.

    In the Senate the Greens sided with Tony Abbott against the arrangement with Malaysia, which, whilst not ideal, would have been a useful first step in curbing boat arrivals. That arrangement with Malaysia was negotiated with the understanding and broad support of UNHCR. Not only did the Greens side with Tony Abbott opposing amendments to the Migration Act to allow the arrangement with Malaysia to proceed, they embarked on an unscrupulous bashing campaign of Malaysia.

    With the collapse of the Malaysian arrangement boat arrivals in Australia increased dramatically. The result was Manus and Nauru. The Greens cannot be absolved for their populism and the consequences we now see on Manus and Nauru.

    The Greens must also accept major responsibility for the collapse in public support for effective action on climate change. In collaboration with the Coalition in the Senate they opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme of the first Rudd Government. If the Greens had supported the Rudd Government’s CPRS in the Senate, the issue of climate change would not have been fully ‘done and dusted’ but we would be in a far better position on climate change than we are today. As a result of the Greens joining with Tony Abbott in the Senate we have no Emissions Trading Scheme, no carbon tax and a fig leaf of a policy called ‘Direct Action’.

    The Greens have inflicted disastrous damage to Australia on both climate change and asylum seekers. Their sabotage on both has set back real reform and decent policies.

  • Frank Brennan SJ. Still seeking a way of stopping the boats decently

    This is part of the Gasson Lecture which I delivered at Boston College today:

    I return to Australia accepting that my political leaders will always maintain a commitment to stopping the boats, no matter what political party they represent;  but I return insisting that there is a need for international co-operation to determine how decently to stop the boats while providing an increased commitment to the orderly transfer of an increased number of refugees across our border so that they might live safe and fulfilling lives contributing to the life of the nation.

    This cannot be done in Australia until we shut down the processing centres on Nauru and on Manus Island, until we accept that people should only be held in detention while issues of identity, security and health are determined, and while we negotiate arrangements with Indonesia, India and any other transit countries to which asylum seekers are being returned, replicating the new European regulation:

    No person shall, in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, be disembarked in, forced to enter, conducted to or otherwise handed over to the authorities of a country where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another country in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement.

    It might then be possible for Australian officials to conduct prompt, reliable onboard assessments of asylum seekers on vessels determining whether it is appropriate to return them to their last port of call, without the need for an onboard international lawyer to conduct any sort of ‘framing’ exercise.  It should then be possible to avoid the recent obscene scenario of 157 persons being detained on the high seas for a month, regardless of whether or not the non-refoulement obligation applies extra-territorially.

    It is time to concede that none of us has a right to enter another country and that all of us have the obligation not to return anyone presenting at our border to a situation of persecution, torture, or cruel punishment.  Though I doubt the possibility of the EU negotiating appropriate returns of asylum seekers to Libya in the foreseeable future, I continue to entertain the hope that Australia can negotiate appropriate returns to transit countries such as Indonesia for Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians and India for Tamils, so that Australia might then decently extend the hand of welcome to more of the world’s 51 million displaced persons.  For the moment, my country is failing to strike the right balance between human rights and the national interest.  It is stopping the boats indecently, violating the human dignity of those being held in unsatisfactory conditions in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru and failing to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place for the return of asylum seekers to Indonesia.  For as long as international lawyers claim there is no possibility of a legally negotiated regional agreement for safe returns because they argue that asylum seekers have a right of entry to Australia to seek asylum, the Australian government, the Australian parliament, and the Australian courts will maintain, with impunity but with the occasional expression of outrage from international lawyers, a regime of returns insufficiently scrutinized for human rights compliance.  I return to Australia accepting that the boats will continue to be stopped (no matter which political party is in power), but that they should be stopped decently and in compliance with the legal regime enunciated by the European Union which has to deal with a far more pressing issue but subject to the more searching supervision of the European Court of Human Rights and of the European Parliament which has greater sensitivity to the human rights of asylum seekers than do their more pragmatic Australian colleagues.

    By all means, stop the boats.  But also close the facilities on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea.  Abandon the Cambodian shipment plan.  Negotiate a regional agreement for safe returns ensuring compliance with the non-refoulement obligation.  Double the refugee and humanitarian component from 13,750 places to 27,000 places in the migration program, as recommended by the 2012 Expert Panel.  Encourage further community participation in a refugee resettlement scheme which allows refugee communities and their supporters to increase the number of refugees resettled without taking the places of those refugees who would come anyway without community sponsorship.  Why not increase the humanitarian program to at least the 20,000 places which were guaranteed prior to the election of the Abbott Government?  And provide another 7,000 places for community sponsored refugees.  I agree with novelist Tim Winton that there is a need for countries like Australia to turn back, to ‘raise us back up to our best selves’.  That can best be done by securing our borders and increasing our commitment to orderly resettlement of more refugees, rather than by opening the borders, undermining the community’s commitment to further assisting more of those 51 million people who are suffering displacement tonight, most of them having no prospect of employing a people smuggler to get them to the border of a rich democratic country.

    Fr Frank Brennan SJ is finishing his term as Gasson Professor at Boston College Law School.  Anyone wanting a copy of his full address should contact him on frank.brennan@acu.edu.au

     

     

     

  • Fiona McGaughey, Mary Anne Kenny. Lashing out at the UN is not the act of a good international citizen.

    The United Nations has again criticised Australia’s human rights record in relation to its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. A report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, has raised a number of concerns. These include:

    • Australia’s policy in relation to the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island breaches Articles 1 and 16 of the UN Convention Against Torture. These articles require that Australia, as a signatory to the convention, not allow acts amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any place under its jurisdiction. Méndez found that the reports of conditions in the centre – including increasing acts of violence – combined with the arbitrary and indefinite nature of the detention violated the convention.
    • Failing to respond adequately to specific allegations of intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers on Manus Island following their statements in relation to the violent outbreaks at the centre in February 2014.
    • Recent legislation passed by federal parliament violates the convention as it allows for the arbitrary detention and refugee determination of asylum seekers at sea without access to legal assistance. Concerns were raised that this could lead to an asylum seeker being sent back to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing they would face torture, in breach of Article 3 of the convention.
    • Amendments to character provisions in the Migration Act violate the convention, as an increase in the refusal of visas on character grounds will lead to those individuals being held in detention indefinitely.

    Australia’s response

    Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacted by saying Australians are:

    … tired of being lectured to by the United Nations.

    Méndez responded, saying:

    I’m sorry that the prime minister believes that we lecture … We don’t believe so. We try to treat all governments the same way and deal with specific obligations and standards in international law as objectively as we can.

    Abbott said the government’s policies had stopped people arriving by boat and ended deaths at sea. Méndez pointed out that prolonged and arbitrary detention should not be used as a deterrent.

    Méndez’s role is to assist the government to develop alternatives that abide by its international obligations, such as appropriate screening with appropriate and fair procedures for the determination of claims of people who are fleeing torture.

    Who is the Special Rapporteur on Torture?

    The Special Rapporteur on Torture is one of a number of independent human rights experts who report to and advise the UN Human Rights Council. As part of their activities, the Special Rapporteur can communicate concerns to States on reports of individuals who may be subject to torture.

    These allegations are provided to the State in writing and the state has the opportunity to respond. The Special Rapporteur then reports on those communications and responses annually to the UN Human Rights Council.

    Méndez is well-respected. He is a Professor of Human Rights Law in Residence at the American University Washington College of Law. Like all UN Special Rapporteurs, he carries out his role on a voluntary basis. He is not a UN staff member and is independent from any government. Perhaps most importantly, he is a survivor of torture at the hands of the Argentinian military dictatorship.

    What is the context of Abbott’s comment?

    The UN has made several high-profile criticisms of Australia in recent months. In September 2014, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, criticised Australia’s asylum policies in his high-profile opening address to the Human Rights Council. He singled out a number of states or regions of concern – Australia was one of the very few Western states highlighted.

    This was followed closely by Australia’s scheduled review before the UN Committee Against Torture in November 2014. The committee quizzed Australia on a number of human rights issues. In its report, the committee made recommendations on Australia’s obligations not to return people to a country where they may be tortured (refoulement), and on the detention of children seeking asylum, which is only to be used as a last resort.

    Abbott’s defensive response to the criticisms is reminiscent of John Howard’s adversarial relationship with UN human rights bodies. Although governments can get touchy about international criticism, engagement between governments and UN human rights bodies tends to be diplomatic.

    Australia has not always read the memo on that one. Then-foreign minister Alexander Downer famously warned in 2000 that:

    … if a United Nations committee wants to play domestic politics here in Australia, then it will end up with a bloody nose.

    These types of comments would be unlikely from current Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. Bishop has performed well in Australia’s seat on the UN Security Council and has her sights set on a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in 2018. She has said:

    Our strong and principled stand on numerous human rights issues in our role as a temporary member of the Security Council will form part of our campaign … We abide by our international obligations and we are confident that our experience and our commitment to human rights protection and promotion makes us a strong contender.

    Is Australia a good international citizen?

    Contrary to Bishop’s view, UN bodies have consistently found that Australia does not abide by its international human rights obligations in certain key areas such as its treatment of asylum seekers.

    At a national level, the bill Méndez mentioned was also found by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to be incompatible with Australia’s international human rights obligations.

    A less-than-perfect human rights record does not preclude a state from Human Rights Council membership. However, it must demonstrate willingness to provide redress and make improvements.

    Australia’s breaches of international human rights law are increasingly coming to the UN’s attention. Abbott’s recent comments are not compatible with a state willing to provide redress and make improvements – and nor are the individual cases brought to UN human rights committees. Australia has acted on the committees’ findings by providing remedies to those affected in only 17% of cases.

    In November 2015, the Human Rights Council will consider Australia’s overall performance in its peer-review mechanism – the Universal Periodic Review. This review will include information such as Méndez’s report.

    In the previous review in 2011, Australia accepted the majority of the recommendations made by other states. It also made a number of voluntary commitments to the council, including establishing a full-time Race Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission.

    This time around, it remains to be seen whether Australia will play the role of a good international citizen, keen to secure a future seat on the Human Rights Council.

  • Tributes to Malcolm Fraser.

    See below, tributes from Fred Chaney and Robert Manne on Malcolm Fraser’s achievements in public life. John Mendue.

    Fred Chaney in The Guardian.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/malcolm-fraser-a-leader-who-believed-there-is-a-moral-compass-in-our-nations-life

    Robert Manne in The Guardian.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/frasers-great-conservative-achievement-cementing-whitlams-progress-on-race

  • Ian Macphee. Personal memories of Malcolm Fraser.

    I first met Malcolm in 1973 when he was shadow minister for Industrial Relations in the Coalition opposition. I was Director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and intensely involved in industrial relations. Malcolm had just been given that responsibility and wished to explore issues seriously. We did so for over two hours. I told him that I would always be happy to advise him and that I felt sure that he would form a harmonious working relationship with Clyde Cameron, Minister for Industrial Relations in the Whitlam government. He soon did. And Malcolm and I continued contact. With the advice of Malcolm’s close friend, Peter Nixon, I entered federal parliament as Member for Balaclava for the Liberal Party at the 1974 election and formed an increasingly deep friendship with Malcolm and Peter. That bond continued ever after.

    The Australian industrial relations system was exceedingly complex then and few in the coalition understood it. Malcolm soon did and in 1982, when I was Minister for Industrial Relations we negotiated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employer organisations to try to ensure that a sensible process of dispute settlement could be agreed upon. The March 1983 election was called as we were on the cusp of agreement and the Hawke government soon completed it as the Accord. That greatly transformed industrial relations.

    In 1976 Malcolm had the foresight to create a Department of Productivity to incorporate human resource management, quality control, innovation, skill enhancement and enterprise bargaining. A vast range of departmental activities were merged to enable Australians to understand the nature of productivity, a word rarely used in Australia then. Unions and employers were engaged where possible with scientists and others trying to set an example for cost reduction and increased efficiency and job satisfaction. Research and development was a major part of the interaction. It was during this period that I encountered Graeme Clark who was inventing the bionic ear. Despite the oil crisis and the inherited deficit Malcolm, Peter and Doug Anthony persuaded cabinet to fund further research for what became the cochlear ear implant. There were other achievements but that is one of the most notable.  Employees in the department exchanged jobs with some in the private sector so that each sector could understand the role of the other better. That was an initiative with which Malcolm agreed.

    From 1976-79 I was also minister assisting the Prime Minister on what was then termed “Womens’ Affairs”. Later it was more aptly named the Status of Women. In those three years I realised how strongly liberal Malcolm was on all socially progressive issues. We had many discussions on racial and gender equality and the need for specific policies that would ensure Australia lived up to its boast as an egalitarian society. Malcolm’s support ensured that many reforms were implemented.  Today’s research students are exploring how such progress was made then.

    In 1979 Malcolm was keen to extend reforms begun while Michael McKellar was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and he encouraged my subsequent work in that role.   Students are continuing to document our refugee programs especially the handling of the large scale settlement of Vietnamese boat people!.  The policy was implemented with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and our neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia and embraced the humanity that was the essence of Malcolm Fraser’s ethics and an Aussie “fair go”. The Hawke government continued that but the contrast with policies of later years could not be greater.

    In my final ministerial year Malcolm again revealed his humanity as we strove to reform our constitutionally impeded industrial relations system. We continued to try to encourage enterprise bargaining, increased skill formation and productivity.

    My friendship with Malcolm deepened each year. The first resolution proposed by the Hawke government in the new Parliament House in 1988 stressed non-discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity in particular. The words in that resolution were consistent with those given by Malcolm and I in many speeches. Yet the opposition coalition led by John Howard opposed it. As we conversed on the telephone I told Malcolm that I would vote with the government. He was delighted to hear that and flew to Canberra to witness that. Fortunately for me the Deputy Opposition leader, Charles Blunt, was late in arriving in the chamber and I was given the right to speak. I did so with the conviction Malcolm and I shared about equality. With Phillip Ruddock and Steele Hall I then voted with the Hawke government. That effectively ended my political career but deepened even more the bond that Malcolm and I shared.

    Malcolm then devoted his extraordinary intellect and energy to so many humane causes. He was Chairman of CARE Australia (and placed me on its board for five years) and for the next twenty years I joined hundreds of others in trying to devise a return to humane refugee policies. Sadly all that work was to little avail. Neither major political party would listen. Malcolm’s quest for humanity and equality never ceased. His latest book, Dangerous Allies, also revealed his wise vision for Australian foreign policy. We must be a part of the Asia Pacific region and not Deputy Sheriff to the United States of America. That vision is what drove me into Australian politics in the first place and it was a joy to share it with Malcolm over so many years.

    There are so many things I will not forget about Malcolm but the outstanding one is his refusal to dwell in the past. Having analysed the past he devised strategies for the future.  Many of us are prepared to continue that reform to honour his memory.

    While I shall never forget Malcolm I will also cherish so many memories of Tamie who was the most loving, considerate and wise companion he could have had.   Many of us admired the dedicated work of Julie Gleeson and others in Malcolm’s office over many years.

    My condolences to you all

    Ian Macphee was Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the Fraser Governments.

  • Rachel Wilson, Bronwen Dalton and Chris Baumann. Six ways Australia’s education system is failing our kids.

    Amid debates about budget cuts and the rising costs of schools and degrees, there is one debate receiving alarmingly little attention in Australia. We’re facing a slow decline in most educational standards, and few are aware just how bad the situation is getting.

    These are just six of the ways that Australia’s education system is seriously failing our kids.

    1. Australian teens are falling behind, as others race ahead

    The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey tests the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 economies worldwide. And it showsthat Australian 15-year-olds’ scores on reading, maths and scientific literacy have recorded statistically significant declines since 2000, while other countries have shown improvement.

    Although there has been much media attention on falling international ranks, it is actually this decline in real scores that should hit the headlines. That’s because it means that students in 2000 answered substantially more questions correctly than students in 2012. The decline is equivalent to more than half a year of schooling.

    Our students are falling behind: three years behind students from Shanghai in maths and 1½ years behind in reading.

    In maths and science, an average Australian 15-year-old student has the problem-solving abilities equivalent to an average 12-year-old Korean pupil.

    An international assessment of school years 4 and 8 shows that Australian students’ average performance is now below that of England and the USA: countries that we used to classify as educationally inferior.

    The declining education standards are across all ability levels. Analysis of PISA and NAPLAN suggests that stagnation and decline are occurring among high performing students as well as low performers.

    2. Declining participation in science and maths

    It has been estimated that 75% of the fastest growing occupations require science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills and knowledge.

    The importance of STEM is acknowledged by industry and business. Yet there are national declines in Australian participation and attainment in these subjects. We are also among the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) 34 nations on translation of education investment to innovation, which is highly dependent upon STEM.

    Fewer than one in ten Australian students studied advanced maths in year 12 in 2013. In particular, there has been a collapse in girls studying maths and science.

    A national gender breakdown shows that just 6.6% of girls sat for advanced mathematics in 2013; that’s half the rate for boys, and represents a 23% decline since 2004. In New South Wales, a tiny 1.5% of girls take the trio of advanced maths, physics and chemistry.

    Maths is not a requirement at senior secondary level in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia, although it is compulsory in South Australia, and to a small extent in Queensland and the Northern Territory. In NSW, the requirement for Higher School Certificate (HSC) maths or science study was removed in 2001. The national curriculum also makes no requirement for maths or science study after Year 10.

    Australia is just about the only developed nation that does not make it compulsory to study maths in order to graduate from high school.

    A recent report by the Productivity Commission found almost one-quarter of Australians are capable of only basic mathematics, such as counting. Many universities now have to offer basic (school level) maths and literacy development courses to support students in their study. These outcomes look extremely concerning when we review participation and achievement in maths and science internationally.

    3. Australian education is monolingual

    In 2013, the proportion of students studying a foreign language is at historic lows. For example in NSW, only 8% studied a foreign language for their HSC, the lowest percentage ever recorded.

    In NSW, the number of HSC students studying Chinese in 2014 was just 798 (635 of which were students with a Chinese background), whereas a decade ago it was almost double that number, with 1,591.

    The most popular beginner language in NSW was French, with 663 HSC students taking French as a beginner in 2013. These numbers are extremely small when you consider that the total number of HSC students in NSW: more than 75,000.

    These declines, which are typical of what has happened around the country, have occurred at a time when most other industrialised countries have been strengthening their students’ knowledge of other cultures and languages, in particular learning English.

    English language skills are becoming a basic skill around the world. Monolingual Australians are increasingly competing for jobs with people who are just as competent in English as they are in their own native language – and possibly one or two more.

    4. International and migrant students are actually raising standards, not lowering them

    There are many who believe that Australian education is being held back by our multicultural composition and high proportion of migrant students. This could not be further from the truth. In the most recent PISA assessment of 15 year olds, Australian-born students’ average English literacy score was significantly lower than the average first-generation migrant students’ score, and not significantly different from foreign-born students.

    The proportion of top performers was higher for foreign-born (14%) and first-generation students (15%) than for Australian-born students (10%).

    Students from Chinese, Korean and Sri Lankan backgrounds are the highest performersin the NSW HSC. The top performing selective secondary schools in NSW now have more than 80% of students coming from non-English speaking backgrounds.

    5. You can’t have quality education without quality teachers

    While there are many factors that may contribute to teacher quality, the overall academic attainment of those entering teaching degrees is an obvious and measurable component, which has been the focus of rigorous standards in many countries.

    An international benchmarking study indicates that Australia’s teacher education policies are currently falling well short of high-achieving countries where future teachers are recruited from the top 30% of the age cohort.

    In Australia between 1983 and 2003, the standard intake was from the top 26% to 39%. By2012/2013, less than half of Year 12 students receiving offers for places in undergraduate teacher education courses had ATAR scores in the top 50% of their age cohort.

    Teacher education degrees also had the highest percentage of students entering with low ATAR scores, and the proportion of teacher education entrants with an ATAR of less than 50 nearly doubled over the past three years. We cannot expect above-average education with below-average teachers.

    6. Early learning participation is amongst the lowest in the developed world

    While Australia has recently lifted levels of investment in early childhood education, this investment has not been reflected in high levels of early childhood participation. In Australia, just 18% of 3 year olds participated in early childhood education, compared with 70% on average across the OECD. In this respect, we rank at 34 out of 36 OECD and partner countries.

    Australia also ranks at 22 out of 37 on the OECD league table that measures the total investment across education as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.

    While low levels of expenditure and participation curtail any system, there is more negative impact from a lack of investment in early childhood than there would be from a lack of funding further up the educational chain. Nobel prize winner James Heckmann has shown how investment in early childhood produces the greatest returns to society.

    What to do?

    Funding is a critical issue, and not just in terms of what you spend, but also how you spend it. Research suggests spending on early childhood, quality teaching and core curriculum have the greatest returns on investment.

    There is also growing evidence to suggest that a segregated schooling system – for example, socio-economically or academically selective schools – is counterproductive and restricts social mobility. High-performing countries have school systems on a far more level playing field than Australia.

    We need a long-term plan across education sectors: from early childhood, to schools, universities and TAFE, which includes plans for supporting and strengthening teacher education in all those sectors.

    We also need a louder public conversation about Australian education, and lobbying to shift how we value and invest in education.

    When Germany was shocked by its first performance on the 2000 PISA assessment, it started a national conversation that saw education on the front page of newspapers for the next two years. Germany’s education has been improving ever since.

    If Australia wants to build a strong and competitive economy, we need fewer front page articles about budget cuts, and more on reform and investment in education.

    Rachel Wilson is Senior Lecturer – Research Methodology / Educational Assessment & Evaluation at University of Sydney.

    Bronwen Dalton is Senior Lecturer,School of Management at University of Technology, Sydney.

    Chris Baumann is Senior Lecturer in Business at Macquarie University.

    This article was first published in The Conversation on 16 March 2015.

  • Spencer Zifcak. The Martin Place Siege

    I first came across Man Haron Monis, the Sydney siege gunman, in early 2013. The High Court of Australia had just handed down an important new decision on the breadth of the protection the Australian Constitution provides for freedom of expression. The facts of the case centred upon offensive letters sent to the parents of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The issue was whether sending offensive letters through the post to the private addresses of parents could properly be regarded as an exercise of constitutionally protected free speech. The person who sent the letters was Monis.

    In one letter, he described a soldier son as having murdered civilians. He likened the soldier to a dirty animal. He described the son’s body as the dirty body of a pig. He wrote that the son’s moral culpability was no less reprehensible than Hitler’s. Justice Heydon described the communications as ‘sadistic, wantonly, cruel and deeply wounding blows during the most painful days of parents’ lives’.

    He seemed to me to be deranged – not necessarily mentally ill but nevertheless profoundly disturbed, the disturbance having a distinctly paranoid character. I thought to myself that this is a person who should probably be watched.

    What we have learnt subsequently confirms that impression. Monis described himself as a sheikh but had no qualifications to be one. It appears that he had engaged in criminal fraud in Iran prior to obtaining refugee status in Australia. He owned a rifle, but no one seems to know in what lawful capacity he was able to obtain one.

    He uploaded a photo of the ABC’s religion presenter, Rachel Kohn, under the heading ‘You Will Pay the Price’, after she described him as an Islamic renegade. He described the deaths of people in the Victorian bushfires as Allah’s revenge upon Australians because the Government had not opposed the death penalty for the Bali bombers.

    He placed advertisements in local newspapers, holding himself out as a spiritual consultant. This rather brought him undone as he was later charged with forty offences of sexual and indecent assault many of which arose from his ‘consultations’. Early in 2014, he was charged with being an accessory after the fact to the murder of his former wife who had been beaten and set alight. Yet he wasn’t on ASIO’s surveillance list.

     

    There has been a lot of discussion since the Sydney siege as to whether Monis was a terrorist or, more prosaically, had committed a murderous crime. This is splitting hairs. The act was terrifying and people died. Whether Monis acted as a ‘lone wolf’ terrorist, or as a deranged criminal, doesn’t seem to count much when weighed against that.

    It is relevant, however, in determining how the siege could have happened and what might be done to prevent similar shocking events in the future. It is almost certain that Monis acted alone. It is also clear that he had had several encounters with the law that could reasonably have led one to the view that he was manipulative, religiously extreme, conscienceless and had a propensity towards violence. He should never have got a gun.

    Monis was on bail for serious criminal offences. Being charged as an accessory after the fact to murder is not nothing. Nor is the allegation that one may have engaged in multiple instances of sexual and indecent assault. Apparently, one reason that bail was granted in relation to the accessory charge was that the Magistrate decided that the case against Monis was weak. Another was that the prosecution did not oppose bail, even on the murder-related charge. Extraordinarily, Monis’ girlfriend, the person charged with the murder, also obtained bail.

    Without being in court to hear the evidence provided, it is difficult to disagree with the Magistrate’s decision. It might have been a reasonable one in the circumstances.  Nevertheless, had it been me in the chair, at the very least I would have put the totality of the charges to the defence and the prosecution and asked them to explain clearly and persuasively how it was that each thought that bail was appropriate. And I would have questioned Monis.

    The NSW Attorney-General has asserted that had his proposed reforms to the Bail Act, been in force, Monis would not have been given bail. These reforms provide that any person charged with a serious crime would be required to prove that they were not a danger to the community. Reversing the onus of proof in a criminal matter is hardly ever desirable as it requires the person concerned to demonstrate a negative. How does one prove that one will not be dangerous? Better to leave it to the prosecution to make the case that one is likely to be.

    So, what are we to do about ‘lone wolf’ terrorists? The honest answer appears to be that nobody knows. The US Attorney-General, Eric Holder, remarked recently that ‘that is the thing that keeps me up most at night, this concern about the lone wolf who goes undetected.’

    Without knowing the details, it seems clear that ASIO has managed to break up a number of terrorist cells that had been in the course of planning terrorist attacks. A small but not insignificant number of individuals have been subsequently tried and convicted. The irony (thankfully) is that it is more likely that terrorist plots will be foiled when they are planned on a large scale and involve several actors, than when all that is involved is a a random plot devised by a psychopathic zealot. The ‘lone wolf’ may communicate with no one and, planning alone, may evade suspicion and detection altogether.

    Turning to a present political controversy, the comprehensive retention of metadata, as currently proposed by the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, may assist in establishing a pattern of activity by an individual or group that alerts law enforcement officials to the possibility of a terrorist attack. That fact, however, does not provide a complete justification for access to every Australian’s data.

    Individual privacy is important. It forms a component part of what it is to live in a free and democratic society. We dismiss its significance at great peril.

    By all means require ISPs to retain individuals’ metadata for two years. But do not allow law enforcement agencies to access it without prior, independent judicial review. A judge should not agree to the provision of access to an individual’s private internet or telephone activity unless it can be demonstrated that there is a reasonable suspicion that the targeted person may engage in criminal or terrorist activity.

    It is unlikely that the examination of metadata would have netted Mon Haron Monis prior to his siege. As a lone wolf, not even his girlfriend may have been aware of his terrible plan. And he wasn’t on a watch list when patently he should have been.

    In the end, however, more terror laws aren’t going to cut it. Radicalisation must be tackled from its outset. One place to start is at school.

    Every school, primary and secondary, private and state, should be required to teach civics in the context of democracy, political plurality and cultural diversity. The communication of hatred, intolerance and discrimination in schools on racial, religious or ethnic grounds should be prohibited. The study of comparative religions, including secular morality,  should be strongly encouraged. The exposure of children to a wide and balanced diversity of political, social and cultural opinion should form an imperative part of every school’s curriculum.

    This won’t stop the spread of terrorism now. But it could make us safer and more respectful of each other in the foreseeable future.

    Spencer Zifcak is Professor of International Human Rights Law

    This article first appeared in Arena, no 134, 02-2015 – 03-2015.

    See www.arena.com.au

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Safdar Ahmed. A moving inside story about detainees in the Villawood Detention Centre.

    Safdar Ahmed has sent to me a very moving and powerful online comic book about life in the Villawood detention centre. The press release which he issued, follows.  John Menadue

    A new graphic novel depicts life inside the Villawood Detention Centre

    A documentary web-comic by Safdar Ahmed depicts the stories of asylum seekers and refugees inside Sydney’s Villawood detention centre. [Villawood: Notes From An Immigration Detention Centre LINK] depicts the testimony of people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, including men, women and teenagers. Some of those included are long-term detainees who have been detained for up to five years.

    Ahmed has conducted art workshops inside Villawood for the last four years. ‘My web-comic draws upon the tradition of underground comics, which encourages a level of self-reflexivity’ he said. ‘It describes my impressions of first entering the centre and is subjective in the way it is drawn: in the line-work and choice of imagery.’

    The comic shows the disempowerment experienced by refugees in detention and the methods employed to survive and resist it. A chapter recounts the death of Ahmad Ali Jafari, a young Afghan refugee who suffered a heart attack within the centre in 2013. Forms of resistance depicted in the comic include acts of non-compliance, self-harm and one refugee’s participation in a rooftop protest.

    ‘Where it fits the narrative I’ve inserted some artwork by refugees, which was made in the workshops that I’ve facilitated’ said Ahmed. ‘It seemed like a good way to bring the direct self-expression of refugees into the comic, instead of having me speak exclusively on their behalf.’

    Safdar Ahmed is an artist and director of Refugee Art Project. Academic in Islamic studies, author of Reform and Modernity in Islam.

    Reporting on this story was made possible with an independently awarded grant from GetUp’s Shipping News project.

    To see comic book, click on link below.

     https://medium.com/@safdarahmed/villawood-9698183e114c

  • Graham Freudenberg. Gough Whitlam Commemorative Oration.

     You will see below what I think is a remarkable speech by Graham Freudenberg about Gough Whitlam’s contemporary relevance.  This oration is much longer than I normally post on this blog, but it is an outstanding oration which I am sure you will enjoy.  The Whitlam Institute will also be publicising this oration.  John Menadue

    THE WHITLAM INSTITUTE

    GOUGH WHITLAM COMMEMORATIVE ORATION

    “Contemporary Relevance, comrade”:

    Gough Whitlam in the 21st century

    Graham Freudenberg

    St Kilda Town Hall, Melbourne, 4 March 2015

     

    Let me begin by doing what I did for the best part of my career, and re-cycle a speech by Gough Whitlam.  It was his first major speech in the House of Representatives on international affairs, in days when they actually debated foreign policy in the Australian Parliament – on 12 August 1954.  That was another world.  Yet this speech goes to the heart of my assertions about the contemporary relevance of Edward Gough Whitlam.  In style and substance, in his zest for the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, for the sweep of its ideas, its challenge to prevailing orthodoxies – and for its optimism – it is quintessential Whitlam.  He made the speech soon after the Geneva Conference in 1954 had given the West a new chance for good sense over China and Vietnam; instead, alas, the lost opportunity of Geneva became a disastrous wrong turn for the United States and Australia. Whitlam had been a member of parliament for less than two years.  His star was just rising in the Labor Party, itself on the threshold of the Great Split.  I’ll quote just a few of his opening lines, to give the flavour:

    In the exciting and rapid movement of events during the last few months, the Minister for External Affairs [Mr Casey] has twice circumnavigated the globe in the steps of his model, Mr Eden, and his master, Mr Dulles [UK Foreign Secretary and US Secretary of State respectively].  Though the Minister saw fit to make statements to the newspapers in the United States of America and in other parts of the world, he did not say anything to the Australian press.  The only Minister who has seen fit to make any statement on international affairs has been, of all people, the Postmaster General (Mr Anthony)  [Doug Anthony’s father, that is], who three weeks ago addressed the annual conference of the Queensland branch of   the Australian Country Party.  In haranguing that rally of rustics, the Postmaster General declared that we Australians cannot live in peaceful co-existence with the Communists in this cold war.  That pronouncement, fortunately, was in direct contradiction of statements that had already been made by President Eisenhower, of the United States of America, and Sir Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister.  The declaration of the Postmaster General has been emphatically repudiated in this House by the Prime Minister [Mr Menzies] and the Leader of the Opposition [Dr Evatt].  As a consequence of that rash utterance, the Postmaster General, whose health in recent months was deemed to be rapidly qualifying him for a diplomatic post, has rendered himself persona non grata  to every head of State except President Syngman Rhee of the Republic of Korea, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Government [on Formosa].

    When, more than a decade later, I came to read all Whitlam’s early speeches with a professional eye, time and again I found myself thinking “I wish I could say things like that”.  So I did.

    But what could be the possible relevance of a speech made by a Labor backbencher more than 60 years ago, when Churchill was still Prime Minister of Britain and when Menzies still had more than eleven years to go as Prime Minister of Australia?  Well, this was the speech in which Whitlam first called for recognition of the People’s Republic of China, nineteen years before he achieved it.  In particular, he insisted that China’s sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) must never be allowed to become a cause for war with China, inevitably a third world war, inevitably a nuclear war.  Whitlam was daring to assert that the views and interests of Australia might not always be the same as those of the United States.  His propositions will be as relevant to our relations with China and the United States over the next 60 years as they were 60 years ago.  Further, he made an eloquent connection between hopes for democracy in our region, then in the throes of decolonisation, and the preservation and enhancement of parliamentary democracy in Australia – his life-long cause, from which all else flowed.  It was a speech marked by his special capacity to make connections between the wider world, the region around us, and Australia’s own standing and conduct.

    And this speech, not only in its content but in its approach, attitudes and insights, the breadth of vision enhanced by his attention to detail, provides a sub-theme for everything I say tonight:

    Gough Whitlam’s contemporary relevance lies not only, or even so much, in the actual policies and issues he placed on the Australian political and social agenda, but in the educative process, based on reason, relevance, knowledge and foresight, by which he reached them.  And perhaps most relevant of all to these times, for all of us as Australians, his challenge to conventional wisdom, the prejudices and fears of his times.

    And that included emphatically obsolences and obstructionism in Labor thinking.  I don’t pretend to be able to answer the question: “What would Whitlam do if he were the Labor leader today?”  I’m certainly not purporting to tell Bill Shorten and his colleagues: “This is how Gough would do it”.  But perhaps I can shed some light on what I believe would be his approach and attitudes to the very complex questions facing Australia and the Labor Party in today’s “rapid and exciting movement of events”.

    There is no place more fitting to do this than Melbourne.  I take the opportunity to make amends for an omission in my accounts of the life and times of Edward Gough Whitlam.  In my brief eulogy at the Sydney Town Hall on 5 November last year, for instance, I identified the central importance of his relationship with Werriwa, for 25 years his electorate in the outer Western suburbs of Sydney.  And he himself always acknowledged the impact of being a teenager in Canberra, as it struggled to grow into the national capital after the move from Melbourne in 1927.  But it should never be overlooked how much of Melbourne there was in Gough Whitlam.  It is not just the fact that he was born here – on 11 July 1916 – and spent the first five years of his life here.  The greatest single influence of his life was his father, Harry Ernest Frederick Whitlam, later Commonwealth Crown Solicitor; and Fred Whitlam was Melbourne through and through.  His influence on his son was steeped in the old Melbourne liberal/radical tradition.  Its strength, paradoxically, retarded the early growth of the Labor Party in Victoria. There was a remarkable revival of that tradition through the flourishing of the Fabian Society in the late fifties, sixties and beyond; and the Fabian relationship with the rise of Whitlam is an important part of the larger story.  “Among Australian Fabians, I am Fabius Maximus”, he said.  Though I myself believe the title properly belongs to Race Mathews.

    Gough returned to Melbourne, in thought, towards the very end.  When much in that mighty memory was fading, he would recall to his faithful visitors to his William Street, Sydney, office, like John Faulkner and John Menadue, that when he was 17 or 18 he took his grandmother to the new Shrine of Remembrance in St. Kilda Road and read out to her – she was nearly blind – the name of the battlefield in France where her son, his uncle, had died.

    Even at the time of Gough’s death, the comment was still being made that it was strange, with his background, he should have become a Labor leader.  There used to be Tories who regarded him as a class traitor.  The truth is, with his upbringing, with such a father and his values, Gough Whitlam could never have been any other than Labor, in the Australian context.

    In November 1973, in the glow of his first year in office, Whitlam delivered the Robert Garran Memorial Lecture in Canberra.  His father had delivered the inaugural Garran Lecture in 1959, one great public servant honouring another, who had been his Melbourne mentor.  Whitlam quoted his father, who was speaking of Australia’s role in the United Nations:

    The task before Australia is honourable, and its efficient discharge would make for a dynamic peace; to it, all the resources, skills and energy that Australia can command deserve to be committed.  The honourable task, however, could become majestic, and infinitely inspiring, and the peace could become creative, deep and rich, and enduring, if there be added what I have termed Excellence, Excellence in all its fullness.

    That is Gough Whitlam quoting his father.  But he might just as well have been quoting himself.  Perhaps, given the closeness of their relationship, he was.

    I acknowledge my own debt to Melbourne.  Melbourne made me.  I arrived here as a 20-year-old reporter for The Sun, via newspapers in Brisbane, Sydney and Mildura, in 1955 – the year of the Great Labor Split and the beginning of the Bolte era in Victoria.  Anyone who believes that the fifties were dull wasn’t there.  I missed the transformational event of the 1956 Olympic Games because I had taken myself off to London for a year.  It was a watershed year: Khrushchev’s not-so-secret speech in Moscow denouncing Stalin; Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal and the Suez crisis; the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

    The Suez crisis was my political Road to Damascus.  Returning to Melbourne in 1957, I immediately joined the East Melbourne branch of the Australian Labor Party.  Arthur Calwell, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition under Evatt, was the member for Melbourne.  In 1961, I was given the opportunity of a lifetime when, by a wonderful combination of friends and flukes, I became Press Secretary to Arthur Calwell, by now the Leader of the Opposition,  and in 1967, to his successor Gough Whitlam.  When Whitlam made his famous or notorious “The impotent are pure” speech before the jeering delegates to the Victorian Labor Conference at the Melbourne Trades Hall in June 1967, Calwell watched the performance from the gallery and said to me in the vestibule afterwards: “You won’t be working for your new boss long now”.

    “Throughout my public life”, Whitlam said on the 30th anniversary of the It’s Time election, “I have tried to apply an over-arching principle and a unifying theme to all my work.  It can be stated in two words: contemporary relevance.  It was the fundamental test I applied, in particular to the development of Labor policy in the years before 2 December 1972.  There is a case to be argued that my government faltered whenever we lost sight of the principle or allowed the rush of events to subsume them.”

    Among the many fine and true things said at the Sydney Town Hall, I want to focus on a point made by Tony Whitlam.  He said that his father believed deeply in a strong two-party system.  The whole thrust of Whitlam’s career was to further his determination that the Labor Party should remain one of the two dominant forces within our parliament, either in government or able to form government, in its own right.  He saw strong, effective parties as the mainstay of parliamentary democracy.  The future of the two-party system and Labor’s role within it is now the big political question facing Australia today, not just the Labor Party.

    May I say here how much encouragement we draw throughout Australia from the victory of Daniel Andrews and the Labor Party in Victoria, so soon after Gough Whitlam’s death.  Like Neville Wran’s victory in New South Wales six months after the Dismissal, it had a galvanising effect and renewed our sense of what is possible.  As to the Queensland result, well, it shows that anything is possible.

    In his first statement on becoming Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party on 8 February 1967, Whitlam said:

    For the Labor Party, what is clearly at stake is its future role within the Australian parliamentary system …. Our actions in the next few years must determine whether it continues to survive as a truly effective parliamentary force capable of governing and actually governing.

    Nearly nine years later, almost on the eve of the Dismissal, in the middle of his tremendous battle against the Senate, the ultimate challenge to the very legitimacy of a reforming Labor Government, Whitlam delivered the Curtin Memorial Lecture at the ANU in Canberra (29 October 1975).  Speaking of his work before 1972, he said:

    I addressed myself to three principal tasks: to develop a coherent program of relevant reform; to convince a majority of Australians that those reforms were relevant to their needs and their lives; and to convince the Labor Movement as a whole that the parliamentary institutions were relevant in achieving worthwhile reform.

    “The great organisational battles between 1967 and 1970, particularly in Victoria”, he said, were essentially about that third task:  “It was the toughest of all”.

    Keeping bright the Whitlam legend does not require manufacturing myths about him.  The stakes in Victoria were high; and while both sides invoked high principles, in the end the resolution of the conflict involved number-crunching of the roughest kind.  Whitlam was not particularly adept at that game, but accepted its necessity.  He largely left it to others – Lance Barnard in his rise to the leadership; Rex Connor in his self-imposed contest for the leadership with Jim Cairns in April 1968; Clyde Cameron in the reconstruction of Victoria in 1970.

    So I want to emphasise that electoral and political calculations figured as largely with Whitlam as any other political leader.  It was not all altruism and crashing through.  To gloss over Whitlam as a practising, party politician, working the system with the best of them, is the surest way to make him irrelevant.

    Whitlam set out, from the first, to combat the defeatism which had settled on much of the Labor Party, particularly in Victoria.  Political necessity drove his defiant speech to the Victorian ALP Conference in June 1967:

    We construct a philosophy of failure which finds in defeat a form of justification and a proof of the purity of our principles.  Certainly, the impotent are pure ….. Let us have none of this nonsense that defeat is in some way more moral than victory ….. I did not seek and do not want the leadership of Australia’s largest pressure group.  I propose to follow the traditions of those of our leaders who have seen the role of our party as striving to achieve, and achieving, the national government of Australia.

    Whitlam was especially infuriated by the self-serving claim that the bosses of the Victorian Central Executive were the principled guardians of Labor’s opposition to Australian involvement in the war in Vietnam.  In his landmark speech of 4 May 1965, Calwell had explicitly acknowledged the unpopularity of Labor’s position, to be met, in what seemed on the day a devastating reply by Menzies, with the sneer “If I might end on a horribly political note, it is a good thing occasionally to be in the majority”.  This was the same speech in which Menzies’ total justification for the war was that it was “part of the downward thrust by China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans”.  By such simplicities did Menzies reign supreme.  After the debacle of the 1966 election, ostensibly because of Vietnam, but more because of the dire state of the Labor Party itself, Melbourne became the heart and soul of the Moratorium Movement under the memorable leadership of Jim Cairns.

    Whitlam, by contrast, antagonised the Labor Left by his dismissive attitude towards the Moratorium Movement.  He told that Victorian Conference in June 1967 that protests “would not save a single Australian life or shorten the war by a single day.  Our consciences should not be so easily salved.  The present government opposes all moves which might bring about negotiations, and is the first to applaud and endorse escalation of the war.  Therefore our aim must be to replace that government.”

    But Vietnam was not really the divisive issue for Labor.  The most potent source of division was far older – over a century old in fact.  It was the issue of State Aid for non-government schools, meaning, in practice, the Catholic parish school system.

    It must be hard for any Australian under 60 to grasp fully the sectarian bitterness and the political explosiveness surrounding this issue.  Even the phrase itself – “State aid” – barely registers today.  The Bishops and the Church, even with so powerful an advocate as Archbishop Mannix, had failed utterly to dent the bipartisan intransigence against State Aid – the Liberal Party still essentially a Protestant  party; the Labor Party, its traditional Catholic support notwithstanding.  The unravelling came after the Split when the breakaway DLP put a pro-State aid plank in its platform.  From then on and for the next decade, the Labor Left made opposition to State Aid the test of Labor orthodoxy.  This was the issue which was to provide Whitlam with a platform to secure representation for the parliamentary leadership on the Labor Party’s Conference and Executive, ending the “36 faceless men” controversy.    It produced Whitlam’s outburst against “the 12 witless men” of the ALP Federal Executive, and his near-expulsion from the party in 1966.  It produced his triumph at the 1969 Federal Conference in Melbourne which adopted his ground-breaking proposal for the Schools Commission, granting aid to all schools – government and non-government alike – on the basis of needs.  It produced the last ditch defiance of the old VCE, sabotaging Labor’s 1970 State campaign, and perversely giving Whitlam unmistakable grounds for Federal intervention; which in turn paved the way for Victoria’s decisive role in electing the Whitlam Government in 1972 and saving it in 1974.

    What were the qualities that rewarded Whitlam with such success after these long years of turmoil and confrontation?  Perseverance, of course.  Stamina, of course.  But there was something else – a characteristic approach to political problems, and his way of arguing them out.  “Only connect”, E. M. Forster wrote, and Whitlam was the master of making connections – from the particular to the general, linking the local with the regional, the regional with the national and the national with the international.  Or reversing the process, as when debating standards for education, health, housing or transport, he would start from the carefully crafted formula: “Countries with which we would choose to compare ourselves”.  Sometimes, this left only Canada.  In the case of State Aid, he comprehensively connected the whole education issue with party reform, policy reform and electoral success – “the party, the policy, the people” in John Menadue’s 1967 formula.

    I see this making of connections as the essence of the Whitlam approach and the key to his contemporary relevance.  Remarkable, too, was his melding of personal experience with public policy.  In her truly great biography, Jenny Hocking describes his learning curve on aborigines when he witnessed their treatment in Queensland and the Northern Territory during his wartime years in the RAAF.  I have already mentioned the connection between Whitlam, the member for Werriwa, and Whitlam’s policies on “Schools, hospitals, cities”, to use his shorthand for his Program, his deep understanding that Australia is a nation of immigrants, and all the opportunities and obligations which flow from that central fact, his passion for electoral reform, one-vote, one-value, and even the national sewerage program.  He himself dated his determination to modernise the Constitution from the failure of the 1944 referendum, broadening and deepening with his service on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform.  This seminal experience led him to focus on the connection between the Constitution and the Labor Platform.  He was exasperated by the way the Labor Party had allowed the High Court rejection of bank nationalisation under Section 92 in 1948 to become an excuse for policy stagnation.   He later put his attitude in this way:

    I was concerned by the way in which the Labor Party’s failure to move on, to look ahead, to attempt to find new ways towards reform, was short-changing the Australian people and short-changing the Party itself.  The Party became obsessed with the idea that rather than being about revival for the future, its purpose was to return to a more comfortable past – not renovation but mere restoration.  As a result, both the achievements of the past and the hopes for the future receded equally.  The Party stagnated and the Platform was stultified.

    There, in its most striking form, is Whitlam’s continuing challenge – to modernise the Party, to modernise the Platform, to modernise the Party’s place in a modernised Australia.  He wanted, of course, to modernise the Australian Constitution, and no Australian leader worked harder to achieve change by referendum.  Right to the end, he never gave up on this, despite the overwhelming evidence that change by the direct referendum route is almost always foredoomed in Australia.  Yet despite this, he achieved real change in the spirit of the Australian Constitution, in its interpretation and in the application of the Constitution as it exists to the implementation of Labor policy.  He never succeeded in altering the Constitution by a single line or letter, but he enlarged the Constitution like no other leader.  As in so much else, Whitlam was the Great Enlarger.

    He did it in three ways.

    First, by pointing the Labor Party to the parts of the Constitution which were relevant and achievable.  As he said in 1961, in his first Curtin Memorial Lecture:

    In our obsession with Section 92, which is held up as the      bulwark of private enterprise, we forget Section 96, which is     the charter of public enterprise.

    In that speech, too, he derided the most sacred of Labor’s cows, the socialist objective, as “weak, defensive and apologetic”.  At the same time, he was not apologetic about calling himself a socialist and was, in fact, the last Labor leader to do so.

    Second, in government, he widened the Constitution and its interpretation whenever his legislation was tested in the High Court, starting with the Hamer Government challenge to the Australian Assistance Plan in 1974.  He was justly proud of the fact that no Whitlam Government laws were ever held to be unconstitutional.

    Thirdly, most relevant of all, he enlarged the Australian Constitution by the use of the external power, and by enshrining key laws within covenants of the United Nations and the International Labor Organisation.  The Racial Discrimination Act is an outstanding example.

    And here I make the claim that the connections Whitlam made between what we do here and our standing in the world represents his distinctive expression of Australian patriotism – rational, authentic and deep patriotism.

    Let me give a specific example.  In two visits to Papua New Guinea in 1970 and 1971, as Opposition leader, he proclaimed independence for PNG by 1976.  In Government, he advanced the time-table by a year.  The independence ceremony in Port Moresby in September 1975 was the last time Sir John Kerr and Whitlam appeared in public together.  During the 1970 visit, his meetings with Michael Somare were tracked by ASIO.  After he addressed 10,000 Tolai at Rabaul, Prime Minister Gorton said he would have “blood on his hands” if there were any violence on the Gazelle Peninsula.  The Minister for Territories, CEB Barnes, thought PNG might be ready for independence in 25 to 100 years.  This was probably majority opinion in Australia.  Seven Australian Prime Ministers attended Whitlam’s Memorial on 4 November 2014 – with five Prime Ministers from PNG, including Michael Somare.

    How did Whitlam turn around Australia’s stance so completely, so quickly?  I remember vividly the day in Port Moresby in January 1971 when he dictated the thoughts which we worked up as the definitive statement on PNG independence:

    All Australians must now realize how damaging and    dangerous a reputation Australia’s present policies produce.  What the world sees about Australia is that we have an aboriginal population with the highest infant mortality on earth, that we have eagerly supported the most unpopular war    in modern times on the ground that Asia should be a      battleground for our freedom, that we support the sale of arms to South Africa, that the whole world believes that our immigration policy is based on colour and that we run one of the world’s last colonies.  We may profess our good intentions      and feel that we are victims of special circumstances but the combination of such policies leans heavily indeed on the world’s goodwill and on Australia’s credibility.

    The true patriot therefore will not seek to justify and   prolong these policies but will seek to change them.

    It is upon his determination to protect and advance Australia’s reputation and standing in the world that I stake my strongest claim for Whitlam’s contemporary relevance.  I deeply believe that if the Labor leadership had taken its stand clearly on Australia’s international reputation and international obligations on refugees from the beginning, in 2001, we would not have had fourteen years of this malignancy, eating away at our national self-respect.  Of course, Australians care about “who comes here and the circumstances in which they come”.  But, given leadership, they do care for Australia’s good name in the world.  How else were Whitlam and Don Dunstan, together with quite small public interest groups in the universities, churches and unions, able to persuade the Labor Party in 1965 to abandon its most cherished tradition and Australia’s deepest fears embodied in the White Australia Policy?

    So I stress the importance of making connections in Whitlam’s approach to policy.  But I am bound to acknowledge that there were disconnections when it came to implementing policy in government.  The connections were Whitlam at his most constructive; the disconnections the most damaging.  No appraisal of his contemporary relevance can omit the failures, and the lessons to be learned from them.

    In his book The Whitlam Government, Whitlam himself makes a significant admission.  The matter-of-fact way he puts it masks the pain it cost him to make it.  He wrote (p.195):  “The chief economic failure of my Government resulted from the wage explosion of 1974.  In part, our failure was a failure of communication, our failure to persuade the trade union movement to accept the central concept of Labor’s program.”

    He then spelt his definition of the meaning of equality in modern Australia: “That central concept was this: in modern communities, even the wealthiest family cannot provide its members with the best education, with the best medical treatment, the best environment, unaided by the community.  Increasingly, the basic services and opportunities which determine the real standard of life of a family or an individual can only be provided by the community and only to the extent to which the community is willing to provide them.  Either the community provides them or they will not be provided at all.  In the Australian context, this means that the community, through the national Government, must finance them or they     will not be financed at all.”

    That is the bed-rock of the Whitlam Program, with its over-arching theme of a more equal Australia.  Then comes his painful admission: “I have to acknowledge that this philosophy was never really accepted by the Labor movement of Australia at any time after the election of its own Labor Government.”

    In a generous review in The Age, Sir Paul Hasluck described the book as “the longest trumpet voluntary in political literature”. But it seems to have escaped Sir Paul that there could hardly be a more mortifying admission than that the very core of Labor support had not accepted the relevance of the Whitlam Program to its immediate concerns.  By contrast, the Hawke and Keating Governments succeeded in persuading the unions to accept the concept of a social wage, and, through the Accords, made it the basis of their transformation of the Australian economy.

    Whitlam notoriously said: “I don’t mind how many prima donnas there are in my Cabinet, as long as I’m prima donna assoluta”.  It was a throwaway line that actually highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the Whitlam style of government: individual brilliance against collegial disarray.  There was a serious gap between the primacy he gave to Parliament, to parliamentary government on one hand, and the operation of its most distinctive feature, the Cabinet, the great engine of parliamentary government.  Cabinet embodies the two principles that make parliamentary democracy work effectively – Cabinet solidarity, and answerability to Parliament.  Cabinet is the grand committee of the nation.  Bob Hawke’s superb chairmanship skills made his Cabinet the most successful in our history.  A properly-run Cabinet would not have enmeshed the Whitlam Government in the toils of the loans affair.

    Nevertheless, while the orchestration was sometimes discordant, the Whitlam Government was not a one-man band, although Gough himself scarcely discouraged the notion.  “What would happen if you were run over by the proverbial bus”, Mike Willesee asked him in 1974.  “In the light of my government’s public transport reforms, that is highly improbable”.  But the free rein Whitlam gave his Ministers did become the basis for its record of achievement.  The one thing he expected was that they would act in the spirit of the Program, especially as set out in the It’s Time Policy Speech.  As Kim Beazley Snr said: “The Platform is the Old Testament; the policy speech is the New Testament”.  He was only half-joking.

    There will never be another Policy Speech like it.  At least I devoutly hope so, because I hope that the conditions which produced it will never be repeated.  That is, I hope fervently for the sake of Australian parliamentary democracy that the Australian Labor Party will never again be out for 23 years, or anything like 23 years.  We cannot fully understand the nature, content and purpose of the It’s Time  Policy Speech, unless we place it firmly in the context of those 23 years.  Nor, for that matter, can we fully understand the conduct and fate of the Whitlam Government without understanding the sense of urgency and expectation those lost 23 years produced.

    There were outstanding Ministers.  Think of Bill Hayden, who built Medibank – with its vital principle of universal access to health care – so strong that it defied seven attempts by the Fraser Government to dismantle it and enabled the Hawke Government to restore it as Medicare.  The attacks on its basic principles by the present Federal government are, of course, part of its current turmoil.  Contemporary relevance indeed!

    Again, Hayden had progressed far towards establishing a national superannuation scheme.  Keating accomplished it, and Labor’s role as the custodian of superannuation, and its true principles, remains, or should be, one of its greatest electoral assets.

    Think of Lionel Murphy, whose transformational law reforms constitute almost a parallel program.  His concerns about the accountability of the national security apparatus remain a question of fundamental relevance to Australian democracy.

    Or think of Al Grassby.  For dismantling White Australia (“Give me a shovel and I will bury it”, he said to a sceptical reporter in Manila); for establishing multicultural Australia, he paid a high political price.  He lost his seat in what Whitlam called Australia’s first overtly racist campaign in 1974.  We may think we have come a long way since 1974.  On the other hand, we may think that the story has deep contemporary relevance, certainly in terms of the need for unremitting vigilance in the work of building a more inclusive and tolerant Australia.

    I think, in particular, of Tom Uren, who breathed life into the most original and wide-ranging of all the Whitlam concepts, really the heart of the Whitlam project – national involvement in cities and regional centres.  The restoration of his Department of Urban Affairs is again urgent and relevant to the Australian people in almost every aspect of their daily lives.

    These examples remind us of a largely neglected, if not forgotten, aspect of the Whitlam project – how much, both in development and implementation, the Whitlam Program was a collective effort, how much he sought and welcomed the ideas and advice of others, inside and beyond the Labor Party.  Many years later, I suggested that he should acknowledge that “the Program did not spring, like Minerva, fully armed from Zeus’ brow”.  He agreed entirely, but insisted that he was not going down to posterity confusing the Greek and Roman gods.  Gough thought Zeus more appropriate than Jupiter, so Minerva had to give way to Athena.

    This aspect of the Whitlam project, as a cooperative and collaborative effort, will, I believe, become increasingly relevant to Labor’s mission, as Australia moves into a more complex era, with its communities more dissociated, its voters more volatile, its competing interests more vocal, its public discourse more discordant, if not debauched, its media ever more pervasive.

    More than a century ago, Alfred Deakin complained about the impossibility of governing “with a reporter at one’s elbow”.  We may speculate how Gough would have coped, in a world of instant response, endless spin, the ten second grab and the cacophony of self-appointed pundits.  I think I know the answer.  Brilliantly.  Three reasons: He was the master of the one-liner before the term was invented.  He would have dominated the mainstream media by open, long and frequent press conferences.  And, above all, he would have refused to relegate Parliament to its present humiliating role as an almost incidental channel of political communication.

    Almost our last collaboration, stretching across more than 40 years, was the Foreword to Troy Bramston’s splendid collection, The Whitlam Legacy.  Gough knew it would be his last serious word on Australian politics:

    May I make one valedictory point: never forget the primacy of Parliament as the great forum for developing, presenting and explaining policy.  This seems to me the best response we can make to the unprecedented demands now made on our leaders and representatives by the relentless news cycle, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  If we develop, define and defend our policies thoroughly before their implementation, we will be much less likely to be blown off course by the accidents and aberrations inseparable from modern political life.  And Parliament is by far the best place to achieve it.

    This was the precept and practice of a life time.

    Parliament is, or should be, a marvellous resource, and it has been the anchor of our national life longer than almost any country in the world and, by the standard of the suffrage – the right to vote – more democratic longer than any.  But if the Labor Party is to survive as the prime mover in the development and implementation of the public polity – the party of new ideas – its policy makers will need to draw on all the available resources, reaching out beyond its own resources and ranks.  This points to a future role for independent but dedicated resources like the Whitlam Institute itself.  This was Gough’s own deep hope as he watched the Institute grow during his rich and mellow autumnal years.

    Partly because of his long and active public life, there is a timelessness about Gough Whitlam’s legacy, extraordinary for a working politician who reached the heights of his achievement forty years ago and whose Prime Ministership lasted only three years.  But I always emphasise that Gough Whitlam was also very much a man of his time.  His vision of a more equal Australia, a more independent Australia, a more inclusive, generous and tolerant Australia, a more forward-looking and outward looking Australia, belongs to all time.  But the means by which he sought to advance Australia towards that vision reflected his own times, the influences, pre-occupations and demands of his time, the political, constitutional, social and economic opportunities and constraints of his time.  Hence his insistence on contemporary relevance.  Here in St. Kilda Town Hall, closing his great campaign in 1972, he invoked Ben Chifley’s “light on the hill”.  His program was not the light on the hill; but he shone a bright light along the path.

    Far be it from me to presume to put words into Gough Whitlam’s mouth, at least now that he cannot speak for himself.  But I do believe that his first advice to his successors – the Labor leadership, the members, supporters and well-wishers – as they pursue their tasks of shaping and re-shaping Labor policies, Australian policies, for the 21st century, in times and circumstances every bit as daunting and challenging as those he faced in his time – I believe that his watchword would be for them, as his instruction was so often to me:

    “Contemporary relevance, comrade”.

     

  • We should expect more.

    In this article in The Guardian, Richard Flanagan, the Booker Prize winner, refers to the increasing ugliness in Australian public life.  He says ‘Writing my novel “The Narrow Road to the Deep North” I came to conclude that great crimes like the Death Railway did not begin with the first beating or murder on that grim line of horror in 1943. They began decades before with politicians, public figures and journalists promoting the idea of some people being less than people’.  He makes the case that the brutality and cruelty we now see has been developing for years. I think it really began with the Howard Government in 1996. To read this article, see the link below.  John Menadue

    http://gu.com/p/4663q/sbl

  • John Menadue. Mother Merkel and 800,000 refugees

    In September last year I posted an article about the Heroism of Angela Merkel in her generous response to asylum seekers arriving in Germany.

    She is holding to her course but the difficulties are increasing. The attacks on women in Cologne by men who were reported to be of Arab or North African decent on New Year’s Eve coloured attitudes. This unfortunate event and growing concern has resulted in Angela Merkel’s approval rating dropping from a high of 75% almost a year ago to 46% now.

    It was always going to be difficult and leadership in this area will always be politically fraught. It is so easy for the unscrupulous to appeal to the fear of foreigners, the outsider and the person who is different.

    The arrival of newcomers in any country is probably the greatest test of leadership.

    Ben Chifley made a courageous decision that Australia should accept large numbers of Jewish people following the disastrous events of WWII in Europe. He didn’t do any public polling or focus groups. If he had and was influenced by it, we would not have accepted Jewish refugees.

    In the 1970s, Malcolm Fraser didn’t wait for political polling to decide if we should accept refugees from Indochina. I am sure that if he had commissioned any polling, it would have told him to be careful.

    In Australia every group of new arrivals, whether migrants or refugees, has encountered opposition. but we have got through these difficulties and as a community we now look back with pride with what we have done in accepting people from Germany, the Baltic countries, Italy, Turkey, and Indochina.

    The opposition to Angela Merkel is nothing new. It will need courage and skill to see off those who resent her country helping vulnerable people.  Perhaps like Australians in receiving newcomers, the Germans will also get satisfaction out of knowing that they responded well and that not only the newcomers, but the German people were beneficiaries.

    Repost from September 2015

    With its sometimes dark history, Germany is facing a great test with the unprecedented arrival of asylum seekers .There are conflicting signs of great generosity, disappointment, anger, hope, mistrust and honesty. A great drama is being played out.

    With the support of her political opponents in the Social Democratic Party, Angela Merkel of the Conservative Christian Democratic Union is grappling with courage and determination a trial for the heart of Germany. She warned ‘If Europe fails on the question of refugees, its close connection with universal civil rights will be destroyed’. 

    In an article in Spiegel Online on 31 August, staff correspondents wrote of the ‘Dark Germany and the Bright Germany.  Which side will prevail under the strain of refugees.’

    They said

    How long will the alliance of reason hold up? … As many as 800,000 refugees and migrants may arrive in Germany this year. … and even if we don’t really know how things will develop in coming years, one thing is certain;  the numbers aren’t likely to drop appreciably … it is also certain that the newcomers will change our country. Germans have only recently become used to the idea that they live in a country of immigration and now, the next illusion is being destroyed;  that there is such a thing as controlled immigration. It isn’t just the best minds that are coming to us; it is people fleeing Assad’s barrel bombs and Islamic State brutality. They are running for their lives, whether they are illustrious or illiterate.

    The good news is that most Germans don’t have a problem with this. Sixty percent are of the opinion that the country can absorb the huge numbers of refugees currently arriving. And a new form of civility is developing, one that isn’t just being driven by pricks of conscience and the weight of the past. Rather, it is fuelled by the joy of doing good. But how long will it last?

    Mother Merkel as many refugees now call her, is showing courage and leadership, something we lack in Australia. She is finding the road rocky and hilly, but she offers great hope. She is appealing to the better angels of the German people        John Menadue

    For a full account of the Spiegel article, see link below:  http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/spiegel-cover-story-the-new-germany-a-1050406.html

  • Tessa Morris-Suzuki. Tony Abbott, What have you done for peace?

    On 23 February, Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a major national security speech, chided Muslim leaders for showing insufficiently sincere commitment to peace. “I’ve often heard western leaders describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it”, he said. Abbott also called on immigrants to Australia to “be as tolerant of others as we are of them”.

    The vast majority of Australians are appalled by the cruel and ultimately self-destructive violence of groups like ISIS, and by the crimes of the clearly deranged Martin Place gunman. They rightly applaud when leading Muslim figures speak up for peace, as the Grand Mufti of Australia and the Australian National Imam’s Council did in unequivocally condemning the Martin Place violence, and as the head of the Paris Mosque and other French Muslim leaders did in denouncing the “odious crimes” of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.

    But let us turn the question around: Tony Abbott, what have you done to bring peace to our community? At a time of rising Islamophobia and widespread ignorance in the Australian community about the history and teachings of Islam, better education promoting ethnic and religious harmony and mutual understanding is desperately needed. Where is the Abbott government’s leadership on this? Peace cannot be imposed simply by tightening security laws. It requires long-term sustained and serious commitment to building the foundations for social harmony. What plans or policies have Abbott or his ministers put in place to create a more tolerant and harmonious Australian society?

    Last September, in a speech to the National Press Club, Abbott said ‘I’ve shifted from being a critic to a supporter of multiculturalism, because it eventually dawned on me that migrants were coming to Australia not to change us but to join us.’ But multicultural harmony does not just happen by itself. It requires hard work to sustain it. Where are the signs of the Abbott government’s hard work? Where is the evidence that our prime minister means it when he speaks of multiculturalism?

    I live in Canberra, a city with the highest standard of living and the highest education levels in the Australia, and I supervise a substantial number of Asian postgraduate students who come to this country to study, and some of whom go on be become Australian citizens. Many Asian students I have supervised has spoken to me of encountering racist abuse on the streets of our capital city. Incidents (including being insulted and spat at by complete strangers) have left some of them shocked and deeply shaken. Is this what Abbott means when he asks immigrants to Australia to “be as tolerant of others as we are of them”?

    The fact that this sort of abuse still occurs unchecked in our national capital is an alarming indication of the failure of government, educators and media to show leadership in creating a peaceful multicultural society. By ignoring these profound issues, while making ignorant and ill-conceived public criticisms of “immigrants” and “Muslims” for their lack of commitment to tolerance and peace, the Abbott government is damaging the social cohesion of our society and contributing to social problems that are likely to haunt Australia for decades to come.

    Australia needs leaders who mean it when they speak of peace, harmony and multiculturalism. If our current leaders cannot do this, then they are unfit to lead, and it is time for others to step forward and show that they can fill the political and moral vacuum.

    Tessa Morris-Suzuki is an ANU College of Asia and the Pacific Japanese history professor and an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow.

     

  • Brian Johnstone. The forgotten children. The ethical dimension.

    Professor Gillian Triggs, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, has found that by reason of its policy of the continued retention of children of asylum seekers, Australia has been and remains in breach of its international obligations. This applies to both major political parties. The legal argument is clear and has not been refuted. The best the Prime Minister could offer was bluster, condemning the report as a “transparent stitch-up.” Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson conceded that retaining children in detention was not in anyone’s interest, but provided no justification for continuing the detention.

    The Report of the Commission argues that asylum seeker families and children have been left “. . . [i]n a legal black hole in which their rights and dignity have been denied.” This ethical claim needs supporting argument.

    Contemporary philosophers and lawyers have been working to clarify the notion of dignity. A leading exponent is Charles Foster, Fellow of Green Templeton College, and University of Oxford in Human Dignity in Bioethics and Law (2011).

    Foster cites Christopher McCrudden’s summary of the basic, minimal agreed content of the notion of dignity drawn from international human rights texts; there are three points. The first is that “Every human being possesses an intrinsic worth merely by being human.” The second is that “This intrinsic worth should be recognised and respected by others;” it follows that some ways of treating others are inconsistent with this dignity or required by this dignity. The third is that the state exists for the sake of the individual person and not vice versa.   The first point is ‘ontological;’ it refers to the being of the person. The second is relational; it concerns ways in which persons connect with each other. The third is political; it expresses the basic priorities that should govern political judgments and activities.

    Foster begins his account with a question: “What makes humans thrive?” This was expressed in traditional philosophy drawing on Aristotle as “flourishing.” We can clarify what dignity requires and what violates dignity by asking what enables people to thrive. It is important for Foster’s argument that we can meaningfully ask this question not only of mature individuals, who we may presume are fully rational and free, but of the youngest children and of the most disabled. Foster argues that to make sound ethical and legal decisions we have to inquire empirically what is good for us.

    We can connect Foster’s arguments with the present debates in Australia. As cited by Kim Oates in his recent contribution, the Australian Government’s own Early Years Learning Framework describes three foundations as the basis for healthy childhood growth and progress for pre-schoolers: “Belonging, being and becoming.” We can adopt the same three points to develop an account of dignity that is more specifically related to the present Australian situation.

    To thrive, a human person needs to belong, that is to be part of a human community; this is the relational aspect of dignity. This community will normally be a family, but it could also be, of course, another group that takes over the role of the family. A family gives to its members and in particular to children what they need to thrive; food, clothing, affection, education. Children need to form relationships so as to establish a secure sense of themselves. Children characteristically achieve this by play-based behaviour. Learning to be themselves corresponds to the ‘ontological’ element of dignity.

    They are enabled to become more fully themselves by engaging their capacities to learn and develop. Becoming is another word for thriving. The adults who are responsible for the children themselves thrive by engaging in these processes on behalf of children.

    Thriving is the basis of dignity. But dignity entails more than this; it requires recognition. A parent or responsible adult recognizes the child as one who has inherent worth and enables a child to thrive. But the parent or adult who acts in such a way receives recognition also, recognition as a person of dignity.

    Dignity is always a two-way notion; when one person recognises the dignity of another, the other accepts that recognition and in so doing recognises the dignity of the first. When the first receives that recognition she can then recognise her own dignity.   I cannot recognise dignity in myself while I act in such a way as to refuse to recognise the dignity of the other.

    Dignity in one important aspect entails recognition of self, of one’s own inherent worth. But the individual cannot recognise her or his own worth, without recognising the worth of those others with whom they are engaged. An adult who denies to a child for whom she or he is responsible what the child needs to thrive is denying to himself what that adult needs to thrive, namely recognition of his own inherent worth. A community of persons who recognize their own inherent worth or dignity will want to protect others whose dignity they recognize, especially when that dignity is being violated. Such protection is a requirement of justice which is the basis of rights.

    Finally, the third element of the generally accepted notion of dignity also applies: the state exists for the sake of persons; persons may not be used as means for the benefit of the state and much less for keeping a political party in power.

    We can now return to the empirical investigation that Charles Foster requires. The report of the Australian Human Rights Commission on Children in Detention, “The Forgotten Children” clearly provides ample empirical evidence that the children in detention are not being adequately provided with the support that would enable them to thrive. Rather, the contrary is the case: they are being treated in ways that seriously damage their thriving.

    The case against the present policy of the Australian government regarding the detention of children can be summed up as follows:

    • The government is in violation of its international treaty obligations.
    • It is using the children as means to support its policies on refugees so as to remain in power, thus violating the due relationships between the state and individual persons.
    • Finally, those who support and implement these policies are violating the dignity of the children. In so doing they are denying their own dignity.   They make it impossible for themselves to recognise their own dignity. They also make it impossible for us, the citizens of Australia, to recognise their dignity.

  • Peter Day. Life is sacred, but ….

    The “other” is no longer a brother or sister to be loved, but simply someone who disturbs my life and my comfort … In this globalized world, we have fallen into globalized indifference.  We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business!      (Pope Francis)

    I had the misfortune recently of watching the Four Corners investigation into live-baiting in the greyhound industry – trainers were filmed using live rabbits, piglets and possums to instil the blood lust in dogs in order to improve their chasing/racing skills.

    I imagine there will be – it’s already started – an almighty avalanche of anger directed towards those who pursue cruelty in order to benefit financially – and justifiably so.

    Life is sacred – even the lives of rabbits, possums, and piglets.

    Similarly, there is an almighty howl of protest concerning the pending executions of drug traffickers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran – and justifiably so.

    Life is sacred – even the lives of drug traffickers.

    And, what of those forgotten children in Australian immigration detention centres: again, much angst and chest beating – and justifiably so.

    Life is sacred – even the lives of ‘illegals’ and strangers and ‘queue jumpers’.

    Perhaps one day the mainstream media and the public might dare to pursue, also with moral courage, the plight of the unborn; tens of thousands of whom disappear without trace each year – I’m especially concerned for those victims of late-term abortions (i.e. 16 weeks and beyond).

    Life is sacred – even the lives of the tiny and ‘unseen’.

    In regards to the latter, a notoriously emotive and neuralgic issue, it is vital that we do not allow the bullying of religious nutters and moralists to justify a “we cannot afford to go there” approach – to justify shutting down debate.

    Indeed, is it not the case that in order to counter this rigid and unattractive polemic, and to ensure I am not seen to be in their camp; we have, as a collective, tended to gravitate towards the more comfortable and acceptable narrative of the so called ‘social progressives’; the one that espouses tolerance and individual freedom; the one that encourages a polite acquiescence – but at what price and at whose expense?

    Surely, in a world where whales and rabbits and old trees and heritage buildings are treated as precious, as of significant value – and rightly so, there is room for a mainstream and adult conversation about those other forgotten children.

    I am not in any way suggesting yet another unseemly finger-pointing exercise, nor am I advocating criminalisation. Indeed, compassion compels one to want to walk alongside a woman confronting such a choice, even to cry with her.

    Further, this issue cannot be reduced to simplistic labelling – i.e.  you’re either pro-abortion or anti-abortion, pro-life or pro-choice – left v right etc. It’s far more complex and layered than that.

    What I am advocating is a robust and reasoned, if sometimes heated, public conversation like those we have around those other conservation issues alluded to above.

    Perhaps such a conversation might begin with a question: “What does it mean to be human?”

    For now, at least, we seem to be mired in more of that globalised indifference which insists upon silence.

    Peter Day is a Catholic parish priest in Canberra.

     

     

  • The Forgotten Children.

     

  • Kim Oates.  The Forgotten Children

    I have just read the report of the Australian Human Rights Commission on Children in Detention “The Forgotten Children”.

    It is clear, factual and unemotional.  It is supported by evidence and is non-partisan. It is not on the side of any political party. It is on the side of children.

    It made me ashamed about what is being done to these children. It made me sad that our nation can be so cruel. It made me angry about the way the two main political parties responded on the release of the report. The Labour Party was largely silent, although much of what is documented in the report occurred on their watch. The Liberal/National party was belligerent, ignoring the seriousness of the message, blaming others while simultaneously congratulating themselves and trying to shoot the highly respected messenger, Professor Gillian Triggs.

    I have not visited a detention centre.  But I am a paediatrician and have wide experience in child protection and with disadvantaged children. I know the devastating effects of abuse and deprivation in childhood, effects which often continue throughout life.

    I know the paediatricians who gave evidence to the inquiry. They are highly regarded in the medical community. They are not political people, they don’t exaggerate. They care about children.

    The inquiry was established to investigate how life in immigration detention may affect the health and development of children. It interviewed 112 children and their families about the health impacts of detention, using a standardised questionnaire. It held five public hearings and received 239 submissions.

    One of its aims was to see if Australia met its international human rights obligations, such as:  appropriateness of facilities where children are detained; measures to ensure their safety and provision of education, recreation and health services.

    Having pointed out that mandatory immigration detention, especially of children, is contrary to Australia’s international obligations, the report states “It is troubling that members of the Government and Parliament and Departmental officials are either uninformed, or choose to ignore, the human rights treaties to which Australia is a party”.

    The report noted that our leaders, while talking about the value of detention as a deterrent, do not believe this themselves: “As the medical evidence has mounted over the last eight months of the Inquiry, it has become increasingly difficult to understand the policy of both Labor and Coalition Governments. Both the Hon Chris Bowen MP, as a former Minister for Immigration, and the Hon Scott Morrison MP, the current Minister for Immigration, agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers. No satisfactory rationale for the prolonged detention of children seeking asylum in Australia has been offered”

    The Australian Government’s own Early Years Learning Framework describes three foundations as the basis for healthy childhood growth and progress for pre-schoolers: ‘Belonging, Being and Becoming.’

    The first foundation, “Belonging” points out that pre-schoolers need to belong to a family and a community if they are to establish secure relationships and a healthy sense of self.

    However the report says “All evidence to this Inquiry indicates that the institutionalised structure and routine of detention disrupts family functioning and the relationships between parents and children. Children do not have access to a private family home where it would be expected families would spend time away from other people sharing meals, engaging in shared activities, and having rest-time on their own.”

    The second foundation, “Being” emphasises  play-based learning because play provides the most appropriate stimulus for brain development,  that childhood is a special time in life where children need time to play, try new things and have fun.

    There was little evidence of this need being met for children in detention. 

    “My youngest child has no toys. He only pushes a chair around” said one mother.

    The third foundation ‘Becoming’, is about the learning and development that young children experience. But the most common concern of parents was that their children had little opportunity to learn socialisation skills. Many reported that their pre-schooler was unable to get along with other children.

    These three foundations, established by our government for healthy child development are denied children in detention, children who are under the guardianship of the Minister.

    The inquiry clearly showed that detention was bad for the mental health and wellbeing of children. Almost all children and their parents spoke about their worry, restlessness, anxiety and difficulties eating and sleeping. Thirty four percent of children had mental health disorders that, if they were not in detention with limited health services, would require referral to a specialist child mental health service for psychiatric treatment.  This compares with less than two percent of children in the Australian population.

    Children were reported to experience tearfulness, anxiety, delayed or absent speech, regression in behaviour and nightmares. Observers noted tantrums, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, frustration and agitation. One mother told the enquiry:

    “My daughter is 2 years old. Five months ago she started behaving abnormally. She wakes up screaming and crying in the middle of the night. She always hits us; she pulls my hair and scratches our faces. She has tantrums every day. She broke my glasses. She gets upset without any reason”. 

    The Royal Australasian College of Physicians submitted their concern about ‘the long-term impact of detention on children, noting that the ‘psychological distress resulting from detention can persist for years after release’.

    The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists stated  “… detention of children is detrimental to children’s development and mental health and has the potential to cause long-term damage to social and emotional functioning.”

    This report needs to be taken seriously. It should not be used as an opportunity to blame.  It is an opportunity to right a wrong. It is about protecting children.

    Kim Oates is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the Sydney University Medical School. He was formerly Chief Executive of the Sydney Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

     

     

     

  • Marie Coleman. Human Rights Commission and the forgotten children.

    In February 2015 the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse found that Cardinal George Pell, the former Archbishop of Sydney, had placed the church’s financial interests above his obligation to a victim of childhood sexual abuse.

    In February 2015 the Prime Minister of Australia, supported by his Ministers, has launched a blistering attack on a distinguished legal scholar and President of the independent statutory Australian Rights Commission, for a report which has found that both the Labor and Coalition Governments have failed to protect children in mandatory detention from abuse and mental and physical harm.

    Professor Gillian Triggs has found that Australia has been and remains in breach of its international obligations- under both parties. Among other straightforward and completely nonpartisan recommendations she has recommended that “An independent guardian be appointed for unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Australia” rather than the current position of the Minister for Immigration being both the guardian of such children, and the Minister responsible for their mandatory detention.

    The Royal Commission has been investigating historic instances of abuse, exploring the approaches which institutions responsible for such abuse have responded to reports of individual cases, as well as options for reparations.

    The thrust of the AHRC Report, The Forgotten Children, is to explore and document what have been the outcomes for children placed in mandatory detention, and to develop future policies and legislation which will prevent such dreadful outcomes ever again being visited on children.

    The Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton MP, has asserted that the AHRC Report is irrelevant because any instances of maltreatment of children have been historical. The second leg of the Government’s response to the AHRC report seems to be that because Labor did it, then the Coalition’s actions, if harm has been done, are justifiable.

    The Opposition has essentially mumbled.

    The unpalatable situation is that neither Labor nor the Coalition has any way to escape from the fact that one outcome of their policies on immigration and refugees (stopping the boats) has been to put children through hell, and put Australia in breach of its obligations under international law.

    No equivocations about whether for an adolescent girl to go mad and cut herself on Nauru is better than drowning at sea, no claiming that this wouldn’t have happened if the Coalition had allowed Labor to send refugees to Malaysia, will alter the fact that neither Labor nor the Coalition has been able to articulate an acceptable , transparent and  legal method of dealing with the inevitable pressures from populations moving from political anarchy, oppression, assassinations and starvation in home countries.

    The cost of current off shore detention of refugees in 2014-15 was estimated by an Immigration Department official as $1 billion. Running the detention centre on Manus Island has cost taxpayers $632.3 million, and the operational cost of Nauru was $582.4 million, a Senate estimates hearing was told. That’s a billion dollars a year for the foreseeable future…without giving thought to the ultimate health costs for the treatment of health and psychological damages to the refugees. It doesn’t include other costs such as the role of the Australian Navy and Customs in ‘on water’ activities.

    Surely it isn’t beyond the capacity of this nation’s leaders to develop alternative strategies?

    Former NSW Premier Nick Greiner described as “awful” the fact that Australia was the only nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that indefinitely detained children in mandatory detention.

    “The principle that Australia … finds it necessary to be virtually the only civilised nation that does this, I think is just abhorrent,” he said….”we now ought to look at the humanity of what we do”, he said.

    Last month NSW Premier Baird called on Mr Abbott, a close friend, to do more to accept refugees. Asked if children should be released from immigration detention, Mr Baird said “that’s something I’ve supported for a long time”.

    In an interview with 3AW, Mr Abbott said the commission should be ashamed of itself and that its report was a “blatantly partisan” and political exercise.

    He said the commission should acknowledge the government for stopping the flow of asylum seeker boats and dramatically reducing the number of children in detention.

    “I reckon the human rights commission ought to be sending a note of congratulations to Scott Morrison saying well done, mate,” Mr Abbott said, referring to the former immigration minister.

    Asked if he felt any guilt about the remaining 200 children still in detention, Mr Abbott was blunt: “None whatsoever.”

    “The most compassionate thing you can do is stop the boats,” he said.

    He said the only way to ensure there were no children in detention was to ensure there were no boats arriving.

    Numbers of children in immigration detention peaked at nearly 2000 in mid-2013 under Labor. There are now only about 200 children still detained.

    The Australian Human Rights Commission report wants actions taken to prevent such a situation ever developing again.

    “The human rights commission ought to be ashamed of itself,” Mr Abbott said, when asked about the report.

    So that’s all right. The Prime Minister thinks his policy is tops. A great policy in fact.

    As the distinguished PUP Senator for Queensland, Glenn Lazarus might put it ‘you can polish a turd, but it’s still a turd’.

    Marie Coleman AO PSM is a former senior Commonwealth Public Servant with a background in social policy.

  • Peter Day. The Lucky Country

    Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,

     We’ll toil with hearts and hands
    To make this Commonwealth of ours
    Renowned of all the lands.
    For those who’ve come across the seas,
    We’ve boundless plains to share.

    With courage let us all combine
    To advance Australia fair.     

                  (Our National Anthem, Verse 2)

    The nature of politics these past few years, especially that practiced by the two main parties, reminds one of a bitter marriage struggle – one destined for the courts. So consumed have ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ been by their anger, by their need for revenge, and by their need to win at all costs, they’ve forgotten the ‘children’.

    This toxic process, and breakdown of civility, leaves little room for those who cannot compete. So the children get pushed aside as the bickering gets louder, as pettiness replaces depth, and as power and fear leave love and compassion in their wake.

    This appears particularly pertinent in regard to those seeking asylum – especially children. Too often their voices are drowned-out by the self-centered tantrums and fear-mongering of our political parents.

    Such leadership is disappointing because it undermines sensible and reasoned public discourse. We become wedged by emotive opposites: It’s left versus right, bleeding hearts v cold hearts, queue-jumpers versus the desperate, “stop the boats” v ”let them come”.

    Beneath this canopy of emotion and fear, people tend to become more tribal than usual – more susceptible to propaganda as well. Thus, when we are told that our borders and lifestyle are threatened; our natural response is to build a wall to keep the ‘enemy’ out. Before we know it, we find ourselves living in a sort of gated community: one that covets security, prosperity and the status quo.  And anyone who threatens this way of life, “this tribe of mine”, is either refused entry or banished. 

    A Parable

        There was a Lucky Country that enjoyed freedom and prosperity, and lived in luxury every day.  At its doorstep arrived a fearful beggar; hungry and frightened after a long journey; covered with sores, and longing to eat what fell from the Lucky Country’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

        The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The Lucky Country also lost its life and was buried.

        In its torment, it looked up and saw Abraham far away with the beggar by his side. The Lucky Country called out to Abraham, ‘Father, have pity on me and send the beggar to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this torment.’

        But Abraham replied, ‘Remember, in your lifetime you received many good things: freedom, prosperity, comfort; while this poor beggar received bad things: political oppression, poverty, abandonment. Now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 

        ‘And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

        The Lucky Country answered, ‘Then I beg you, Abraham, send the beggar to my family, for I have 22 million brothers and sisters. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

        Abraham replied, ‘They hear the stories, they hear the cries, they even hear the Word; let them listen to these.’

        ‘No, father Abraham,’ said the Lucky Country, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will change their minds and hearts.’

        Abraham said to the Lucky Country, ‘If they do not listen to all that is before them, they will not be convinced even if their Christ, who has Risen from the dead, speaks to them.’

    (Adapted from Luke 16:19-31)

    Of course, as a nation, we cannot simply say, “Everyone welcome, no matter what.” We do need an orderly migration process. We do have a moral responsibility to bankrupt the people-smuggling trade. We do need to make some tough calls. But we also need to ensure that the response to the ‘Lazaruses’ at our feet is not shaped by silly slogans and a kind of small-minded nationalism.

    And, while some have tried, none of us is in a position to take the moral high ground either. This is too complex an issue to be hijacked by the self-righteous.

    We are mostly a generous nation. We are mostly a fair nation. We are a Lucky nation. It behoves us, then, to reflect deeply, and humbly, about our obligations to the ‘beggars’ at our feet.

    It prompts the question: Can I forgo a little personal comfort in order to comfort someone else?

    Fr Peter Day is the Parish Priest, Corpus Christi, Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn.

     

  • John Menadue. Fairness, Opportunity and Security – Filling the policy vacuum

    I sense that there is great public concern that both the government and opposition keep playing the political and personal game at the expense of informed public discussion of important policy issues.

    We have become concerned about the trustworthiness of our political, business and media elite. Insiders and vested interests are undermining the public interest. Money is unduly influencing political decisions. There is gridlock on important issues like climate change and taxation.

    After a near death experience Tony Abbott has said the he is open to new thinking and ways of governing. ‘Good government begins today’  Time will tell. Bill Shorten has said that 2015 will be the year of ideas. I hope so.

    In this blog over the next few months I will be posting a series of articles on important policy issues. I posted a three parter on health policy on January 27, 28 and 29.

    There will be range of contributors.Some  have contributed in the past to this blog

    Each of the policy articles will be about 2000 words. They will not be “pie in the sky’ but realistic, given our political and financial constraints.

    It is planned that these policy articles will be published in a book by ATF Press in October/November this year

    Policy areas to be canvassed

    Economic policy

    Fixing the budget

    Taxation

    Federalism

    Productivity

    Job creation and participation

    Foreign policy

    Security, both military and soft power.

    Health

     Development of our human capital in the fields of education, science, research and development and innovation.

    Transport and infrastructure

    Population/migration/refugees

    Welfare priorities

    Retirement incomes

    Indigenous affairs

    Communications and the Arts

    Environment and climate change

    Inequality

    Role of government including tackling corruption and bad behaviour

    Democratic renewal – the lack of trust in government and the hollowing out of our political parties.

    Terrorism and internal security whilst protecting of our freedoms

     

  • Melanie Noden. The Forgotten Children.

    Earlier this week, a damning report by the Australian Human Rights Commission into children in detention was tabled, alleging extensive human rights violations. The Report clearly spells out the negative physical and psychological impact that policies of indefinite detention have on children and brings to light the concerns that many people already have about the treatment of asylum seeker children in Australia’s care.

    The Report recommends that a royal commission needs to be established to  examine the breach of the Commonwealth’s duty of care, focussing in particular on the use of force against children in detention, and allegations of sexual assault.

    Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission said,“It is troubling that members of the Government and Parliament and Departmental officials are either uninformed, or choose to ignore, the human rights treaties to which Australia is a party”.  

    The Report was issued after 1,129 children in detention were interviewed. It shows there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assaults.

    The Report alleges human rights violations and says that children being detained indefinitely on Nauru are “suffering from extreme levels of physical, emotional, psychological and developmental distress“.

    Recommendations of the report are as follows:

    • all children to be released from Australian mainland detention and from detention centres on Nauru
    • laws be introduced to make sure children are not detained beyond health, identity and security checks
    • laws be introduced to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
    • No child to be sent offshore for processing unless it is clear that their human rights will be respected
    • An independent guardian be appointed for unaccompanied children on Christmas Island

    It is Gillian Triggs’ hope that the Report will, “…prompt fair-minded Australians, Members of Parliament and the Federal Government to reconsider our asylum seeker policies and to release all children and their families immediately”

    She also stated that, “It is imperative that Australian governments never again use the lives of children to achieve political or strategic advantage. The aims of stopping people smugglers and deaths at sea do not justify the cruel and illegal means adopted. Australia is better than this.”

    I and my colleagues in the sector welcome the recommendation to establish a royal commission to investigate what has been happening behind the closed gates of the detention centres to ensure clear parameters are established for future policy.

    To this effect, The Asylum Seekers Centre has joined the Refugee Council of Australia and other agencies in signing a joint statement calling for legislative change to ensure that children are not subject to immigration detention in the future.

    Melanie Noden is the CEO of the Asylum Seekers Centre, Sydney.

    The report can be found here:https://humanrights.gov.au/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014

     

  • Feathers ruffled in the Department of Immigration nest.

    In the e-magazine, The Mandarin, Stephen Easton has reported that ‘highly experienced bureaucrats have vacated the Department of Immigration and Border Protection since its amalgamation with Customs began last year. … There are signs confidence in the Department is low among Immigration bureaucrats, including some of Australia’s most committed and experienced experts. Deputy secretaries Liz Cosson, Wendy Southern and Mark Cormack have all handed in their resignations. … At least two First Assistant Secretaries have also jumped ship.’ This story can be found by clicking on the link below.

    http://www.themandarin.com.au/21226-feathers-ruffled-hawks-take-immigration-nest/

  • Michael Sainsbury. FIRB credibility shot with execution of Chinese gangster.

    Liu Han, the Chinese criminal whose billion dollar bid for Australian mining company Sundance Resources sailed through the Foreign Investment Review Board with barely the bat of an eyelid has been executed along with his brother, Liu Wei once one of China’s ten most wanted murderers.

    So endeth one of the most embarrassing episodes in recent Australian corporate history that exposed the incompetence not just of FIRB but of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as well.

    It was very clear by stories published in the media and in publicly available information that Liu was a very questionable character, almost certainly a gangster. Much of this information was available using simple Internet searches. The directors of Sundance also appear to have wilfully ignored evidence relating to Liu Han’s company Hanlong and his own background, it seems they did little if any due diligence in their unseemly rush to unload the company. Shareholders and Australian citizens deserve better.

    In the aftermath of the deal, five executives of Hanlong were caught insider trading by ASIC. It’s a crime committed with obvious and monotonous regularity on the Australian Securities Exchange, yet so very rarely does ASIC move. So ham-fisted were the efforts of the Hanlong crew that even plodding ASIC officials were forced to take action. But when they did they inexplicably allowed one of the accused, Stephen Xiao, to return to Hong Kong to seek medical treatment, Australia’s world renowned doctors apparently, were not good enough. To absolutely no one’s surprise, Xiao reneged on his promise to come back. Would any reasonable person?

    But he was unlucky enough to be the victim of some rare karma when he was returned by Chinese police, clearly as part of the deal with he Australian Federal Police to help them track down Chinese officials shoveling ill-gotten gains and escaping the clutches of the ongoing anti –corruption purge inside the ruling Chinese Communist Party into Australia, via the previous Labor administration’s questionable $5 million buy-a-citizenship visa program and its Abbott government successor

    It was this same campaign that swept up Liu Han. Only a few years earlier Liu had managed, perhaps corruptly, to obtain foreign investment approval from China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the top economic ministry which is now under heavy scrutiny from anti-corruption investigators. Already a number of its senior officials have gone down. It is to be hoped that FIRB has learned some lessons and is keeping a very close eye on these developments.

    The AFP’s deal with Chinese authorities raises serious moral and ethical questions about whether Australia should be complicit in returning people to possible death by state execution a la the Liu brothers. The heavily Christian Abbott Cabinet – Julie Bishop is the only senior member who does not claim to be a practicing Christian – should take a good hard look in the mirror when such deals are done on their watch.

    As Chinese investment in Australia continues apace, particularly by private individuals and companies, it remains unclear whether FIRB has learnt to use Google or are any better equipped to investigate Chinese  – or for that matter any other foreigners investing in Australia. The AFP is already under a cloud for its role in delivering the Bali Nine into the hands of Indonesian authorities and, in the case of at least two of that group, imminent death by firing squad. Perhaps Australians won’t care so much when a corrupt Chinese businessperson and perhaps his or her spouse are caught in Australia and returned to China, only to be executed by the government – but they should – it would mean Australia condones and is complicit in murder.

    The Australian government, and its agencies needs to sharply, lift its game in understanding both foreign companies who want to invest in Australia as well as in  clarifying its position on sending people – Australians or foreign nationals – into situations where they could face state sanctioned murder.

    Michael Sainsbury is a journalist who works out of Bangkok. This article was first published in his China blog on 9 February 2015. 

  • Rosemary Breen- Living water in Myanmar

     I listened to Rosemary Breen  from  Inverell speak at my local church about the work she is doing in Myanmar to help poor villagers get access to clean water.  She was inspiring and challenging. We all know that polluted water is a cause of dysentery, diarrhoea, infant mortality and early deaths across all age groups. Rosemary Breen decided she would do something about it. 

    If you could help financially you could greatly improve the health of many young people and reduce the death rate. My own parish contributed well over $20 000 in a Christmas appeal. As each tank costs about $US 2 000 that gift will bring clean drinking water to over 10 villages.

    Rosemary Breen gives her time freely and pays for her own travel expenses.

    Can you help?       John Menadue. 

    Rosemary tells her story below.

    I began going to Myanmar in 2004, having been asked by some sisters of an international religious community to research the possibility of their starting a community there.  Eventually this happened and I would return to stay with the sisters in Yangon and help with a teacher-training course.

    About four years ago, I worked with a young woman, Maw Maw, who was trying to get a scholarship to train in early education in the USA.  This didn’t eventuate and she finally got her training in Manila.  On her return, she told me of the great need for clean water in what is known as the Dry Zone in Central Myanmar where she was going to be living and where, eventually she hoped to open a small school .Her teacher was Saya Toe, who became the organiser of the water-tank project which grew out of this tiny seed which Maw Maw had planted in my mind and heart.

    Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 1.58.46 pm

    I had been involved in a small way in water projects in Africa and felt strongly that clean drinking water was one of our basic rights and I had already financed the building of a water-tank in the southern part of Myanmar after a cyclone had hit that part of the country.  And so it started!

    Various friends donated generously to this project. I spoke at meetings and groups and then received a very generous donation from a Trust in the UK.  So what began as a very modest idea began to grow bigger and bigger and last January I visited the forty villages and schools which now have tanks, some 3000- 5000 gallons, depending on requirements.  The cost of each tank is about $US2000…  When I returned in December 2014, the 74th water-tank was being built, much to the delight of the villagers and the little local school.  A special joy was being accompanied by a young woman who had come to Australia as a refugee with literally nothing in the early 1980s and was sponsored by our local refugee resettlement group.  Her family has already financed four water-tanks and Hieu-Duc is already planning another fund-raiser.  What an asset to Australia and to the world are these refugees that we provide protection for.

    The building of the tanks is quite simple – there is a dedicated team which goes round the villages. This means these men now have a regular income. Guttering is put on the roofs, pipes affixed and the tank is built on site, using metal mesh, bamboo and cement.  When the monsoon rains come, the tanks quickly fill up.  The local people in the villages help by getting the gravel, stones and water.

    Their labour has been estimated at 17% of the cost.

    At my last visit, a number of school principals and village headmen came to ask if they too could have a water tank. There is still great need.  As one headman said simply, “Please help us – we are so thirsty!”  Last season there was less than usual rainfall. Some tanks were empty but for as little as $20, it was possible to hire a driver and bullock-cart to refill the tanks by making numerous journeys to a well.

    One very great need that I discovered is for a second-hand 4WD. The roads are mostly sandy tracks and often the taxis I had hired could not get through. We had to get out and walk or go by bullock-cart which tested my aged bones!

    Saya Toe has organised all this without any remuneration. He visits each village four times, to discuss the proposition and educate the people who will be responsible for the tank’s maintenance. It has been a mammoth task for him.

    Since last May, the project has come under the auspices of the Global Development Group which looks after sending receipts to donors and getting the money to Saya Toe in Myanmar which previously was quite a problem.  Another advantage is that it is now tax-deductible.

    So to date, 74 villages now have clean drinking water, thanks to donors all round Australia, in the USA and recently the UK.  I pass on to you all the gratitude of so many who have seen clean water as a luxury beyond their reach which we just take for granted.  I still get really moved seeing the school children drinking clean water and know it is thanks to so many who have been inspired to help.

     

    (Living Water Myanmar is an approved project (J812N) with Global Development Group – issuing tax deductible receipts for gifts over $2.   Donate at: www.gdg.org.au/GiveToJ812N)

     

     

    Rosemary Breen can be contacted at lrbreen@nsw.chariot.net.au

  • Tony Smith. Baird’s risk on asylum seekers

    When New South Wales Premier Michael Baird told an Australia Day luncheon that we should be more accepting of asylum seekers, he was taking quite a risk. Baird’s federal Liberal Party colleagues have espoused the hard policy of stopping the boats which the Abbott Government declares is its greatest achievement. It is not unknown for NSW Liberals to openly state their doubts about party policy. During the Howard Government’s campaign against asylum seekers, which used inaccurate phrases such as ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘queue jumpers’ and even ‘sleeper terrorists’, several backbenchers took principled stands against the more extreme aspects of government policy.

    Even those observers who cannot bring themselves to vote Liberal should give credit where it is due. Although not in his electorate, I emailed Bruce Baird when he dissented over refugee policy during the Howard years to congratulate him and thank him. Such principled actions by MPs have the potential to restore our jaded expectations of the political process. Objections to Government policy by Labor MPs can seem like opposition for its own sake, and all too often such objections fail to suggest any decent alternatives.

    More recently, in April 2014, I wrote to then Premier Barry O’Farrell to thank him for expressing concern about Abbott Government plans to amend Racial Discrimination legislation. Mr O’Farrell had sought advice about the possible consequences of softening laws against racial vilification, allegedly in the name of freedom of speech. These plans were roundly condemned by a broad cross-section of Australians and greeted as a sop to bigots.

    It was barely a week after this correspondence that Mr O’Farrell resigned as premier. During hearings at the Independent Commission Against Corruption, O’Farrell apparently answered a question inaccurately. O’Farrell maintained that he did not remember receiving a gift of some rare and expensive wine, a Penfolds Grange Hermitage. When his error was pointed out to him, O’Farrell said that for the sake of the integrity of the office, he would resign.

    Many political observers remain puzzled by O’Farrell’s resignation, thinking that there must be more to the story. Surely, his misleading answer was neither intentional nor serious. Some observers think that more would have emerged about that particular bottle of wine and/or its donor. They think that O’Farrell resigned to protect either himself or associates from further allegations, questioning and exposure. No-one though, raised the possibility of a link between O’Farrell’s stance against the proposed amendments to the RDA and his subsequent embarrassment before ICAC. Perhaps few observers are as cynical as I about the lack of ethics within political parties. Perhaps I am prone to accept conspiracy theories too readily. But one day, we will almost certainly learn more about the situation surrounding the demise of a premier who seemed to be both genuine and compassionate and whose popularity, mid-term, was as high as could be expected.

    On the Labor side of politics, John Robertson’s resignation as parliamentary leader seems as premature as O’Farrell’s departure. Robertson admitted that he had written in support of the perpetrator of the Martin Place hostage situation. However, the man was a constituent and MPs write such letters as a matter of form. Before public reaction could be tested, Robertson said that he had lost the support of unnamed ‘senior colleagues’. It appears that these senior colleagues must have – as the jargon has it – ‘tapped him on the shoulder’. What is clear is that senior colleagues would be those first in line for the top job.

    What also seems evident to anyone not involved in the party’s internal power shuffles is that the need to find a lower house seat for the new Labor leader created a milieu in which local party members must feel that they have been treated shabbily. Voters who became disenchanted with Labor when a number of Ministers seemed to lack a spirit of public service have been reminded of the bad old days. While Robertson might not have been an inspiring leader, under his leadership the party seemed to be regaining the discipline which made it electable during the Carr period from 1995 to the early 2000s.

    Left leaning Liberals like Michael Baird embarrass the party’s Right because they are evidence of how real ‘liberals’ should behave. He must have his fingers crossed that Liberal Party power brokers think they need him too much to ditch him now with an election looming in March. The fact that Baird’s stance on asylum seekers and refugees carries a certain amount of risk makes it all the more admirable.

  • John Menadue. Stopping the boats and turn-backs at sea

    In the Saturday Paper of January 24 this year, in an article by Mike Seccombe, two refugee advocates were quoted as saying:

    ‘Things like offshore processing and TPVs, mandatory detention – these sorts of measures don’t stop the boats.  It’s turnbacks that stop the boats.  It’s when you start dragging people back to Indonesia. That’s what we saw in 2002-03. That’s what we’ve seen again now.’

    and

    ‘The one thing that stops people is sending them back.  If you look back, the way they stopped the outflow from China in 1994, it was by interdiction. The same from Haiti to the US.  Deterrent measures don’t work. Even Nauru, et cetera, by themselves, are not deterrent enough.’

    The facts tell a very different story as I pointed out in an earlier blog of 8 December 2014 “Tony Abbott did not stop the boats ‘which is reposted below. In short, that blog contended

    • It was the decision of the Rudd Government on 19 July 2013 that in future any persons coming by boat and found to be refugees would not be resettled in Australia. People arriving by boat fell dramatically from 4,145 in July 2014 to 837 in September when the change of government occurred. The number continued to fall thereafter. There are obviously lags following a government announcement but the trend after July 2013 is clear. (This downward trend was also helped by two other actions by the Rudd Government. The first was getting Indonesia to impose a visa requirement on Iranians, thereby denying them a visa transit point to Australian territory. The second was ‘enhanced screening’ of Sri Lankans that resulted in high rejection rates and fast return to Sri Lanka).
    • The effects of Operation Sovereign Borders and turn-backs of boats to Indonesia where minor by comparison. In any event OSB would have been impossible if boats had continued to arrive at 47 per month as they had in July 2013.
    • The game changer was Kevin Rudd and offshore processing and denial of resettlement in Australia and not OSB and turn backs.

    John Howard was similarly successful in stopping the boats. In 1999-2000 there were 75 boat arrivals. It fell in subsequent years to 54, 19, 0 and 3.  It worked in the short term but it was undone by two factors.

    • As the concern about long-term detention of asylum seekers in Nauru grew, the Howard Government relaxed its policy and many of the asylum seekers in Nauru were resettled in New Zealand and Australia. It became clear to people smugglers and asylum seekers that even the horrors of Nauru were acceptable if they knew that after some delay they were likely to be resettled in Australia. Andrew Metcalfe, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, told the parliament that the Pacific policies of John Howard could not be repeated because asylum seekers knew that at the end of the day they were likely to be resettled in Australia or New Zealand if they were found to be refugees.
    • The Rudd Government abandoned the Pacific policies of the Howard Government and boat arrivals steadily grew. They increased from 3 in 2007-08 to 23, 117, 89, 110 and 403 by 2012-13. Asylum seekers coming by boat were confident that even if intercepted, they would eventually be settled in Australia if they were found to be refugees.

    There is a good deal that refugee advocates can do to advance the cause of asylum seekers and refugees rather than put a gloss on the facts about offshore processing and denial of resettlement in Australia.

    • Advocate a speed-up in the processing of the 30,000 asylum seekers in Australia whose status and future is still to be determined.
    • Increase the humanitarian quota to 25,000 p.a.
    • Abolish mandatory detention that punishes, does not deter and is very expensive.
    • Negotiate orderly departure arrangements with Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

    Advocacy in these areas is likely to be more productive than continuing an argument which we as refugee advocates have lost. Offshore processing, which the Rudd Government introduced was the game changer. We may not like it but the issue of boat arrivals is really concluded for the foreseeable future. It has been decided by agreement by all the major parties.

    Refugee advocates like me have reluctantly concluded that offshore processing, coupled with denial of any resettlement in Australia did largely stop the boats. That is a fact and claiming that the turn-backs to Indonesia did the job is just not supported by the evidence.

    I concluded some time ago that offshore processing is acceptable provided it is humane, just and efficient – and supported by the UNHCR. None of that is occurring on Manus or Nauru.

     

    Repost:  Tony Abbott did not stop the boats (8 December 2014)

    The data just does not support the never-ending claims by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison that they stopped the boats. The under-resourced and uncritical media accepts the Coalition’s line.

    I will come to the recent data, but first the evidence is clear that action by the Coalition along with the Greens in the Senate to prevent amendments to the Migration Act greatly assisted people-smugglers and boat arrivals from 2011 onwards.

    The rejection of the arrangement with Malaysia by the High Court started the rot. The High Court decision may have been sound in law, but it had powerful consequences for boat arrivals. The arrangement with Malaysia needed improvement but it did provide guarantees that Malaysia had never provided before. The UNHCR was prepared to actively cooperate. When the High Court rejected the Malaysian arrangement in August 2011, irregular maritime arrivals were running at less than 300 per month. That number increased to 1200 by May 2012, and kept on rising.

    The Labor Government attempted to amend the Migration Act to address the problems identified by the High Court but the Coalition together with the Greens blocked the amending legislation. They bashed Malaysia at every opportunity. The failure of the Malaysian arrangement sent a very clear message to people smugglers that boat arrivals would succeed. Boat arrivals were running at over 4,000 per month in July 2013.

    The action by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in association with the Greens triggered this dramatic increase in boat arrivals. Both Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison made it abundantly clear that they did not want to stop the boats with an arrangement such as that with Malaysia. They wanted to stop Labor stopping the boats. Their political intentions were revealed by WikiLeaks that reported that ‘a key Liberal Party strategist told the US embassy in 2009 that the more boats that come the better’. (SMH 10 December 2010). Scott Morrison became Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in December 2009.

    Action by the Coalition in the Senate triggered a large increase in boat arrivals in 2012 and into 2013.

    But did Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison really stop the boats when they came to power?

    The data shows that the downward trend in boat arrivals occurred from July 2013, two months before the Coalition came to power. See data below.

    2013 Boat people arrivals(excluding crew) Boats
    January 2013 471 10
    February 925 16
    March 2455 37
    April 3396 47
    May 3315 47
    June 2715 41
    July 4145 47
    Aug 1591 25
    September 837 15
    October 339 5
    November 207 5
    December 355 7

    Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and Australian Parliamentary Library.

    What largely stopped the boats, although not completely, was the announcement by Kevin Rudd on the 19th July 2013 that in future any persons coming by boat and found to be a  refugee would not be settled in Australia. We may argue about the wisdom of that policy, but it effectively crippled the business case of the people-smugglers.

    In the data above, there are undoubtedly some leads and lags and seasonal factors, but the data shows that the Rudd announcement of 19 July 2013 dramatically cut the number of boats and people arriving by boat. The major turnaround occurred between July and August, before the Coalition came to power.

    As the Abbott Government was not sworn in until 18 September 2013, its policy on boats would also have had only marginal effect on September arrivals.

    So between July and September, people arriving by boat fell from 4,145 to 837 and the number of boats fell from 47 to 15. The trend largely continued after that time.

    Peter Hughes a former deputy secretary in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship put it this way in an article in the Canberra Times in late 2013. ‘The arrival of 546 asylum seekers in October and November 2013 represents only 14% of the number of arrivals for the corresponding months in 2012. This is a dramatic reduction … The announcement of long-term resettlement of refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru by the previous government has likely been decisive in changing the decision to travel to Australia on the part of those asylum seekers who have not yet handed over their money to a smuggler. ‘

    The game-changer was Kevin Rudd’s announcement of 19 July 2013 on no resettlement in Australia for boat arrivals. It is also likely that tighter visa procedures on Indonesia’s part would have helped reduce the number of boat arrivals.  In effect the Rudd Government slammed the door although the boat turn a rounds pushed the final bolt home. In other words, if there was any doubt in the minds of people smugglers and asylum seekers trying to come by boat those doubts were removed.

    The Abbott Government capitalised on a trend which the Rudd Government clearly started in July 2013.

    Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison have wrung every political advantage they could from boat arrivals. But the evidence is clear that they helped accelerate the numbers before they came to power and it was the action of the Rudd Government, before they came to power in September 2013 that put boat arrivals on a downward track

    Operation Sovereign Borders has really been quite marginal and would not have been ‘successful’ without the July 2013 decision. Navy and Customs were able to turn a few boats around. This would have been impossible if boats had continued to arrive at 47 a month as they were in July 2013. OSB has been very high profile and very expensive – and offensive to Indonesia. But OSB has not been the main game.

    The game-changer was Kevin Rudd’s announcement in July 2013.

     

  • John Menadue. Tony Abbott at the National Press Club

    In his speech today, Tony Abbott recycled many of his one-liners that we heard at the last election. Let’s examine several of them.

    First, he said that his government was a low-taxing government and that it would reduce the budget deficit by reducing spending, rather than increasing taxes. But the most recent mid-year economic forecast shows that tax receipts are increasing substantially as a result of allowing budget creep as people move into higher income tax brackets. Government receipts/taxation are projected to increase by 2% from 22.8% of GDP in 2012-13 to 24.8% in 2017-18. Further the coalition said it would reduce debt. At the end of 2013 actual net debt was $178 b. The Department of Finance tell us that at the end of 2014  the net debt was $239 b, an increase of $61 b or 35%

    Tony Abbott said that he would stop the boats. But despite being told about the success of this ‘signature policy’ and the uncritical response of the media, the facts are that Tony Abbott did not stop the boats. What started the reduction in boat arrivals  was the announcement by Kevin Rudd on 19 July 2013, two months before the last election, that any new boat arrivals would be processed offshore and if found to be refugees, would not be settled in Australia. That was the real game changer, not Operation Sovereign Borders and the turn backs of a few boats to Indonesia.The number of people arriving by boat in July 2013 was 4,145. It fell substantially to 837 by the time the Abbott Government took power. The downward trend began in July 2013, two months before Tony Abbott came to power.

    As part of a dishonest and exaggerated scare campaign, Tony Abbott said that he would abolish the carbon tax. He did. But now without a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, we have no credible policy in place to address the growing threat of climate change. If Malcolm Turnbull comes back as leader an emissions trading scheme will be quickly back on the agenda.

    Tony Abbott said that he would abolish the mining tax. And he did – and Australia is much worse off as a result. Giant international mining companies like Glencore are paying very little company tax at all. Is that good economic management and is it fair?

    In his press club speech, Tony Abbott said that his government was on track in the building of roads. But many of the roads he claims to be building are really recycled projects from the previous government which Anthony Albanese had announced. In any event, we don’t need more roads for the reasons I have written about in this blog. We need to invest in new public urban rail systems.

    In his press club address, Tony Abbott complained about the Senate. Certainly the Senate has refused to pass some key government budget items, but that has been because the Senate came to the view, which I generally agree with, that many of the government’s budget proposals were unfair. Furthermore, Tony Abbott now prefers that we forget that at the last election he said that he would not hesitate to take the parliament to a double-dissolution if it was necessary to tame the Senate and the ALP. We have heard nothing more about this threat if the senate continues to misbehave. The media has completely forgotten this threat or was it a promise.

    One liners may be effective in opposition and at election time but they don’t usually make for good policy.

  • High Court decision on Tamil asylum seekers

    The majority decided that the detention from 1 to 27 July 2014 was lawful at all times and thus there was no claim to damages for the detention.

    (more…)