Category: Immigration

  • Michael Sainsbury. Australia and Cambodia’s shady asylum seeker deal.

    Australia’s history of dealing with asylum seekers continues to spin into a dizzying spiral of contempt. Already under fire for shutting its doors to some of the world’s most vulnerable people, the Canberra government is now in talks with Cambodia, the latest in a rollcall of poor, dysfunctional neighbors to whom it will “outsource” its so-called asylum seeker problem.

    Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, who counts as a ‘success’ every asylum seeker he can banish, last week became the second member of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Cabinet to visit Cambodia this year, following Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s whistle-stop trip to Phnom Penh in February. Seemingly peripheral to the talks was any discussion of Cambodia’s own woeful rights record, and how that may impact on the refugees Australia is unwilling to shelter.

    Abbott’s aggressive but election-winning asylum seeker policy is a marked departure from Australia’s once proud record of handling those forced to flee their homelands. In the 1970s, the Liberal/National Party government under Malcolm Fraser threw the doors open to over 70,000 Vietnamese escaping the communist invasion from the North. That era is now confined to history – unlike most other western democracies, Australia wants to shirk its moral and ethical obligations to help the ever increasing numbers displaced by war, political oppression and persecution.

    The request for help from Cambodia, which relies on foreign aid for nearly half its annual budget, also coincides with Australia slashing billions of dollars in aid to the Southeast Asia region. Cambodia will receive money from Canberra if it does agree to take asylum seekers, but Prime Minister Hun Sen’s own record of embezzling large chunks of the state budget does little to boost confidence that the money will be spent on the welfare of those whom Australia deports to Cambodia.

    But back to Australia. The citizenry’s own fears of an asylum seeker “crisis” are grossly inflated, but have been used as a cynical ploy by politicians, notably Abbott, who campaigned on an anti-asylum seeker platform, to win votes. Australia has a per capita GDP that now ranks only behind oil-rich Norway and Singapore, and has to date been relatively sheltered from the global burden of accommodating refugees.

    According to figures from the UN Human Rights Commission, Australia had 10,900 asylum seekers in 2012. That year, Belgium had more than 14,000, as did Ecuador, still a developing country. France, where politicians and citizens alike fear imminent collapse due to the heavy refugee traffic, muddled along with almost 50,000 in 2012. Europe’s economic powerhouse, Germany, had 85,000.

    Pledges from the Abbott administration that the policy will alleviate pressure on the taxpayer to fund the wellbeing of asylum seekers runs into problems, given estimates that the outsourcing program will cost some US$2.85 billion. Papua New Guinea was reported to have received an initial US$25 million in “aid” in exchange for allowing Canberra to send human cargo to a now-notorious holding facility on Manu Island.

    So turning to Cambodia will do nothing to boost Australia’s global standing. Hun Sen, who has been in power for 36 years, has a less than stellar record with asylum seekers, having returned to possible incarceration people trying to escape to Cambodia from China and Vietnam upon request of the two governments who have helped to prop him up.

    His treatment of political opponents, lawyers, rights campaigners, thousands of whom have been either murdered, tortured or locked up in dark holes, should give further pause to Australia. Even the Australian Trade Department says: “A key disincentive to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been the lack of an effective judicial and legal system and a poor corporate governance environment.”

    Apparently this hasn’t registered, and rights groups have accused Abbott of neglecting his obligations to international rights protocols.

    “It’s quite clear that Cambodia does not have any sort of appreciable service for refugees,” Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “They have a shoddy record of protecting refugees despite having ratified the refugee convention and there’s very little political commitment from the Cambodian government to ensure the ongoing support or safety of refugees.

    “One wonders how Australia thinks the Cambodian government would be in a better position to provide support and protection than Australia would be.”

    Tony Abbott and his lieutenants rail against the grubby human traffickers who take the money of people desperate to escape oppression by any means, shifting them across borders and across oceans on rickety boats. Yet they consciously move the very same human traffic, handing out cash for others to take the problem off their hands. All told, Australia’s prime minister wants to send people desperate to escape from oppressive regimes right back into the arms of another.

    Michael Sainsbury is a Bangkok based journalist who writes for www.ucanews.com

     

  • John Menadue. Using the military for political purposes

    In my blog of March 26 (below) ‘Using the military for political purposes’, I drew attention to three instances in which the Australian Defence Forces have been used, apparently willingly, to support the party-political aims of the government.

    That political support has now been stepped up several notches by the comments of the Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Angus Campbell, on a government television advertisement.

    In a series of government advertisements on U-Tube, Angus Campbell, standing next to a sign ‘No way’ says ‘The message is simply, if you come to Australia illegally by boat there is no way you will ever make Australia home.’  Angus Campbell then adds ‘The Australian Government has introduced the toughest border protection measures ever … it is the policy and practice of the Australian Government to intercept any vessel that is seeking to illegally enter Australia and safely remove it beyond our waters.’

    In this government advertisement General Campbell goes far beyond operational responsibility for government policy. He has allowed himself, apparently willingly, to become an arm and an advocate for the government’s political policies.  John Menadue

    Repost follows.

    On March 20 guest blogger Susie Carleton drew attention to the blanket acceptance of accounts by our service people in treatment of asylum seekers despite the record, according to former Defence Minister Stephan Smith of 2000 incidents of mis- treatment within the military itself including sexual abuse.

    Last night’s 7.30 ABC program lent more credibility in my mind to the allegations against our service personnel in their treatment of asylum seekers.

    We need to examine carefully what our military is doing.

    In my blog of March 5 ‘The war on asylum seekers’, I drew attention to the misuse of the Australian military in Operation Sovereign Borders. That military style operation gives the impression that we are really being threatened and invaded and that our response to asylum seekers must be regarded as a military challenge. Operation Sovereign Borders also gives the government a threadbare excuse that the public is not entitled to be told what is really happening. ‘On water’ issues will not be discussed. The language is also about war. Tony Abbott told us that we are being invaded by boat people. Scott Morrison said that the government is ‘Using the full arsenal of measures’ to stop the boats. What should be a humanitarian issues backed by action by Customs and Immigration has become a war. Governments have used ‘the war on terrorism’ as an excuse for limiting our freedoms, ignoring our rights to information and exciting xenophobia. The same approach is now being made with the war on asylum seekers.

    Unfortunately, the Australian Defence Force is allowing itself to be drawn into this abuse of their real responsibility. They have allowed themselves to become part of a political cover-up in their involvement in Operation Sovereign Borders.

    But this misuse of the military by the government and the complicity of the military is not restricted to Operation Sovereign Borders. As reported in the Hobart Mercury of March 14, the Defence Chief David Hurley rebuked the Palmer United Party Senator-elect Jacqui Lambie. Jacqui Lambie, a ten-year military veteran, said ‘It’s clear from information that’s become public, and information received privately, that abuse, including sexual abuse in Australia’s Defence forces is an intractable problem’. She added that there was a ‘high level and poisonous culture of cover-up within Defence that has stopped abuse victims speaking out’. She was publicly rebuked by General Hurley in a letter in which he said that he was ‘alarmed’ by Ms Lambie’s use of emotive language to make accusations against senior military officers. He added ‘I encourage you in future to provide me an opportunity to address any matters of concern you may have rather than becoming aware of them through a media release. Ms Lambie reacted and accused General Hurley of using ‘patronising and condescending’ language. She said ‘For the head of Australia’s military, uninvited, to interfere with the public work of a democratically elected representative, attacks the very foundation of our system of democratic government’. General Hurley obviously thinks that ex-military people, particularly women, are fair game. The Minister for Defence has said nothing.

    Not to be outdone by this bullying and abuse by General Hurley, Tony Abbott decided that he would join in during the South Australian election campaign. A Liberal Party banner was displayed at a Liberal campaign event at an RAAF base at Edinburgh. When this politically partisan act occurred on a military base, with the inappropriate use of the military, Tony Abbott’s office said there was no problem and the Defence minister avoided the issue by saying that he was away.

    If the ADF continues to allow itself to be drawn into political partisanship as in Operation Sovereign Borders, the Tasmanian election and the South Australian election, Australia and the ADF will pay a heavy price. The ADF is a creation of the Australian government. It must act honourably and miscreants brought to account. It must never be part of a party-political operation. The ADF must never identify itself with the Liberal Party or any other party.

     

  • Ben Saul. Australia’s Guantanamo problem.

    Ben Saul has written an article for the New York Times about the imprisonment of 52 people in Australia for up to nearly five years without trial. Secret evidence has been presented against them. They have no prospect of release. 

    Read the full article from the New York Times by following the link below.

    Ben Saul is Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney.

    John Menadue

     

    http://sydney.edu.au/news/law/436.html?newscategoryid=64&newsstoryid=13274

  • Kerry Murphy. To Kill a Mockingbird and 2014.

    Mark Twain is quoted as saying that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.  I was reminded of this when seeing the excellent production of To Kill a Mockingbird at the New Theatre in Newtown, Sydney last week.  Good literature manages to make us reflect on our own times, and challenges us to think about how we might act in difficult times.

    Harper Lee’s 1960 novel is well known and is a modern classic.  The seemingly simple story of young Scout and her brother Jem, and their widower lawyer father in 1935 Alabama still resonates with an Australian audience in 2014.

    The community attitudes on race we would think are unacceptable in 2014, however it was only a week ago that the Attorney-General told the Senate that there was a ‘right to be a bigot’.   A ‘rhyming Twanian’ theme would be the vilification of those arriving by boat and the increasingly harsh way they are treated, under both Labor and the Coalition.  In To Kill a Mockingbird we can feel for Scout’s father Atticus, the lawyer defending a black man on a charge of rape of a white woman.  Like young Jem, we ask how could the jury possibly find him guilty on that evidence.

    In the New Theatre production, the jury is the audience and we are challenged to face and reflect on our own fears and prejudices in 2014 Australia, just as Atticus challenged the jury in the 1935 story.  How do we come out of this challenge?

    Atticus tells Jem and Scout to ‘spend time in the skin or shoes of the other’ so they can understand that person. This is a challenge for us in 2014.  What if we spent time in the shoes of an Aboriginal who was discriminated against because of their race or colour, or an asylum seeker who was vilified because of how they arrived in Australia fleeing the feared persecution.   Would we so easily say there was a ‘right to be a bigot’ or that ‘illegals’ should be locked away in Pacific penal colonies?

    Lee’s 1960 story of a small town trial in 1935 Alabama resonated as much with the 1960s in the US as it does with Australia in 2014.  The play was well produced and a simple and effective set added to, rather than distracted from the story.  9 year old Teagan Croft stole the show in her confident and credible Scout.  Ably supported by 14 year old Hudson Musty as Jem and 12 year old  Kal Lewins as Dill.  Lynden Jones ably portrayed the genuinely good character of Atticus the lawyer, who had to explain to his children the bigotry of the town against his client just because of his colour.  As good as Lynden was, I still think of Gregory Peck in the 1962 film.

    Revisiting this timeless tale gives a chance to reflect on whose shoes we should stand in to understand them better.  It is easy to preach or pontificate about the inflationary vilification and appalling treatment of asylum seekers in Australia, but like Scout and Jem, I need to stand in the shoes of the others.   What makes people so prejudiced against asylum seekers?  Why does the Attorney-General think there is a right to be a bigot?  Understanding their position will help me better explain my position and views.  I just wish they were able to stand in the shoes of the other as well, and maybe their bigotry and fear would diminish.

    Kerry Murphy is a Sydney solicitor who specialises in Immigration and Refugee Law.

    The play is at New Theatre until 19 April http://newtheatre.org.au/whats-on/season-2014/to-kill-a-mockingbird/

  • Louise Newman. Detention of children seeking asylum in Australia.

    Australia has a unique approach to the ‘problem‘of asylum seekers arriving by boat in an ‘unauthorised’ fashion – exportation. Under current policy all unauthorised arrivals are processed as rapidly as possible on Christmas Island and then transferred to Nauru or Manus who are supported by Australia to assess refugee claims, house and ultimately resettle those found to be refugees. Or so the story goes. Much recent discussion, particularly since the attacks on asylum seekers on Manus allegedly by those in protective roles, has pointed to the breakdown of this system with increasing numbers remaining on Christmas Island and lack of any processing of claims or moves to resettlement. There is even discussion about the commitment of PNG to the resettlement process and they themselves have recently stated that it will not be possible to resettle in PNG those already there. The politics is complex and with a certain air of separation on the side of the Australian Government which is wedded to the concept of off shore processing as part of a framework of deterrence. The focus on deterrence of any arrivals on the mainland has led to extreme measures such as towing or pushing boats away and setting asylum seekers in the opposite direction in life boats where they become someone else’s problem on landing. The consequence or outcome is seen as the sole factor driving policy and little account is taken of the means. It is in this context that vulnerable groups such as children and unaccompanied minors and the mentally ill are caught in a particularly unpleasant political drama.

    As this is played out on the high seas we hear little discussion of Australia’s position as a voluntary signatory to the UN Convention on refugees and our responsibilities. We do not hear much discussing of the regional issues and need to support neighbours who bear most of the burden of supporting asylum seekers with minimal support. We do not provide leadership in the construction of a regional protective frame work despite this being raised by the Government appointed expert group looking at a system of response to the needs of asylum seekers and displaced persons. The ‘problem ‘ of displaced persons continues to grow as Australia’s response shrinks  – to the point where we now accept no asylum seekers coming by boat and will never resettle these arrivals on the mainland.

    In the middle of this debate the plight of the asylum seekers is often forgotten or trivialised. Many find stories of persecution and trauma ‘distasteful ‘and Government prefers to dismiss many as ‘economic refugees’ with the implicit judgment that they are unworthy. The system does not value seeking a safe life for children or fleeing ongoing persecution as worthwhile goals. The notion of threat from asylum seekers continues to be used as a political tool. The community has been caught in this escalating series of political moves aimed at limiting discussion of the broader issues and escalating fear and xenophobia. The language of “sovereign borders” and approaches veiled in secrecy as we wage a war on people smugglers does little to help us think in a rational way about Australasia role in supporting the worlds dispossessed or being a leader in our region. Both major political parties brought in reductionist approaches and prided themselves on harshness and firmness in the name of a greater good.

    The current situation emerges from a history of harsh approaches including arbitrary and mandatory detention of all unauthorised arrivals including infants, children and the mentally ill. In the days of Baxter and Woomera detention centres in remote locations a considerable amount of research and clinical evaluation documented the damage of indefinite detention on mental health and the deterioration of asylum seekers capacity to tolerate the situation. Helplessness, depression and despair took their toll as the community witnessed mass despair, self harm and protest. Children witnessed violence and behavioural breakdown and saw the deterioration of their parents. The damage was significant and well described in the HREOC report of 2005 which recommended that children should only ever be detained as a matter of last resort. Following this and with the support of all major medical and health groups, children and families were moved in to community settings with seemingly greater awareness of their needs.

    The past 5 or so years has seen a reversal of that position as successive Governments saw the need to maintain a politics of exclusion and to appeal to those sections of the community with deep seated anxiety about Australian security in a changing world. Detention of the vulnerable has continued and no exceptions are made on the grounds of trauma exposure, age, mental disorder or physical condition. Government has exported the most vulnerable to situation where health and mental health services are  minimal and with no certainly about the future has essentially recreated the conditions of over a decade ago where the detention centres became the breeding ground of mental disorders and breakdown. Recent protest, violence and self-harm are entirely predictable in these circumstances and should therefore be preventable.

    The detention of children and other vulnerable groups in these circumstances is a great shame and belittles us all. Those of us in the mental health sector need to speak out about any policy which damages the mental health and development of children and others and help to develop a higher level of discussion across the community about these important issues, Whilst Government may prefer to remain silent on its actions and their morality, we cannot.

     

    Louise Newman is the Professor of Developmental Psychiatry and Director of the Monash University Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Phycology.

  • David Isaacs. Impacts of detention on children.

    I am a paediatrician. I specialise in paediatric infectious diseases but also work as a general paediatrician. For the last 10 years, I and my colleagues have run a Refugee Clinic at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, where we assess child asylum seekers and refugees. The initial aim of this clinic was to screen children for treatable infectious diseases like tuberculosis and malaria and for other non-infectious conditions like rickets. However, the whole nature of the assessment has changed of late.

    Over the ten years, we have seen a very large number of children who have been in detention centres. It has become increasingly apparent that many of the children we see are suffering from post-traumatic stress and this number has risen steadily so that currently more than half of all the asylum seeker children we see are suffering from post-traumatic stress. This may be because we are increasingly aware of post-traumatic stress and ask more searching questions, but often a history of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress is easy to obtain. Young children have nightmares and sleep disturbance including sleep-walking. They are fearful and cling to their parents. They may start wetting their beds or pooing their pants. They may have problem behaviours, such as being defiant, angry or irritable. They may have somatic symptoms such as head-aches or abdominal pain. Older children may self-harm.

    Many of these children were exposed to traumas in their countries of origin and undertook perilous journeys, which clearly contribute to their stress. However, the trauma of being in detention centres without knowledge of when they will be released clearly adds to the stress and compounds the problem. Children are particularly vulnerable if their parents are struggling to cope with the trauma.

    We are able to refer our most severely affected children to a dedicated psychologist working in the Department of Psychological Medicine in our hospital. The NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and

    Trauma Survivors STARTTS is a useful resource for adults and children with post-traumatic stress.

    Impact of length of detention on children

    Unequivocally, we find that the longer a family is in detention, the greater the stress on the child and on their parents. Mounting parental stress in turn increases the stress on children.

    Measures to ensure the safety of children

    Although traumatised children in detention are referred to specialist mental health staff occasionally, this is the exception rather than the rule. Children in detention who are suffering from post-traumatic stress need to be seen by a paediatrician to see if they need specialist mental health assessment.

    Education, recreation, maternal and infant health services

    Australia is a co-signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that all children have the right to be provided with a safe environment and with adequate health-care and education. We have an obligation to provide these to children under our care, whether they are citizens, permanent residents, refugees or asylum seekers. This includes asylum seeker children on Manus Island or Nauru. Australia cannot abdicate its responsibility to asylum seeker children by preventing them reaching the mainland.

    The separation of families across detention facilities in Australia

    Separation of families is fortunately uncommon, but when it does occur it can have a disastrous effect on children’s mental health.

    The guardianship of unaccompanied children in detention in Australia

    Unaccompanied minors have often left their entire family behind and are in urgent need of being able to contact them and to stay in contact. Closed detention is particularly inappropriate for these highly vulnerable children.  There is a clear conflict of interest in having the same person who is detaining the child as the person who is legally responsible for their welfare (i.e. the Minister).  The role of advocate for the child has to be independent of judicial decisions about the child’s fate.

    Assessments conducted prior to transferring children to be detained in ‘regional processing countries’

    Children in offshore detention should have appropriate screening tests and catch-up vaccinations and be adequately protected against malaria.

    Progress made during the last 10 years

    There has been only minor progress in the last 10 years. It was acknowledged by the previous Government that children should not be in detention at all. The number of children in community detention has grown slowly but steadily. According to DIAC, however, in September 2013 there were still over 1000 children in immigration detention facilities and alternative places of detention (not community detention). There are no current figures available on the number of children in immigration detention or their whereabouts. This is disturbing. We need more transparency. No child should be detained unnecessarily in a detention centre.

    Conclusions

    Australia has a duty of care to asylum seekers under International Law, which includes protecting them. Delaying decisions about their fate and imprisoning asylum seekers and their children in detention centres is a dereliction of that duty of care. Whether or not the asylum seekers are eventually accepted as refugees, it is counter-productive and cruel to increase their mental health problems by inappropriately draconian measures such as detention.

    Professor David Isaacs is a Consultant pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead and Clinical Professor in Paediatric Infectious Disease, University of Sydney

     

     

  • Mark Isaacs. Deterring boat arrivals!

    Over the past decades of asylum seeker policy in Australia we have heard many justifications for a strict deterrence policy. Border protection, save lives at sea, ‘no advantage’ for queue jumpers, smash the people smugglers’ business model, and, of course, ‘we decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’.

    At the same time, public debate fostered by mainstream media and by Australian politicians continually refers to asylum seekers by terms such as ‘illegals’ and ‘queue jumpers’, terms that we must continually reject as they have no legitimacy in Australian or international law and aren’t representative of the global view of asylum seekers. Those who control the public discourse have created a confused and purposefully misleading national discussion that shadows the truth and promotes anti-asylum seeker sentiment.

    This was recently made clear to me with the recent publication of my novel, The Undesirables, and the subsequent media space I have had the privilege to occupy. I was faced with a multitude of different arguments that rarely aligned but all came from a similar source, propaganda. The main issue most journalists wanted me to address was the idea that a deterrence policy does stop asylum seekers getting on boats to come to Australia, and hence, the government is saving lives. It seems that when a person speaks out on humanitarian grounds, with the knowledge and conviction to say that these people aren’t illegals, terrorists, threats to our security, the debate focuses on ‘saving lives at sea’.

    First and foremost, I don’t believe that this policy is about saving lives. If this policy is about saving lives at sea, and not the border protection threats Scott Morrison cites in his press releases, why aren’t we championing this policy to the world as a humanitarian achievement? Why is the policy so heavily criticised by international organisations such as UNHCR and Amnesty International? Why has the Australian government banned Australian media from entering the camps? Why are we not allowed to know how many boats the government has turned back to Indonesia?

    Let’s say that this policy does stop asylum seekers taking boats to Australia. This doesn’t necessarily save lives and doesn’t solve any global issues with asylum seekers; it merely shifts our responsibility for protecting asylum seekers, a responsibility assumed by signing the United Nations Refugee Convention, to another part of the world. It means those asylum seekers originally facing persecution now face a very bleak situation in Indonesia, a country that has no such obligations to processing refugees. Asylum seekers will still need to flee persecution and will still need the help of people smugglers to facilitate their escape because there are few ‘correct channels’ of migration, if any, available to them. I asked the men I worked with in Nauru why they didn’t come to Australia by the ‘correct channels’. Such a question was an insult in the camp.

    ‘You show me the Australian embassy in Afghanistan. You see if a Hazara man can go there without being shot. If you go to the Australian embassy they ask you why you want to leave. If you say you have a problem, they say it is not enough. Many people have tried. We cannot go to our government and ask for visas. We are not even allowed to study in Afghanistan. How do I apply for a visa to Australia when my government wants to kill me? If you want to go to the United Nations office in Quetta, Pakistan, it is in a dangerous area. People recognise Hazara faces and they target them easily. If you go there, you have to stay for a long time and it is dangerous. Maybe you will be targeted. You think we would leave our homes if we didn’t have to? You think I’d leave my family if I didn’t have to?’

    The reality of deterrence is indefinite detention: incarcerated for unlimited time periods with no idea of when you can leave. Every day feels the same, no progress, no change; just waiting. The reality of deterrence is an illogical processing system that purposefully avoids giving people answers because judging by statistics 90% of these people will be approved as refugees. In my time in Nauru I witnessed self-harm, hunger strikes, thirst strikes, psychosis, and the ultimate loss of hope, suicide attempts. Saving lives at sea by ruining lives. Countless times I heard Nauru described by asylum seekers of all ethnicities as hell. If these people could return to their home countries, they would.

    I wrote ‘The Undesirables’ for many reasons, one of which was to show the Australian people what the reality of offshore detention centres is. If the Australian people are okay with placing people in such conditions in an attempt to shift our responsibilities for protecting the world’s most vulnerable then so be it, but better they make an informed decision than hide behind the falsities and mistruths peddled by both sides of politics and claim ignorance due to this veil of secrecy that has been placed over both Manus Island and Nauru.

    Mark Isaacs

    Author of The Undesirables

    http://www.bookworld.com.au/book/the-undesirables-inside-nauru/47134434/

    https://www.facebook.com/isaacsmark1

    http://markjisaacs.com/

  • Wayne Gibbons. The boats were not sabotaged.

    “So we convince ourselves every cruelty we’ve inflicted – beginning with sabotaging boats along the Malaysia coast under Malcolm Fraser – isn’t a reflection on us. It’s tactical.”

    I was surprised and disturbed by this sweeping statement from David Marr in theguardian.com on 5 March. It unfairly casts a pall over the great success of Australia’s Indochina refugee program led by the Fraser government and the role of the immigration officials involved.

    From 1978 to 1980 I was based in Malaysia as Coordinator of Australia’s refugee resettlement programs in South East Asia. Prior to that fulltime roll I lead several short term missions to Guam and the East coast of Malaysia to offer resettlement in Australia to Vietnamese refugees. I have also served as private secretary to Ministers for Immigration in the Whitlam and Fraser Governments.

    From this vantage of involvement at the highest levels of government and at the coal face of refugee selection and resettlement, I am confident that no directions to sabotage boats were given to Australian immigration officers by people in authority and that no boats loaded with refugees were deliberately damaged by our officials. Though, I believe we may have disabled several empty boats to prevent their reuse to “push off” people who had already arrived on other vessels.

    I understand why some people may be confused on this point because we often spoke publicly about the need to “stop the boats”.  But far from resorting to sabotage as a tactical response, our strategy was to conduct a sizable, caring and efficient resettlement program under a Comprehensive Plan of Action with the countries of SE Asia in co-operation with the US, Canada, France, the UK, New Zealand  and ourselves.

    From the start, all resettlement countries wanted to discourage refugees taking very long and risky journeys across open seas in unsuitable craft. We all wanted refugees that were fleeing Vietnam on small boats to be landed in neighbouring first asylum countries into the care of the UNHCR. Australia and other countries had already agreed to treat all such people as refugees. This meant we could offer resettlement without first having to determine individual status under the UN Convention.

    From the fall of Saigon in 1975 until the first half of 1978, those setting out from Vietnam to cross the South China Sea were mostly rural ethnic Vietnamese. They travelled in small owner skippered fishing boats that were usually reasonably seaworthy.

    If our immigration officers came across any of these people as they arrived along the Malaysian coast they would try to counsel them to disembark and await an offer of resettlement. Most heeded that advice, but a few pressed on. At the same time, some local Malaysian officials would insist they keep going if their boat was seaworthy and in some instances resorted to towing them back to international waters.

    Being owner fishermen and competent seamen the Vietnamese were very reluctant to disable their own boats and would keep going if pushed off. Some made it to Darwin but most broke down en route and ended up in makeshift camps in Indonesia.  It is difficult to believe them allowing Australian officials to sabotage their boats.  Indeed I have been unable to corroborate such a suggestion among surviving officials who served in Malaysia during this period.

    All this changed rapidly from mid 1978 as arrivals increased dramatically. This next, far larger wave of departures consisted of urban people who paid corrupt officials and middlemen for their passage. They were predominantly ethnic Chinese who were crowded into vessels in numbers that made their journey highly dangerous. For example, a small vessel that would have carried 15‑20 Vietnamese could be packed with 100-130 ethnic Chinese in appalling conditions. Understandably they were almost always desperate to disembark at first landfall, be that in Thailand or Malaysia. Their wretched, cramped conditions and not infrequent encounters with pirates en route fuelled fears about being forced back to sea, which in turn encouraged them to scuttle their boats as soon as they reached coastal waters or if they were intercepted by Malaysian patrol boats. In any case, very few boats were able to withstand the coastal surf and most broke up within hours of beaching.

    UNHCR was very slow to gear up as arrivals skyrocketed and this created great frustration within the Malaysian Government, which was increasingly worried by the growing concerns evident among Malays living in kampongs along the east coast. Malaysia soon reacted by closing all mainland camps (except for the transit centre in Kuala Lumpur) and designating Pulau Bidong, an uninhabited island,  as the site for a major holding camp for arriving refugees. This created huge logistical difficulties for all resettlement countries, made worse by continuing UNHCR shortcomings.

    Malaysian patrols were also subsequently increased with orders to stem numbers landing in Malaysia by intercepting boats further offshore and deflecting them south. This led to a rapid build-up of refugees landing in the Indonesian Anambas Islands where the local population was quickly overwhelmed as more and more makeshift camps developed. Australia was among the first countries to organise resettlement from these new remote camps.

    Far from calculated cruelty, our approach to people leaving Indochina was generous and fair. It certainly did not include sabotage of small boats crowded with refugees.

    Despite the many difficulties, we made a significant contribution through resettlement. It was made possible through close cooperation with regional countries in a strategy that balanced their requirements and the demands of refugees with our own need to maintain public support at home.

    Whatever has happened since then, at the time of these policies it was a watershed for Australia. As John Menadue said in an earlier blog, “in accepting 150,000 refugees from Indochina …… Malcolm Fraser broke the back of White Australia”. Australia is a better society for it and I am grateful I had a role helping achieve that outcome.

    Wayne Gibbons was the Co-ordinator, Australian Indo-Chinese Refugee Resettlement Program. He was later Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Deputy Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training. He was also the CEO of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Susie Carleton. The ABC is at it again.

    Don’t we all now know from the upright Hon Scott Morrison that decent members of the Australian Armed Services would never – and did not – cause the burning of the hands of asylum seekers under their control. Nor was there any further ill-treatment of a later batch of unfortunates as claimed in ABC 7.30- Report of March 17. Servicemen told Scott – and he told us.

    Australian servicemen, according to Scott, are above such conduct and it is an insult to our nation’s Armed Services to think otherwise. Of this he is convinced because there are “Regulations” and a “Code of Conduct” which rules out the sort of behavior widely claimed by the victims.

    Isn’t there also not only a code of conduct but a criminal law to provide protection within the services against the gross ill-treatment and sexual violation of young men in the services’ playful initiation ceremonies or the sexual harassment, mistreatment, even rape of their female colleagues in the services.

    Recent years have seen, according to former Minister Steven Smith, more than 2,000 such incidents perpetrated by Mr Morrison’s upright servicemen. Almost without exception these have taken place on military establishments or vessels at sea with very senior military personnel close at hand. These offences have been committed against workmates and colleagues in the services.

    It ‘s surprising then that the same people become White Knights when operating among “enemies”, “Illegals” and “undesirables” virtually unsupervised on the high seas. Morrison said he had not bothered to question the alleged victims as they had “vested interests” in making their claims.

    In view of his “Code of Conduct” mightn’t the servicemen in question also have a vested interest in denial?

     

     

  • Azita Bokan. The tragedy on Manus – an eye-witness account.

    Azita Bokan was on Manus Island as an official Iranian interpreter during the recent violent clashes. What follows is an edited version of her interview by Richard Glover on ABC Radio Sydney on 21 February 2014.

    I came to Australia some 27 years ago and am a proud Australian.  My father was a writer and had a newspaper of his own. He was imprisoned in Iran as a political prisoner for his anti-government views. I escaped Iran and was forced to wait three and a half years in Turkey for my turn to migrate to Australia. At the time Turkey was unsafe and dangerous, rife with smugglers, drug dealers and organised prostitution but I had to wait there alone as a little child without a family. I was very grateful to Australia for rescuing me as a refugee which was why I recently enlisted to assist the Department of Immigration in its efforts to protect Australia’s borders.

    I was previously in Nauru and it is bad, but the situation on Manus is simply horrendous – the heat, the physical conditions, the malnutrition [mostly raw red meat without any vegetables] leading to diseases of many different kinds, and so much more. Oral hygiene is almost completely absent and what dental treatment is available results not in remedial attention but in the detainees having their teeth pulled out without anaesthetic. Most upsetting of all is the absence of anything for the inmates to do day after day and the fact that they mostly sit in dirt looking out to the surrounding fences, which have resulted in personal suffering with deep mental conditions which I can only describe as psychological numbness. When I became aware of this situation, my immediate reaction was that I would prefer to be dead than to live in a camp like this for a day.

    Until the recent troubles, I saw and heard no unruliness or misbehaviour still less violence on the part of the detainees. In fact I could not believe their calm patience, waiting seemingly for better days to come. They told me that they had been warned by departmental officials that if they misbehaved in any way or that something goes on their files suggesting that they were or might be troublemakers, their cases would not be processed and they would not be allowed access to lawyers.

    Then on the Sunday morning, with all of them holding onto the hope that they would one day get out of that hell, they were told by departmental officials that they will never see Australia, that no third country was volunteering to take them, and that because if its awful economic situation PNG would never be able to assist them.

    Despite the fact that most of the Iranians were well educated and their leader was a PhD who was against any protest or uprising, that news became a catalyst for the first real reaction among the inmates. Two guys climbed a fence even though there are many fences, each one further away than the others, and absolutely no chance of escape. The men had no weapons so they threw fruit at the guards, mostly peaches. The response of the guards was to use rocks and metal legs of dismantled tables destined for junking to attack the detainees. Some of the detainees may have thrown back the same rocks at the guards.

    On the Monday morning, we interpreters were told that there was no work for us as no lawyers were being allowed to enter and only the medical team was being admitted. After some delay, some of us were in fact allowed in to assist the medical team and from a distance of 6 or 7 metres, I saw one detainee pushing another guy in a wheelchair. The wheelchair guy was “brain dead” – his mouth was distorted, one arm was hanging down and he could not pull it back up. One of the guards called out to the man pushing the wheelchair – “Get out, get out!!!” The guy pushing the wheelchair held tight to the wheelchair and refused to let go. In very broken English, which I did my best to translate, he said that the guards had killed his mate the previous night and he did not trust them with the wheelchair man. He said he was going to stay with him in the medical room to wait for his turn with the doctor.

    Because of my efforts to interpret, the guards turned on me and accused me of interference and of sticking up for the detainee. This was nonsense as all I was doing was interpreting what he was trying to say. The man said to me that he feared the guards would kill the wheelchair guy if he left him. I offered to the guards that I would push the wheelchair or that they could get someone from the medical team to do so. There were many guards there at the time and one or more of them pushed me away and jumped on the guy pushing the chair. He was strong and would not let go of the wheelchair until 7 of the guards threw him to the ground and held him down. I pleaded with the guards to stop the violence but they and others in the pay of the Government turned against me.

    When my attention was again drawn to the guy in the wheelchair, I could see there was blood all over him. There was a needle in his arm as if for a drip but his arm was bleeding and there was no drip attached to it. No nurse would have done something like that. His head was injured, he had no eye movement and his mouth was hanging to one side. He was just hanging like a piece of meat. Any human being would want to help a person in that state.

    I remonstrated with the guards. I said that you cannot do this to people to whom you owe a duty of care. These people paid everything they had to a people smuggler, they put their lives on the line coming through a difficult journey. Many of them lost loved ones on the way yet they somehow got to Australia. Now you shift them to the most dangerous place in the world away from the media and from the eyes of good hearted Australians. I cannot believe that Australians support what you are doing to these people. You are killing them.

    This outburst had me escorted out and treated worse than a criminal. I knew I would lose my job but I refused to let them do such awful things in silence in the name of Australia so that people elsewhere can think of Australians as a violent people intent on killing innocents.

    While I was sitting in the interpreters’ room waiting to be deported myself, I heard the sound of shooting and a lot of noise and disturbance. So I went up on the roof where I saw some horrendous things. There were many people badly injured. I saw one man who had no brain, and nothing on his neck. His skull was crushed. Another man had his throat cut and a doctor was trying to push a tube through the hole in his neck but there was too much blood coming out. He could not find the man’s lung to get the fluid out while telling someone else to pump air in. I actually heard the doctor say that he was very tired after three days of constant work. I come from a country that went through a violent revolution. I have been through a war. But I have never seen anything like this. It was barbaric.

    I am for stopping the boats and the people trafficking but I want Manus and Nauru closed and the people treated properly. Australian taxpayers are paying a fortune to the Governments of Nauru and PNG to have these terrible camps in their countries. People who cannot pay their mortgages are funding these other Governments for this sinful activity. Bring them to Darwin or other places on the Australian mainland where we have ample facilities to house them. Those who are found not to be refugees should be sent back to their homes. But those who are genuine refugees should be introduced gently to the Australian way of life and culture and then into the community.

    The politicians do not like to admit they are wrong but they have made the wrong decisions here. I appeal to them – please be honest with yourselves. You have children and families. What would you do if your brother’s throat was cut? What if your children were starving, without water or showers, and standing in 50 degree heat? What if they are dehydrated, have diarrhoea vomit every day? Where are your consciences?

     

     

  • John Menadue. The war on asylum seekers

    For political purposes the government has deliberately embarked on a policy and a language to militarise the asylum seeker issue in the same way the Howard Government did in the “war on terror”. It is designed to highlight the government’s resolve, to play to our fears about a threat and to lessen our rights to be informed. Failure to disclose is justified because we are ‘at war’.

    But the ‘war on terror’ and the so-called ‘war on asylum seekers’ would in fact be much better conducted by police, customs and our intelligence services.

    In this misuse of the military and language for political purposes we should not be surprised if a two-star military general is drawn into the political fray. Neither should he or his colleagues be surprised if they also get caught in political flack.  If they are in the kitchen, they can’t complain about the heat!  The military has crossed the line before. General Cosgrave showed that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Howard Government in forcing Tampa to transfer the asylum seekers on board. He will now be our Governor General.

    Senator Conroy has been criticised for saying that General Angus Campbell, the Head of Operation Sovereign Borders, has participated in a ‘political cover-up’. In my view that is precisely what the Government and General Campbell have done. The military has been manoeuvred by the government into a role in the coordination of government agencies, most of them civil agencies like immigration and customs. To avoid public examination, the Minister Scott Morrison and General Campbell keep hiding behind the parroted phrase ‘on-water matters’. This is a political cover-up in which the military has become involved. That cover-up should be called as such.

    The Coalition has been quite clear in its language that it is at war with asylum seekers and people smugglers. Scott Morrison has described Operation Sovereign Borders as ‘a military led border security operation’. Tony Abbott has spoken of a war against people smugglers. In the first week of parliament Scott Morrison said that ‘The battle [against people smugglers] is being fought using the full arsenal of measures’.

    In war situations, the withholding of information can be justified. But surely we are not at war against unarmed people in rickety boats.

    Just consider what we heard last week in Senate Estimates about Operation Sovereign Borders and the cover ups.

    • Under the charade of ‘operational security’ the Defence Force Chief, General David Hurley would not confirm that orange lifeboats had been used. He replied ‘That is an on-water issue’. Yet we have all seen the orange boats on TV time and time again.
    • Asked if the lifeboats were Australian-flagged, Hurley responded ‘We can’t comment on on-water issues’.
    • Asked if the lifeboats were navy assets, Hurley replied ‘They are an on-water issue’.
    • Asked if there was general training for navy personnel in the handling of the lifeboats, the Chief of the Navy, Ray Griggs, said ‘If I talk about training then I would be going to “on-water matters”’.
    • How at least six Australian navy vessels intruded into Indonesian waters was a matter of ‘on-water operations’. Undoubtedly the crew of the navy vessels will be censured, but not General Angus Campbell who is in charge of OSB. That would be politically embarrassing because he has become the point man in the government’s cruel policies and the cover up.

    When public policy becomes militarised like this, no-one, including the military, can hide behind trumped up excuses, time and time again about ‘on-water issues’.

    How out of proportion this has all become. The plight of vulnerable people has become a highly politicised and military issue. This is a humanitarian issue which must be handled with firmness, but that does not mean that the military should be leading it. We also need the truth rather than senior officers and military leaders using lame excuses. We have seen too many other instances where the performance of the military, particularly at the Australian Defence Force Academy leaves a lot to be desired.

    Senator Conroy was much closer to the truth than his critics in the Canberra press gallery who so often see parliamentary events through a party political prism only and seems oblivious to the wider and more important issues of policy and principle.

  • Arja Keski-Nummi. Offshore Processing in Cambodia – Really?

    The idea of Cambodia as a so-called offshore processing centre is not new. For a nanosecond I recalled the former government contemplated Cambodia as a likely candidate for an offshore processing centre. Thankfully saner heads prevailed, although to their discredit they did also contemplate East Timor.

    The scramble to avoid doing the decent thing and accept our responsibility to process asylum seekers quickly and fairly is mind-boggling.  This government is following in the questionable footsteps of the former government in shirking decency for short-term political gain.

    Just consider the countries we are using for off shore processing or the one, Cambodia, now being considered.

    According to the CIA publication The World Fact Book 2013, Australia’s population of 22.2million has a life expectancy of close to 83 years, a GDP per head of $US 42 000  We have 3.85 doctors available for each 1000 people and by international comparisons negligible poverty. Compare this with PNG which has a GDP per head of $US 2700, a life expectancy of 66 years, where 37% of the population live below the poverty line and where there are only 0.05 doctors per 1000 .In Cambodia the statistics show the following for a population of 15.2milllion: life expectancy 63 years, GDP per head $US 2400, and where there are 0.23 doctors per 1 000 population and where 20% of the population live below the poverty line.

    We live in different worlds. Not only should we be embarrassed.  We should be ashamed to think that this is even considered.

    If we were truly serious about regional security and building a sustainable and dynamic regional economy and societies then we would not be offshoring our responsibilities for a small proportion of the world’s asylum seekers. We would not be decreasing our aid efforts in poverty alleviation, health and education as we have done to the tune of $250 million in the Asia Pacific region while “bribing” poor, politically unstable countries to take asylum seekers for an unknown number of years.

    The Foreign Minister cited the Bali Process as justification for the approach to Cambodia. It is a disingenuous characterization of the Bali Process to see an arrangement with Cambodia as consistent with recent Bali Ministerial communiqués that endorsed the concept of regional processing centres. It would do the government well to know how such arrangements worked in the Comprehensive Plan of Action under the Indo China program to understand how regional governments might view such arrangements now.

    It would also diminish the Bali Process if the Government uses it as merely a people smuggling forum and not actively support the development of the broader regional arrangements that Bali Process governments have endorsed in recent years and which address in a more holistic way both the people smuggling dimensions of population movements as well as protection and support arrangements for displaced people.  Admittedly such arrangements are not “quick fixes” but in the long run are more sustainable and realistic.  The pity is that Australian governments seldom have a long-term strategy in mind and are limited by their lack of imagination, the political cycle and fear of an electoral backlash.

    In 2012 there was an answer in the proposed arrangement with Malaysia that the Abbott Opposition rejected because it suited them, not because they really believed it was wrong but because they did not want the former government to succeed in “stopping the boats”.  Well, now that the Abbott Government has succeeded in that they should be big enough to revisit the Malaysia arrangement. It should see if it can be salvaged, make the necessary legislative changes and get on with the job. That arrangement was sound, it was humane, it was supported by the UNHCR and importantly it addressed the issue of displacement “in situ” unlike the arrangements on Nauru, PNG or indeed if it happens Cambodia. None of these are countries of transit or in any appreciable way countries of first asylum. Indeed with the current arrangements we are exporting those problems to them!

    If the two parties were really serious they would do what two previous Governments, the Fraser and Hawke governments did when faced with similar issues and talk to each other, agree on a way forward and show leadership by dealing with these issues not as a political free for all that creates social disharmony but rather as a responsible and humane approach to address the circumstance of vulnerable people displaced by war and civil unrest.

    Arja Keski-Nummi was First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship from 2007 to 2010.

     

  • John Menadue. Manus and Nauru and Australia’s responsibility in regional processing.

    An asylum seeker who comes to our shores must be protected. We cannot offload that responsibility onto another country. We continue to carry a responsibility for that asylum seeker whatever happens in Manus, Nauru or even Malaysia.

    I have not always held the view that those who come to Australia could be transferred and processed in another country. I changed my mind on that partly because of the rapid increase in boat arrivals after the Agreement with Malaysia fell over in2011. The large number of boat arrivals was reducing public support for a generous and humane refugee program. I came to the view that what was important is that asylum seekers are treated with humanity and that the process is fair and just. The issue of where that processing occurred was a secondary issue.

    I also supported the proposed Malaysian Agreement for two other reasons. I saw it as part of an important building block in regional cooperation. Secondly, the UNHCR was actively supporting the proposed arrangement with Malaysia. The UNHCR does not support the transfers to Manus (PNG) and Nauru and the processing in those countries.

    Unfortunately the agreement with Malaysia was made impossible by the combined support of the Greens and the Coalition in the Senate to block amendments to the Migration Act. The action of the Coalition in the Senate was supported by refugee advocates across Australia. It was quite extraordinary to hear Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison along with refugee advocates criticising human rights abuses in Malaysia. No country is perfect, including Australia in mandatory detention, but the position of asylum seekers in Malaysia would have been a long way ahead of what is now unfolding in Manus and Nauru.

    The collapse of the Malaysian arrangement was the turning point. We have been on a slippery slide ever since. Boat arrivals quadrupled as a result of the High Court decision and the collapse of the Malaysian arrangement. Policies by the Labor Government and the Coalition since then have been punitive and cruel. The result has been Manus and Nauru.

    In my blog of January 14, I pointed out that the UNHCR has a long history of support for the transfer of asylum seekers in appropriate circumstances. Late last year the UNHCR issued a ‘Guidance Note on Bilateral and Multilateral Transfer Arrangements of Asylum Seekers’. It set out clear conditions, including important issues of non-refoulment and protection of the rights and the safety of asylum seekers in the country to which they were to be transferred.

    In the Melbourne Age on 13 December last year, Arja Keski-Nummi and I outlined a system of ‘effective protection’ that should govern any transfers of asylum seekers in our region. We set down several important criteria.

    • All countries should commit to the principle of non-refoulment.
    • Provide asylum seekers with a legal status and access to work and education.
    • Work to help not only displaced people but also host communities.
    • Increase our refugee intake from our region.
    • Work with partners in the region in association with UNHCR to create an atmosphere of safety and trust.
    • Amend the Migration Act to assert the principle of ‘effective protection’ and bind governments to that principle in any transfers of asylum seekers.

    Clearly few of the conditions have been met in the arrangements with PNG and Nauru. Importantly, the UNHCR does not support our arrangements with either country.

    Just as importantly, the Australian Government is failing to accept its responsibilities to asylum seekers that we have transferred to PNG and Nauru. We cannot offshore our responsibilities for ensuring effective protection and safety for asylum seekers. After demonizing asylum seekers for so long I don’t think the Coalition Government cares about the human rights of asylum seekers. Their rights, even their lives are just unfortunate and embarrassing collateral damage

    The horror on Manus is only one part of the havoc that Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison have wrought. They have badly damaged our relations with Indonesia. Their actions have resulted in the collapse of the rule of law in Nauru. And they are responsible for the release of details of 10,000 asylum seekers that will now be eagerly accessed by security agencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. What an opportunity it will be for those security agencies to now hunt down the families of asylum seekers who have fled to Australia from oppressive regimes in those countries.

    How ironic it now is that China is rebuking us for our abuse of the human rights of asylum seekers.

    One thing the ALP in Parliament should do immediately  is move to incorporate the principle of “effective protection ” in the Migration Act. It would clearly express the responsibility we have for persons transferred to another jurisdiction. We could then not shirk our responsibility by  passing the buck to others.

  • Michael Kelly SJ. Australians as the ‘white trash of Asia’ reaches new depth.

    It is now over thirty years since the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew described Australians as the “white trash of Asia”. The barb stung and is still recalled with shame and hurt by Australian politicians as then Prime Minister Julia Gillard did in 2012.

    But the term has reached a new level of accuracy with the current Australian Government led by Tony Abbott who has degraded Australia’s relations with China, Indonesia and Timor Leste close to their lowest points in decades with one piece of diplomatic ineptitude and insensitivity after another.

    White trash is a derogatory American English term referring to poor white people, especially in the rural South of the US, suggesting lower social class and degraded standards. The term suggests outcasts from respectable society living on the fringes of the social order who are seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral

    While the deafening “stop the boats” mantra of the Abbott Government, with muscle supplied by the defence forces in Operation Sovereign Nation, gains all the media attention in Australia and throughout the Asian region, a policy shift introduced by the Government on refugees and asylum seekers has gone almost unnoticed.

    By accident this week, and despite the Government policy of “no speaks”, I discovered something new – to me anyway. Almost since the day they arrived on the Treasury benches, the Abbott Government has found a new way of persecuting victims.

    In Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s armory now is a rule that anyone who arrived by boat in Australia is unable to sponsor any other refugee or asylum seeker.

    Thanks to information provided to me this week in Bangkok by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), I discovered that a Sri Lankan family that has been waiting for resettlement for THIRTEEN YEARS and finally got accepted by Australia, had their visas revoked because relatives who reached Australia by sea were sponsoring them.

    I was speaking with one of the legal team at JRS, Kathryn Smyth, because of some Pakistanis I am helping with their application for refugee status. In response to a request from a Jesuit friend in Pakistan, I am effectively “in loco parentis” for five (soon to be six with a birth expected in April) refugees whose only crime in Pakistan is that they are Catholics.

    They were forced to flee following events where they were beaten up, shot at and given the popularly administered death sentence that comes with accusations of blasphemy.

    With Kathryn, I was checking some of the documents I’ve prepared for these people and she told me again in graphic detail something I know too well: that even if they got the first of three interviews with the UNHCR today, they would most likely not get the second interview till January 2016.

    And then there’s a further year of waiting for the UNHCR’s adjudication followed by an unknown wait till a country accepts them for resettlement.

    I said “Yes, yes, I and they know about it” only to be told of the casual vindictiveness of the Abbott Government in its merciless treatment of people adjudged by the UN to have “a well founded fear for their lives on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion”.

    There are literally thousands of refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand. The UNHCR can’t cope with the scale of demand that the troubles in Pakistan and Afghanistan are presenting them with. When a refugee lands in Bangkok, they register with the UN for consideration of their case.

    Many of the refugees and asylum seekers in Bangkok are like my friends – Christians fleeing the terror of the blasphemy laws introduce President Zia Ul Haq who was assassinated in 1988. Those laws allowed Muslims to allege that anyone had been blasphemous by insulting the Prophet Muhammad.  Summary execution of the accused is then allowed with no action taken by police or Courts to bring the murderers to justice.

    For refugees arriving in Bangkok, it takes between three and six months to get to first base – and initial consideration that allows the applicant to be scheduled for an interview about their case that takes at least two years to happen.

    And in the Thai capital, there are currently 3,100 in that category of applicants trying to get to first base. There are many thousands more in the line waiting for the interview two years hence. They live on a pittance, patiently doing all they can do – wait!

    For the Sri Lankan family I mentioned earlier, where do they go after 13 years waiting, finally getting acceptance only to have the prize ripped from your grasp? Perhaps the Australian Government has done them a favor. Who’d want to live in a place that treats human beings this way?

    White trash, as mentioned, live beyond the common standards of decency and respect for human dignity, and through their assessments and actions degrade the common humanity we share.

    As an Australian, I regret to say the country’s performance in Asia deserves the description that Prime Minister lee gave us long ago.

     

  • Andrew Babkoff. The human side of refugees.

    (*names have been changed to maintain privacy)

    There is a significant amount of misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding asylum seekers (in particular ‘boat people’) and refugees in Australia. In response, a number of people outside of the mainstream media have highlighted the need for refugees’ stories to be presented through mainstream outlets. My personal experience as a teacher of refugees and migrants has allowed me to see the human side of the refugee issue by hearing about the stories of people who have been granted asylum in Australia.

    Below is a reflection I wrote after a numeracy class I had with a group of refugees and migrants in Brisbane in 2013.

    We had our tests today in numeracy. I gave them the shopping docket test and the one on the ANZAC biscuits recipe. Attendance was good. I spent the first twenty minutes pre-teaching vocabulary and reminding the students to show their working on the test paper. When they started the test, a hush of concentration fell over the room, and I kept a lookout for anyone who needed help. Some students, especially the younger ones, worked quickly, only needing a little help with concepts and the wording of questions. A couple of the mature age students, Afghan men, lagged behind and needed a lot of explaining, although their maths skills were quite good. Hassan, who seems around seventy, laboured faithfully over his paper, scribing his working and answers methodically and accurately. Several times, when they were speaking to each other in Dari, I had to remind Hassan and Mustafa, a man in his late forties, to ask only me if they had any problems, as it was a test. I sensed their frustration building, but I had to keep it fair for all students and maintain the standards of the process.

    I ended up spending another half an hour with Hassan after class. Apologetic and grateful for my help, he felt compelled to explain his slowness. His wife, in a beginner English class, came in and, after seeing us talking, sat down at the front of the room facing us. In what most people would call broken English (which was a huge improvement from when I first met him), Hassan recounted to me how he’d been denied the opportunity of an education in Afghanistan. He said, “I couldn’t have an education. Neither could my wife. Many times I’ve thought, ‘Why am I alive? What am I living for? Wouldn’t I be better off dead?’”

    For many years, he had done business in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan and Iran, so spoke five languages fluently, but he lacked the English to be able to work and support his family in Australia. He told me, with heartbreak on his weathered face, how in Afghanistan he and his sons had run a successful used car business and that, when he had refused to share his profits with the Taliban, they had killed two of his sons. As he spoke, tears ran down his face and his wife wept silently. Despite her very limited English, I felt she knew what her husband was talking about. After he told me they had brought their three daughters to Australia, he and his wife lit up with joy as they expressed their gratitude at being given a second chance at life.

    Hassan came to Australia by boat with his wife and three daughters. Sadly, his third son and daughter-in-law died en route to Australia.

    Many refugees have similar stories of escaping horrors such as the torture, rape and murder of people in their family or community. In many cases, the journey to asylum is long and painful. It can also include years enduring the conditions of overcrowded refugee camps. In some cases, mothers even resort to prostitution to attain limited food for their children while staying in a camp. Some asylum seekers have to go to several different countries before they are finally granted refugee status. For some, getting on an old boat to come to Australia is the last option for survival, not an easy way to a better life by ‘cutting the queue’. If someone is willing to leave their home country and give AUD20, 000 or more to a ‘people smuggler’ to make the perilous journey across the sea to Australia, then it must be an act of extreme desperation to escape a situation that promises dangers such as persecution, even death. Some families send their eldest son with all their savings, a gamble for safety.

    In my nine years of teaching, I have never seen such determination to learn as I see among my refugee students. People like Hassan have rescued their families from imminent danger, giving them the chance to have a full and productive life. Though they may have experienced or witnessed horrific abuse, they live with a spirit of resilience and profound gratitude.

    As Hassan told me, “Here, in Australia, I feel for the first time I am free. I have started to live here. I and my family are very happy here.”

    Andrew Babkoff was an English language teacher in Seoul for five years. He is now an ESL teacher in Brisbane.

     

     

  • John Menadue-Refugees – the demographic dividend.

    As responsible members of the human family, we have a strong moral case to provide protection for the victims of persecution and violence.

    There is also a strong case in our own self-interest – that refugees almost by definition are risk-takers and entrepreneurial. It can be argued that they are amongst the most highly motivated and determined in the Australian community.

    Most importantly if we want to see economic growth and rising productivity we need young people. Even the hard headed economists know that it is people that matter and not how they have come here. We need to open our minds as well as our hearts.   Let’s look at asylum seekers and refugees from an economic perspective as well as a humanitarian perspective.

    Along with many other developed countries, Australia has a problem with its rapidly ageing population. Treasury and others have pointed out that in the future there will be many more old Australians than there are today. The number of Australians 65 and over is expected to increase rapidly from around 2.5 million in 2002 to 6.2 million in 2042. That is, from around 13% of the population to around 25%. For Australians aged 85 and over, the growth is even more rapid from around 300,000 in 2002 to 1.1 million in 2042. In 2002 there were more than 5 people of working age to support every person aged over 65. By 2042 there will only be 2.5 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65.

    Data published by Professor Graeme Hugo at the University of Adelaide has highlighted the much younger age structure of refugees. Refugees are not only younger than the Australian population, but also younger than migrants. Migrants and refugees will not be a silver bullet. We need to respond in many wages including lifting the retirement age, but refugees can make a significant contribution to slowing down the ageing of the Australian population. In his report published in May 2011, Professor Hugo pointed out the following:

    • ‘An important characteristic of the contemporary refugee/humanitarian intake … is that it is substantially younger than the national Australian population. … The medium age of the refugee/humanitarian intake over the 2003-09 period was 31.8 years compared with the medium age of 42.9 years in the population.’
    • ‘Not only is the refugee intake young when compared to the national resident population, it is very young when compared with the total immigration intake. … Dependent aged children and young adults aged 15-24(from a refugee background) are significantly over-represented compared with all migrants, while the middle and older working aged group (25-49) (of refugees) are significantly under-represented.’
    • ‘Refugee/humanitarian entrants… are disproportionately concentrated in the age groups which contribute towards a demographic dividend.’

    There has been recent comment about the increased number of Iranian asylum seekers. There is a debate whether they are really asylum seekers or economic migrants. There is no doubt however that they are young, well-educated and very determined. Most would make excellent settlers and are a very good example of how young migrants and refugees can lower our age profile. We need to open more migration pathways for young people who face discrimination within their own country but cannot be regarded as refugees as they have not fled their country.

    But an expanded refugee intake would not only deliver us a “demographic dividend”. Refugees make other important contributions as outlined by Professor Hugo

    • They are increasingly settling in regional Australia.
    • They place a high store on education for their children. 48% of second generation people who are Australian born have post-school qualifications. For the total refugee groups, the percentage is much high at 59%, with some refugee groups showing remarkably high levels of post-school qualifications, e.g. Estonia 65%, Latvia 65%, Slovakia 65%, Sri Lanka 61%.
    • Refugees are more likely to demonstrate entrepreneurial and risk-taking attributes than the Australian community as a whole. They have a higher incidence of owning their own businesses than other migrant groups.
    • The second generation of refugee settlers have a much higher level of labour force engagement than the first generation and in many cases, the level is higher than for second generation Australians.

    Their commitment to Australia is also shown in their uptake of citizenship.  A study prepared for OECD by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (October 2010) reveals that the naturalisation rate by birthplace for all foreign-born is 80%. For significant refugee groups it is much higher – Croatia 97%, Poland 96% and Vietnam 97%. For New Zealand it is 45%, for the United Kingdom 71% and the United States 70%.

    Not surprisingly, refugees in their early years are ‘takers’ of Australian generosity. But year by year they increasingly become great contributors. They pay back many times the generosity they initially receive. They contribute to Australia out of all proportion to their number. It is a great success story for all Australians.

    We can draw inspiration from the very successful refugee programs of the past. Australian business and society generally have been great beneficiaries. It is in our self-interest, as well as for sound moral reasons that we need to break with the stalemate and toxic debate that surrounds refugees. Doing the right thing really pays off.

    Refugees deliver many dividends including a “demographic dividend”. They are much younger than the Australian population and migrants.

  • John Menadue. Cutting back government spending – does it include middle-class and corporate welfare?

    Tony Abbott told his listeners recently at Davos that small government was the best form of government.

    The Minister for Health, Peter Dutton, has said that waste must be reduced in our health sector.

    The Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, has told us that our welfare system is unsustainable and has appointed Patrick McClure to review welfare in Australia.

    And the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has established a Commission of Audit to look at ways to reduce ‘big government’ with priority to reducing government outlays. He said that the age of entitlement had to end. But for whom! He said ‘it is .. essential that the Commonwealth government lives within its means and begins to pay down its debt’. We know of course that by any international measure we do not have a debt problem but let us pass on that for the moment.

    Before we look at fair and efficient ways to improve our public finances, there are a few broad issues to be considered.

    First, we do have a long term ‘structural deficit’ of about $60 billion p.a. The IMF has told us that the most recent culprits were the Howard/Costello governments that reduced tax rates year after year when we were flush with revenue from the mining boom. The Gillard and Rudd governments did face the GFC and sensibly increased government spending. They made some attempt to reduce middle class welfare, but they failed to grasp the major recommendations of the Henry Review to reform our tax system.

    Second, Australia does not have a growing public sector. As Ian McAuley, Jennifer Doggett and I have set out in our submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Commission of Audit, there is no evidence of any sustained increase in government spending (see my website by clicking on at top left of this blog). In fact, outlays have been trending downwards since the mid-1980s. Andrew Podger, who is Professor of Public Policy at the ANU and former Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, said on January 22 in the AFR, ‘The claim that Australia’s welfare system is unsustainable would surprise observers in most other OECD nations which spend a much higher percentage of their GDP on social security payments. Our emphasis on flat rate, means-tested payments rather than earnings-related social insurance has limited the burden on Australian taxpayers.”

    Third, our tax as a percentage of GDP has fallen steadily since 2002 from 30% to 28%, well below the OECD average of 34%.

    Fourth, our health expenditure runs at about 9% to 10% of GDP which is much the same as the OECD average, mainly because of the efficiency of our public insurer, Medicare. We could save substantial amounts in the health sector however if the government would confront the vested interests in health that force up government spending – the AMA, the Private Health Insurance firms, Medicines Australia and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia.

    The issue that stands out is that we need to improve our revenue base. This is where middle class and business welfare is a major problem – the tax-deductions or ‘tax expenditures’ that reduce the effective level of tax and provides disproportionate benefits to the well-off in the community. FlagPost, published by the Australian Parliamentary Library noted on January 29 2014 that Australia has the highest level of tax deductions in the OECD

    • Treasury estimate that the concessions for super contributions and tax-free payments of superannuation to persons over 60 years of age, like me, costs about $32 billion p.a. A phase-in of a 15% tax on superannuation draw-downs would quickly raise $5 billion p.a.
    • The Grattan Institute estimates that property investors get a benefit of about $7 billion p.a. through negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. These concessions help inflate property prices and push home ownership out of the reach of young people.
    • The Grattan Institute also estimate that the government provides about $36 billion p.a. in benefits to home owners through exempting the principal house of residence from capital gains tax and aged pension entitlements. The aged pension is asset-tested, but that test excludes the principal residence. The Minister for Social Services is not prepared to address this issue. The aged pension is excluded from his review. Yet the aged pension costs $36 billion p.a. and accounts for roughly half of the welfare budget. If the government was serious about winding back welfare it would not exclude the aged pension from any review.
    • The government has also excluded from the McClure Review Tony Abbott’s $5.5 billion pa parental leave scheme in which the baby’s primary carer would receive six months leave on full pay up to a maximum of $75,000 p.a. This is middle class welfare in neon lights.

    There are also large hand-outs to the corporate sector, particularly the finance sector

    • There is a subsidy of $6 billion to $7 billion p.a to the high cost Private Health Insurance companies who keep pushing up their premiums which are really private taxes.
    • If we had blinked just before Christmas, we would have missed the largesse that Assistant Treasurer Sinodinos handed out to the financial services industry. The previous government took action to stop superannuation advisers automatically collecting commissions year after year – trailing commissions. It was estimated by the Industry Super Network that this reform by the previous government in stopping these commissions would add $144 billion to private savings by 2027. But Arthur Sinodinos has announced that the Abbott Government will roll back this reform and give financial advisers a chance to plunder our superannuation savings again. The government has given the all clear to the financial advising industry to re impose a private tax on superannuation contributors. There is also no sign that the government is acting to stop the super funds owned by the big banks funnelling their cash exclusively into their parent banks for relatively low returns. It is a private tax on super contributors. That is surely abuse of power or worse but neither ACCC nor APRA seems concerned!
    • The Abbott Government has announced that it will retain the fringe benefits salary packaging for expensive, mainly foreign cars at a cost of almost $2 over four years.
    • The government shows no interest in saving $2 billion pa in drug costs by being as rigorous as New Zealand in negotiating drug prices with suppliers in Australia.
    • Large polluters will be subsidised by removing the market discipline of a price on the carbon that they emit.

    There are also other ways that the Commonwealth Government could address the structural deficit. It should expand the GST to include food, education, health and financial products. Most countries do not have the exclusions that we have. The extension of the GST would raise about $16 billion this year and $70 billion by 2016-17.

    In short, we need to lift taxation. Taxes in Australia are too low. It is the truth we refuse to name.

    In global terms we don’t have a government expenditure problem, although a great deal of middle class and business welfare should be rolled back.

    We also need to look urgently at areas of real need, particularly the disabled, those in need of special help in social housing, those who receive meagre benefits in Newstart (the dole) and refugees.

    We should all share the pain in getting our budget into shape, even though the problem is nowhere as severe as we were told in the election. My concern is that so-called “dole-bludgers “of talk back fame will be the target and the wealthy and politically powerful will be largely exempt. The government has already cut aid to the poor in developing countries.

    I live in hope but I am not expecting an end to the age of entitlement for the rich and powerful. Just think executive salaries, transfer pricing and tax havens! But maybe Joe Hockey has something up his sleeve!.

    Given the present weakness in the Australian economy it is also  important that the reduction in our structural budget deficit is done carefully and not in the drastic way that brought so many problems in Europe.

  • Chris Geraghty. The ABC and Scott Morrison

    The ABC has been much criticised, by our Prime Minister no less, and by the silly bullies on some commercial radio stations, for not being patriotic enough, for not barracking for the home team. Disloyal journalists published a story that some wounded, unwelcome refugees who had been intercepted on the high seas by our navy boys and girls were alleging that they had been tortured by them, forced to grasp and hold onto hot engine pipes and burnt. These dishonourable journalists broadcasted pictures of several dark-skinned men presenting their severely burnt hands to camera and complaining about the brave troops defending our borders.

    I don’t know whether the allegations are true or false. I wasn’t there at the time to witness what was happening. Some people were there if such an incident or anything like it occurred. Presumably the refugees themselves were there, but even that I do not know from my own knowledge, so I must suspend my judgment pending further information. However, they have said that they were there and that they were tortured, or at least treated in such a way as to sustain serious injuries.

    The Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, would have us believe that the incident never happened, that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and therefore false. He might be right. I don’t know. And neither does he. He wasn’t there either. So he is clearly relying on what he’s been told, though we don’t know what he was told, or by whom. We don’t know whether the person he spoke to (if he in fact spoken to anyone) was present at the time or where he got his information from. As far as the Minister’s denial of the truth of the allegations is concerned, we are still all in the dark.

    Now, as to the allegations themselves, Scott Morrison invited us to accept that they are false, for two reasons.

    Firstly, this alleged incident was not something our brave, professional, respected, trustworthy navy men and women would ever be part of. It’s offensive to contemplate the possibility.

    Secondly, there is no evidence to substantiate these serious allegations.

    As to the first basis offered for rejecting the allegations, like all other patriotic Australians, I’d like to think it is true that our service personnel would not engage in such cruel and criminal treatment of vulnerable human beings. But this was the very same reason offered for years by naive Catholics to refute the vile allegations that members of the clergy were sexually abusing children. Professional people don’t always act professionally. Sometimes, some professional people, even Australian professional people, commit crimes. It’s hard to believe, but unfortunately it’s true. American troops in Vietnam engaged in the mass slaughter of civilians, and participated in horrible torture of the enemy in Iraq. We even saw pictures on television of unprofessional, criminal behavior of service men and women. It’s not new, and it’s not confined to the enemy. And closer to home, we have had to accept that unwanted sexual activity, criminal sexual behavior has been engaged in on naval vessels by our brave, professional service-men. I wish it wasn’t true, but we have to accept that sometimes good men can do terrible things, especially to people they have learnt to classify as “illegals”, as “invaders”. If these allegations eventually prove to be true, the shock jocks and our Prime Minister will have a lot to answer for.

    As to the second reason proffered by the minister, it might surprise him to know that there is evidence to substantiate the allegations, and no admissible evidence to undermine them – only the merest hearsay of the minister. The evidence might be thin. We might wish to have more evidence – evidence of an independent witness, for example. There might be grounds for some suspicion. As the evidence stands, it only amounts to a prima facie case, but in the absence of any admissible evidence to the contrary, it substantiates and establishes the allegations.

    What is the evidence? It consists of three important items. Firstly, several people, more than one, make a similar allegation. Secondly, each alleges that he was tortured or treated harshly by members of the Australian navy, and suffered injuries to their hands. And thirdly, there are pictures (presumably genuine pictures) of the burns sustained to the palm area of their hands.

    Now, that’s the evidence. It’s easy to say that it’s a slur, that it’s false and that the ABC should not have given succor to the enemy, but neither the navy nor the Government has taken any steps to demonstrate in any way that the allegations are groundless. And they claim to have the proof. It’s just that no one else is allowed to see or hear it. We have to trust the word of the minister. He assures us that the claims are scurrilous and groundless.

    Let’s hear from someone who was there, other than the refugees. Someone from the poop-deck or the engine-room. The captain or one of the petty officers. The person recording the events on video as they were unfolding. Let’s see the film. We didn’t see the poor mother throwing her baby overboard. Maybe we won’t see sailors mistreating refugees on the high seas.

    It’s not the traitorous behaviour of the ABC journalists that worries me. It’s the fact that smug, secretive ministers and their shock jocks treat the public like drongos.

     

     

     

  • John Menadue. Sharks and asylum seekers

    Over the weekend we have seen thousands of people crowding onto our beaches on both sides of the country to protest against the culling of sharks in Western Australia.  I happen to think that the protesters are right, that people who swim in dangerous seas know the risks but are prepared to take them. Compared with the carnage on our roads, the number who die from shark attacks is quite minor.

    But the protests made me ask why we do not see the same protests supporting asylum seekers, fellow human beings fleeing terror of a different sort.

    Why are we so exhausted in defending the rights of asylum seekers? Maybe it is because the problem is so large, it’s long-term and seems to be intractable. What can we do to make a difference?

    I think our willingness to “pass by on the other side” is because for over a long period deliberate and successful attempts have been made to anaesthatise our consciences to the plight of asylum seekers and refugees. We have become numb to the tragedy that we have allowed to happen in our name.

    I suggest that there are a string of events and actions that have made us less sensitive.

    • John Howard was the first Prime Minister in Australia since the war to show us the great political benefit in appealing to our fear and our worst instincts. Tony Abbott has followed in the same path.
    • We were told at the time of the ‘children overboard’ event that asylum seekers were so inhuman and degraded that they would even throw their children overboard.
    • Tony Abbott continues to call boat people ‘illegals’, akin to criminals, when they are not. As a colleague of Tony Abbott’s at a Jesuit college put it ‘They are not illegals, they are our brothers and sisters’.
    • Scott Morrison told the Coalition Caucus that most people believe that asylum seekers are Muslims and that that should be exploited.
    • He later told us that asylum seekers bring disease and wads of money.
    • The new Member for Lindsay at the last election told us that asylum seekers are blocking the M4 in Sydney.
    • Eric Abetz in Opposition told us that asylum seekers in the community who offended, even in a trivial way, should be treated like paedophiles.

    The demonization of asylum seekers and refugees continues almost daily. The media is largely silent. Its major interest is the politics of boat arrivals, not the plight of the persecuted. The leadership of our churches, synagogues and mosques is scarcely heard. The Vietnamese community that was given a haven in Australia more than 30 years ago is silent. The Labor Party is largely silent as are many members of the Coalition who I know are privately very concerned about what is happening.

    What is it that sharks have that seems to make their plight more important than that of asylum seekers and refugees? Our consciences have become numb. The demonization of asylum seekers is proving to be a political winner.

    It seems to be worth making the effort to save sharks but not human beings also fleeing terror.

     

  • Pope Francis – Message on Migrants and Refugees. January 2014

    ‘Migrants and refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity.

    They are children, women and men who leave or who are forced to leave their

    homes for various reasons, who share a legitimate desire for knowing and having,

    but above all for being more.

    Contemporary movements of migration represent the largest movement of

    Individuals, if not of peoples, in history.

    As the Church accompanies migrants and refugees on their journey,

    she seeks to understand the causes of migration,

    but she also works to overcome its negative effects,

    and to maximize its positive influence on the communities of origin, transit and

    destination.
    While encouraging the development of a better world,

    we cannot remain silent about the scandal of poverty in its various forms.

    Violence, exploitation, discrimination, marginalization, restrictive approaches to

    fundamental freedoms,

    whether of individuals or of groups:

    these are some of the chief elements of poverty which need to be overcome.

    Often these are precisely the elements which mark migratory movements,

    thus linking migration to poverty.

    Fleeing from situations of extreme poverty or persecution in the hope of a better

    future, or simply to save their own lives,

    millions of persons choose to migrate.
    A change of attitude towards migrants and refugees

    is needed on the part of everyone, moving away from attitudes

    of defensiveness and fear,

    indifference and marginalization – all typical of a throwaway culture —

    towards attitudes based on a culture of encounter,

    the only culture capable of building a better, more just and fraternal world.

     

     

  • Arja Keski-Nummi. They are us … and the language of war!

    Why are we using the language and methods of war against civilians fleeing war and persecution?  Asylum seekers are not our enemies. Our real enemies are our complacency and a willingness to turn a blind eye to the spin we are getting. This reflects the Abbott government’s ability to drill deep into our collective psyche of fear with our settler past. What if we lose it all?

    It conflicts so dramatically with our other self-image of an open, caring and welcoming society.

    This debate is about much more than people arriving by boat, it is about reshaping an Australian narrative that excludes and rejects difference. “In our image or no image” is the message. The High Court action against the ACT legislation on same sex marriages and Christopher Pyne’s curriculum review are part of that same agenda.

    In trying to turn the page back to an Australia that no longer exists and never in reality existed the Abbott government is using the asylum debate to send a message of “them and us”.  At best it is elitist. At worst it is narrow minded, bigoted and opportunistic. The problem is that the “them” eventually become “us” as over 200 years of migration – illegal and legal – has proven.

    Governments and politicians carry an enormous burden of responsibility in helping shape how we react and welcome the stranger.  We are the community and society we are because by and large governments understood that most people did not feel comfortable with immigration but if we were to grow and develop and be prosperous we needed people. Nothing has changed.

    The language used about asylum seekers by both the previous government and the current one however has sought to divide our communities. Little compassion is shown or expressed to the plight of people displaced by war and human rights abuses. Rather the language is about people cheating a system and a vow to not “let them get their way”. Disturbingly in the last few months the language of war has started to be used with greater frequency.

    While this may be playing out well in the polling of today, we will pay a price for such demonization. A cornerstone of our success in settling millions of people in Australia over the past 70 years, irrespective of how they may have arrived in this country has been that we have genuinely subscribed to the ethos of a “a fair go”, helping create the opportunities for people to establish new lives and participate in the broader Australian community while at the same time valuing and cherishing their cultural heritage and giving some of it to our own uniquely Australian society. We don’t have an underclass at risk of exploitation nor do we have ethnic ghettoes. Our settlement programs have helped avoid that.

    We do have vibrant culturally diverse suburbs that reflect our cultural make up. It is true that for some the process of settlement is difficult and not trouble free and will be so for a long time but a generation on the children of those arrivals are politicians and in professions creating new wealth and opportunities for all Australians. They are us. That is the time when we need to measure how successful we have been in welcoming the stranger, and by any measure we have been truly successful.

    The previous government’s decisions to lock asylum seekers out of work and the continuation of this policy by the current government will have consequences. We are creating a new underclass. People will have to survive and it is disturbing to contemplate where this may lead and not just into a thriving black economy. It is an own goal we could well avoid if we just recognized and capitalized on the resilience, toughness and determination to succeed that asylum seekers bring with them.   It is on these qualities that Australia’s wealth has been built.  Rather than spending billions of dollars on detention centres and offshore processing centres (where is the budget emergency now?) a little helping hand will in the long run be rewarded a hundred times over. We have two hundred years of evidence to prove that.

    Our problem today therefore has been of our own making. Currently there are no formulated political structures to counter the governments’ opportunistic and increasingly militaristic approach. The Opposition is caught in its own appalling policy paradigm, one which cleared the way for the Abbott government when they reopened Nauru and Manus Island and went still further to announce that no people detained in those centres would be resettled in Australia.   They seem to have forgotten what they stand for!

    Likewise the Greens show no great policy nous in this area having a simplistic, emotive response that ignores the reality of multiple issues colliding with each other including the very difficult issues of how to manage mixed migration flows, return of non refugees, countering people smuggling and support for refugees. Their starting off point is that everyone is a refugee. It leaves no space to contemplate the harder elements of a refugee and asylum policy.

    Emotionalism is not a substitute for a good political strategy.  We cannot turn back the clock and bemoan missed opportunities but nor should we simply accept the mantra of war. It is disrespectful to survivors of wars and betrays the shallowness of politicians who have turned civilians, seeking sanctuary, into enemies.

    What we need is an approach that engages our international partners and regional governments in finding genuine regional solutions and not the Orwellian ones of Manus Island and Nauru). We need to recognize the humanity of people seeking asylum but we also need to have a process that quickly identifies who is and  who is not a refugee and be able to resolve the immigration status of a person who is not a refugee quickly and with dignity even if this means return to their country of origin. To do anything less undermines our obligations under the Refugee Convention, a protection tool that has withstood the test of time. We must compromise the system of international protection that we as a country have worked so hard to shape.

    We have done it before. We can do it again and we can be true to our own self image of a caring and open society.

    Arja Keski-Nummi was First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2007-2010.

  • Mission accomplished? Be careful which war you wish for. Travers McLeod

    “We are going to hold the line, we are going to protect the borders”, Scott Morrison, Federal Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, told the 44th Federal Parliament in its first sitting week. “This battle is being fought using the full arsenal of measures”, he wrote elsewhere. Last week, the Prime Minister defended the secrecy of the ‘battle’, saying, “if we were at war we wouldn’t be giving out information that is of use to the enemy just because we might have an idle curiosity about it ourselves”.

    Whatever the wisdom of Operation Sovereign Borders, Australia’s “military-led, border security operation”, if it is going be described as a military campaign we should assess it like one. When we examine military campaigns we often reflect on two interrelated questions: what is the strategy, and are the tactics appropriate and adapted to achieve that strategy? Strategy is important because it declares the intent and links ends and means. Tactics are also important. As the military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, explained, “only great tactical successes can lead to strategic ones”.

    On strategy, Operation Sovereign Borders has been explicit: “We are going to stop the boats.” In the first of the now discontinued weekly briefings, the Minister said “those seeking to come on boats” would be “met by a broad chain of measures end to end that are designed to deter, to disrupt, to prevent their entry” and “to ensure that they are not settled in Australia”.

    The tactical waters have been muddied. One tactic offered but discarded was to buy the boats. Another tactic, begun by the former Government, is to ensure certain persons arriving by boat cannot be settled in Australia. A new tactic – gifting patrol boats to Sri Lanka – was announced last year. The tactic most discussed has been to turn or tow back the boats.

    Determination not to comment on “on water” matters has marked the campaign. This approach, too, can be evaluated from the perspective of a military campaign. The Australian Defence Force (“ADF”) has defined information operations (“IO”) as “the coordination of information effects to influence the decision making and actions of a target audience and to protect and enhance our decision making and actions in support of national interests”.

    Can this campaign be won in part through an absence of information? In 2007, Lieutenant Commander Chris Watson wrote “the key for IO is choosing to release information to the media on one’s own terms, for example as regards the timing and quantity of material released”. He described IO and “Shaping and Influencing” as “potent but underutilised tools available to government” during peacetime. The Minister appears to share this view.

    One difficulty for Operation Sovereign Borders is multiple target audiences: Australians, regional governments (not least Indonesia’s), asylum seekers and people smugglers. A lack of footage from the High Seas and detention facilities also makes it problematic for actions to articulate a message in and of themselves. Those in charge would prefer no boats, and therefore no actions. No information means no boats. No boats means mission accomplished.

    It is worth recalling debates in the United States during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In 2006, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded the U.S. deserved a “D” or “D+” for its job in the “battle of ideas”. What became apparent was the moral dimension of the information battlespace. The need for accurate, regular information became paramount, informing the directive given to commanders not to put “lipstick on pigs”.

    Taking stock, one might observe Australia has a strategy supported by at least one tactic, and that its information operations are under siege. This observation is made without considering whether the current strategy is the ‘correct’ one. The Jakarta Declaration on Addressing Irregular Movement of Persons, signed by Australia and 12 other countries from the region last August, and endorsed by the UN Refugee Agency, offers other approaches.

    Tellingly, new members of Parliament have cautioned against ‘Fortress Australia’ in their maiden speeches, making the case for new arrivals and new markets. Clare O’Neil, Labor Member for Hotham, described how immigration has “brought more than 150 cultures” to Australia peacefully. Angus Taylor, Liberal Member for Hume, said Australia “must boldly expound and stay true to a narrative that explains the benefits of openness”, which includes a “generous humanitarian program”.

    Clearly, ‘Fortress Australia’ bears multiple meanings, whether we think about trade, immigration, or border protection. But they are all related. Militarising some of the issues and some of the discourse may not be a constructive development. It may not help Australia’s diplomatic and civil-military relations. It may not help Australia’s openness to trade and immigration, which is vital to continued competitive advantage in the global economy. But as long as any government continues to treat Operation Sovereign Borders as a military campaign, we should continue to assess its strengths and failures as such.

    One would hope militarisation has not been pursued in order to control the flow of information. At the end of the day there are human beings on these boats. Their “on water” stories will emerge. It just might be that many have fled countries undeniably at war to join the long list of migrants who have helped build and shape Australia for the long term.

    Travers McLeod is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Policy Development. He holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford.

    An edited version of this article was published in the Melbourne Age on January 14, 2014.

     

     

  • Repost. Refugee advocates and offshore processing. John Menadue

    This is a repost from 23 September, 2013. 

    The insistence on onshore processing for all asylum seekers is damaging the case for humane and sensible refugee policies.

    The blanket opposition to any offshore processing is understandable but it is just not working. Just look at the election result on September 7. The important issue is not where processing occurs but whether it is just, fair and efficient. Many of the asylum seekers who claim protection in Australia are not in direct flight from persecution. Most transit Malaysia and Indonesia. Some are asylum shopping.

    The major political parties  now compete with each other to deter and punish boat arrivals. In the public debate the preoccupation with boat arrivals by both politicians and the media has dramatically reduced support for an increased humanitarian intake and the end of mandatory detention.

    For many years I was a strong supporter of all asylum seekers coming to Australia  being processed in Australia. But I have changed my mind as the facts have changed, with over 17,000 boat arrivals in the six months to June this year. In world terms the numbers are small but the political mood has gone very sour which is threating the humanitarian case for generosity. Before the High Court decision on the Malaysian Agreement boat arrivals were about 300 people per month. They quickly quadrupled after the High Court decision and have continued to increase ever since. The High Court decision striking down the Malaysia Agreement undoubtedly gave oxygen to people-smugglers and many desperate people who were prepared to risk dangerous sea voyages. We cannot ignore their human rights.

    We need to urgently think again about transfers and regional processing.

    The UNHCR in a statement to the Australian Parliament on 30 September 2011 welcomed the transfer and regional arrangements with Malaysia. The Greens and refugee advocates cooperated with Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison to reject amendments to the Migration Act to allow the Malaysian Agreement to proceed. Asylum seekers are paying a heavy price for this unity ticket between the coalition, refugee advocates and the Greens

    There is a long history of UNHCR support for transfer of asylum seekers in appropriate circumstances. In 1998, the executive committee of UNHCR recognised that irregular migration, people smuggling and asylum flows are complex matters but concluded that a return to a transit country like Malaysia may occur provided there are appropriate safeguards, accepted international standards and effective protection against refoulement. Whilst such conclusions are not binding in law they do guide the work of the UNHCR and governments in what are acceptable international standards of behaviour towards asylum seekers.

    The UNHCR in Australia has just issued a ‘Guidance Note on bilateral and/or multilateral transfer arrangements of asylum-seekers’. It can be found on its website.

    Paragraphs 1 and 2,  say ‘It is UNHCR’s position that asylum seekers and refugees should ordinarily be processed in the territory of the state where they arrive or which otherwise has jurisdiction over them. This is also in line with general state practice. The primary responsibility to provide protection rests with the state where asylum is sought. Nevertheless there are an increasing number of initiatives in various regions involving the transfer of asylum seekers from one country to another for the purpose of processing their asylum claims. Such arrangements have typically involved the transfer of asylum seekers either (a) to the state where they first sought (or could have sought) asylum; or (b) to other countries with which the asylum seeker has no previous links. They have also involved both bilateral and/or multilateral (regional) arrangements.’

    The Guidance Note then went on to outline the principles against which any transfer arrangements should be assessed.

    In a joint article with Arja Keski- Nummi, published in the Melbourne Age on 13 December last year, we outlined a system of ‘practical protection’ that should apply to any transfer arrangements in our region. We set down several steps.

    • All countries should commit to the principle of non-refoulement.
    • Provide people with a legal status and access to work and education.
    • Work to help not only displaced people but also host communities.
    • Increase our refugee intake from our region.
    • Work with partners in the region in association with UNHCR to create an atmosphere of safety and trust.
    • Amend the Migration Act to assert the principle of ‘effective protection’ as outlined above.

    We badly need a political compromise based on effective processing whether onshore or offshore. This is necessary if we are to put an end to the political poisoning of the well of public support for asylum seekers and refugees, and to discourage desperate people making dangerous and fatal sea voyages.

    We need to rethink our blanket opposition to offshore processing. It is not helping the people most in need of our help. It has played into the hands of those, who for political reasons want the boats to keep coming as thick and fast as possible and in the process encourage us to fear and even hate asylum seekers.

    We need to fight harder and more astutely to help those in need of our protection. This is not the time to throw in the towel.

     

  • Asylum seekers – Tony Abbott and I share a Jesuit education. John O’Mara

    Like many Australians, I look on the way the Abbott government is handling the matter of asylum seekers with ever increasing dismay. Tony Abbott’s mantra “stop the boats”, is unprincipled, contrary to signed UN agreements and impractical. It is hard to erase the pre-election memory of the Western Sydney interviewee..”I’m going to vote for Abbott, because he’ll stop the boats “.

    What dismays me most is that Tony and I shared an educational experience at the hands of the Jesuits and then a friendship that reaches back almost 40 years.

    Like Tony, I’m very grateful for my time at a Jesuit school. In our day a substantial number of our teachers were Jesuits and we had the benefit of their highly trained minds, sharp moral sensitivities and educational method that always emphasized evidence over rhetoric. Even though the Jesuits were strong on presentation skills in argument, the argument had to have substance.

    Their clarity of thought and pursuit of learning for its own sake sets them apart from all other educators especially those I encountered at Sydney University. Their ability to look at all sides of an argument prior to coming to a conclusion was both stunningly simple, and at the same time extremely thought provoking.

    Surprisingly, our religious education in latter years included a look at many religions…Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Protestantism and others. We were shown the merits of these religions and taught an all encompassing view of life and peoples.

    We were taught quite simply that the major requisites of Catholicism were: love, inclusion, and protecting or looking after those more needy…of any denomination. Fr Gerald Drumm went further, stating that as we were boys starting life from a privileged position in a Jesuit School, we owed it to our God, the Jesuits and ourselves to put our teachings in to practical effect if we were ever in a position to do so. It was as black and white as that!

    Tony and I were, from our earliest days taught people had an inherent dignity and to use them as a means to an end is the antithesis of anything the Jesuits taught us.

    Tony and I were both members of the SRC and had many battles with “the lefties”, both verbal and physical. We both enjoyed playing Rugby for Sydney Uni, if not for Australia. It was a time of great frivolity and for forging life-long friendships. But those playful undergraduate days are long gone. And now in government, the play is for real.

    Instrumentalizing desperate human beings for political advantage is absolutely unacceptable. As I said to Tony a couple of years ago over dinner…”Mate, you and I would be the first in a boat with our families were we to encounter the atrocities they have had to face“.

    The solution is again very simple. We must embrace these poor desperate souls, get them in to our communities and enrich our lives, and theirs. Give them the dignity to live without fear, give them the dignity to work and pay tax. Let us take the lead in a regional resettlement program to accommodate these people. No more detention centres, political bottom feeding, refugee camps or queues. Let’s get the Australian psyche back to where it should be.

    As Tony should know, playing to the xenophobes in Australia just flies in the face of well known facts about people movement and its cause in our region.

    Asylum seekers ARE NOT ‘ILLEGALS” they are our brothers and sisters.

    Tony’s and my Jesuit teachers are turning in the graves for the lack of logic, human sympathy and compassion let alone any reflection of what Jesus had to say about welcoming the stranger and going the extra mile. Bad luck for the Good Samaritan. He was a mug and would never get endorsement as a Coalition candidate.

    John O’Mara is Managing Director of Big Image Sydney Pty Ltd

  • Journalists are not welcome in Nauru. Elaine Pearson

    Dramatically increasing the cost of visas to enter Nauru places severe restrictions from the ability of journalists and others to let us know the truth about asylum seekers being held there. John Menadue

    Here’s an innovative way to discourage foreign media scrutiny of a touchy human rights issue: jack-up the cost of a journalist visa 40-fold, from A$200 to A$8000 (US$178 to US$7108). That’s precisely what the government of the small Pacific nation of Nauru has done, dressing up that skyrocketing increase as a means to “increase revenue.”  The fee is non-refundable even if the visa application is rejected.

    The real impact of the visa gouging will be to deter foreign media outlets and freelance journalists from seeking to report on Nauru’s main story of foreign interest – its treatment of asylum seekers. Currently, there are more than 700 people including pregnant women and dozens of children detained on the island, transferred from Australia in an offshore processing arrangement paid for by the Australian government.

    So what might Nauru have to hide? Poor conditions at the detention facilities, for starters. Asylum seekers are housed in tents, often with inadequate ventilation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is unequivocal, stating that the “harsh physical conditions… not only do not meet international standards – they also have a profound impact on the men, women and children housed there.” Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has praised the conditions in the detention camp in Nauru as “certainly better than in Australian mining camps.”

    So far the Australian government has refrained from commenting on the move, with an immigration official saying “This is a matter for the government of Nauru.” But Nauru’s new measure is in line with Australia’s secrecy about asylum seeker policy and information on boat arrivals, claiming that national security permits its broad restrictions on access to information. It has been politically convenient to ship asylum seekers to isolated Nauru, far from the public view, where Australian media and voters can ignore their plight. It’s time for that approach to end.

    The new fees are nothing less than an attack on media freedom, intended to leave the world, and Australians in particular, with little way of holding the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott accountable for its refugee policies. With no stories or pictures to present factual accounts of their treatment, the Australian government can continue to demonize those who seek asylum there. The Abbott government needs to make clear that it’s not a party to this outrageous infringement on the right to freedom of expression, by publicly demanding that Nauru drop this fee so that the world can know what is happening there.

    Elaine Pearson is the Australian Director of Human Rights Watch. HRW has just opened an office in Australia. See HRW.org. 

  • Repost: Don’t tamper with the Refugee Convention. John Menadue

    It would be dangerous to open up the pandora’s box of the Refugee Convention. It has served us well. Who would seriously suggest that persons facing persecution should not be protected. Given the world wide agitation against refugees and ‘outsiders’, a review of the Convention would be a great opportunity for extremists to run their campaigns against foreigners. It would be a field day for the Scott Morrisons of this world.

    This is a repost from 19 July, 2013.

    When will the nonsense stop on boats and refugees? A few days ago Foreign Minister Carr suggested that too many economic migrants were being accepted as refugees. He produced no evidence. What public information I have seen suggests that he is wrong. I would discount the advice he gets from his own department.

    Now the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is saying that the Refugee Convention needs revising, presumably to make it harder for asylum seekers and refugees.

    Where is this mistaken advice coming from? Unless Minister Burke is careful, he will become the fourth Labor minister in a row who has failed in the Immigration portfolio.

    There are sound reasons, both humanitarian and practical, why we should leave the convention alone.

    • Historically Australia has a proud record in protecting the persecuted and the vulnerable. The 1951 Refugee Convention was signed and ratified by the Menzies Government. The 1951 convention dealt largely with the holocaust and refugee problems in Europe in the aftermath of WWII. The 1967 protocol also endorsed by a Liberal government in Australia extended the convention beyond Europe to the rest of the world. The convention is no longer just a post WWII document. It is current and covers refugees around the world. 150 countries or states have signed the convention or protocol.
    • No-one has suggested that the convention is irrelevant although the dog-whistling leads one to the conclusion that some people think it is too soft. I have not heard anyone suggest that a well-founded fear of persecution should be put aside. No-one has suggested that fear of persecution on such issues as political thought and activity, membership of a social group, ethnicity or religion should be discounted. Does anyone seriously suggest that we should reduce protection in these areas?
    • A fundamental and sacrosanct part under the convention is of course ‘non refoulement’ – not returning persecuted people to their country of origin where they could face torture or death. Does anyone want to change that?
    • Why should other countries be sympathetic to our bleatings about revising the convention when our problems are so small? Only this week the UN High Commissioner for Refugees called on more international cooperation to assist the 1.8 million who have fled Syria. Most will want to return to their homes when the civil war and sectarian violence ends. But some will have to be resettled. 200,000 Coptic Christians have fled Egypt since the downfall of President Mubarak. Many will claim protection under the Refugee Convention. In our own region, 250,000 people, mainly Rohingya Muslims, have been forced to flee Buddhist Myanmar. Australia has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. We must accept responsibility for persons fleeing those two countries as a result of our participation and occupation. In 2012 Pakistan had 1.6 million refugees, Iran 870,000, Germany 590,000 and Australia 30,000. In that same year, South Africa had 97,000 asylum seeker applications, France 98,000, the US 66,000 and Australia 29,000. Our problem is exaggerated out of all proportion for cynical political reasons. The media must bear a heavy responsibility for the manipulation of public prejudice and ignorance. Other countries are amazed at the cynicism of our political debate and the failure of political leadership. Why should other leaders around the world cooperate in our futile attempt to amend the convention?
    • If Australia, with such a small problem, believes that the Refugee Convention needs changing, what is there to stop other countries wanting to try to manipulate other conventions, particularly the Geneva Convention that protects our troops in places like Afghanistan? Do we want to be part of an unravelling process?
    • I am also concerned on practical and political grounds. Starting a process to amend and presumably soften the Refugee Convention could open a “Pandora’s box”. It would give the Scott Morrisons of this world free-kicks to continue their attacks on asylum seekers and refugees. (See my blog of March 5 in which Scott Morrison in his maiden speech said ‘From my faith I derive the values of loving kindness, justice and righteousness’). In the present anti-immigration environment, encouraged by the political right in Europe, Australia and elsewhere I fear we could be unleashing further attacks on refugees and would cement what Pope Francis has diplomatically called ‘the globalization of  indifference’ to refugees.

    The Refugee Convention is not broken. We should leave it alone and work with it. Let’s stop being side-tracked by nonsense about economic migrants and changing the Refugee Convention.

    The one area where Kevin Rudd should employ his considerable diplomatic skills and experience is to help negotiate a robust regional arrangement. Everything else is fifth-rate. A lot is also nonsense.

    ( Arja Keski Nummi and I have written extensively on this subject)

  • Towback of boats to Indonesia. Frank Brennan SJ

    ​It is essential that we receive unambiguous public confirmation that Indonesia is agreeing to the tow-back of boats.  Unilateral action by the Abbott Government is just not on.  It would fracture our relationship with Indonesia, would be counterproductive and contrary to our international legal obligations.

    All you need do is consider Recommendation 19 of the 2012 Expert Panel chaired by Angus Houston who had headed our armed services and Michael L’Estrange who had been head of John Howard’s Cabinet Office and then head of the DFAT.

    Recommendation 19 reads: “The Panel notes that the conditions necessary for effective, lawful and safe turnback of irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia are not currently met, but that this situation could change in the future, in particular if appropriate regional and bilateral arrangements are in place .”

    In their report the Expert Panel spoke about turnbacks at para 3.77:  “Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met:

    • The State to which the vessel is to be returned would need to consent to such a return.
    • Turning around a vessel outside Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone (that is, in international waters) or ‘steaming’ a vessel intercepted and turned around in Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone back through international waters could only be done under international law with the approval of the State in which the vessel is registered (the ‘flag State’).
    • A decision to turn around a vessel would need to be made in accordance with Australian domestic law and international law, including non-refoulement obligations, and consider any legal responsibility Australia or operational personnel would have for the consequences to the individuals on board any vessel that was to be turned around.
    • Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia’s obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Australian Defence Force (ADF ) personnel involved in any such operation.”

    They then say, “In the Panel’s view, the conditions noted above and required for effective, lawful and safe turnbacks of irregular vessels headed for Australia with asylum seekers on board are not currently met in regard to turnbacks to Indonesia.”

    Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison, we need to know what’s changed.  This is not war.  This is the rule of law on the high seas during peacetime.  This is Australia.

    Fr Frank Brennan SJ, Professor of Law, Australian Catholic University 

     

  • A place of refuge: responses to international population movements. Arja Keski-Nummi

    For over 60 years Australia has played a vital role in the development and strengthening of a system of international protection for refugees. It was one of the earliest signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. It has been an active member of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR and has held the Chair on several occasions. Australia was one of the key countries in the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo Chinese Refugees (CPA). Two Australians have been awarded the UNHCR Nansen Award for Refugees: Sir Tasman Heyes in1962 and Major General Paul Cullen in 1981.

    Australia has one of the largest humanitarian resettlement programs globally and contributes substantially to international efforts in support of displaced people and refugees. Despite this, in the past decade, Australia, like other developed countries, has grappled with the increasingly contentious nexus between asylum, irregular migration and secondary movements. The public debate is now so polarised that it has become difficult to have a rational and constructive dialogue on the best ways to respond to such movements.

    This essay reviews recent developments and focuses on some practical strategies that could be taken by Australia in strengthening the regional and international protection system.

    Globalisation is testing the tolerance levels of developed countries regarding population flows, immigration and asylum. We know we need immigration, but in the asylum context we just don’t like the apparent self-selection that occurs. It offends both our sense of a fair go and an orderly process. Alongside this concern is the emergence of organised people smuggling activities (a low risk /high profit venture) that facilitate the movement of people when migration systems fail them or do not accommodate their needs. Finally we are often suspicious of the motivation for such population movements, particularly secondary onward movements. Is it opportunistic? Is it out of fear for safety or merely economic? Is it because legal channels have been cut off? The answer probably lies in a complex mixture of all of these.

    These various strands of concern have coalesced into a sense of crisis regarding the perceived uncontrolled onward movements, especially by boat, and the capacity of the international protection system to respond effectively in a way that addresses both States’ legitimate concerns and individual protection needs. In our domestic policy context we see this being played out with ever-changing and often more restrictive policies on asylum, immigration, border control, interception and attempts at disruption, arrest and prosecution of people smugglers

    While such policy responses may temporarily have some impact, they fail in essence to tackle what is at the heart of the issue – the need by people forced to flee their countries to find a place of safety.

    This has been compounded further by the shrinking protection space for displaced people globally. For the past 60 years the complementary elements of an international protection system have been:

    • asylum – the obligation under the Refugee Convention that States provide protection to refugees who are in their territory, and
    • burden-sharing – the concept expressed in the preamble of the Convention whereby States contribute to the protection of refugees who are in the territory of other states.

    However after thirty years of mass outflows of people because of wars and civil unrest, from the Vietnam War to Syria today, the international system has struggled to find an effective way to balance these dual responsibilities.

    We do know it can be done. The Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo Chinese Refugees in this region, and in Europe the airlift from Kosovo, shows what is possible when national and international interests come together. Despite being controversial and contentious at the time, both achieved their objectives of keeping borders open and providing at least some protection in the region until durable solutions were available.

    However the examples of failure to act quickly are horrific: the hesitation to intervene in Rwanda that saw over one million people killed; and the current indecisiveness on Syria where over two million have fled across the borders and where, the UNHCR estimate, there are some 4.25million people internally displaced.

    For over a decade there has been intense discussion on enhancing international cooperation and yet no consensus on a framework has been achieved, largely because governments have not seen what is in it for them (1) The reality is that any framework that is developed must take account of States’ national interests or it will not succeed. This is not Australia’s “problem” to fix but, as in the past, we have an important role to play in finding regional solutions because until we do we cannot hope to reach a reasonable response to the complexities of such population movements.

    To achieve this, three complementary approaches that build on current arrangements are examined here.

    1. Building a strategic policy dialogue

    The foundations already exist, but they often appear ad hoc and uncoordinated with little appreciation by others of what is being done. This includes the Bali Process and its various working groups as well as the Regional Support Office; the Regional Cooperation Framework endorsed at the last two Bali Process Ministers conferences, and in civil society, the work of the Asia Pacific Regional Refugee Network (APRRN) (2).

    The missing link in these arrangements is a mechanism that engages government and civil society in a strategic policy dialogue. There is an urgent need to start the work of establishing such a process and creating a framework that brings Governments and civil society in the region into a structured and constructive policy dialogue.

    One approach could be modelled on the “Track 2 Diplomacy” dialogue that has been effectively used in the Asia-Pacific region on security related issues. The objective of this unofficial dialogue would be to develop a shared understanding and a shared acknowledgement of the problem and the role of diverse players. This would include people working in immigration, security, intelligence and border protection areas of government as well as refugee and asylum experts in civil society.

    Done well, this approach has the potential to be transformational in breaking down the unproductive suspicions of the different parties, the current dynamics of which are self-perpetuating and so reinforcing of the stalemate that exists.

    While building a track 2 dialogue takes enormous effort and commitment the dividends can be many:

    • It can remove the discussion on asylum, people smuggling and displacement from public contention to a neutral space;
    • It can give greater freedom to explore alternative perspectives and formulate new (joint) ideas as well as giving all players a stake in the partnership and responsibilities in addressing the issues;
    • It can present an opportunity for those players outside Government to influence new policy thinking and for government officials, often stuck in rigid roles and with less flexibility, to explore and test new policy models which gives them the opportunity to “think aloud”;
    • It can promote a rational public discourse using facts and reason and can strengthen the voices of moderation;
    • It can kick start a process that could lead to a new framework balancing the complementary concepts of asylum and burden sharing regionally.

    If successful such a dialogue could conceivably be expanded into a regional approach sitting alongside or under the Bali Process.

    2. Alternative Migration options

    A central focus of the international discussion on population movements and asylum has been the concept of mixed migratory movements. The literature and research on such movements highlights the complexities inherent in making simple assumptions. A migration path that on the face of it might have started principally for “economic” reasons might, when more fully probed, have compelling refugee dimensions as well. In a 2004 study on mixed migration the absence of alternative migration pathways was cited as one possible reason for the growing “asylum” populations because no other alternatives existed (3). We should understand these dynamics better and examine ways to use extant visa programs as one way of easing the pressure on asylum systems as the only migration option available.

    We have faced such dilemmas before and responded with arrangements such as the Orderly Departure Program from Vietnam or the Special Assistance Category visas created for specific circumstances to release migration pressures that could otherwise have moved into an irregular migration pathway.

    The government, therefore, has in its toolkit a number of visa options that could be considered, and there is a persuasive case for the creation of a negotiated Orderly Departure and/or Special Assistance Category program from targeted countries such as Afghanistan or Sri Lanka. In the case of Afghanistan it could be incorporated into the discussions on the changing nature of Australia’s engagement with Afghanistan in the wake of the draw-down of our military presence. Other vulnerable populations that could be considered are, for example, the Tamils in Sri Lanka or Rohingya in Burma.

    While there will always be difficult bilateral issues with such arrangements these can be addressed through robust diplomatic engagement and discussion, as they have been in the past.

    3. Building a Regional Protection Space.

    Most people displaced by war and conflict will largely remain within their region of displacement (4). People continue to move when the protections in the country of first asylum become precarious or where processing is taking so long that they start to lose faith in return.

    It is important to provide a humane and responsible way to for people to search for alternative protection arrangements elsewhere. We need to work with host countries along the displacement corridors to support populations so as to minimise the need to move on or use smugglers for their onward movements. Such support includes timely registration and processing of claims, access to shelter, education and health services, as well as some capacity for self-sufficiency pending a durable solution.

    In this context the need to pursue regional processing arrangements through which resettlement or return can occur is urgent. Such an arrangement needs to be regarded in the broader context of supporting the continued development of a regional framework. If done well, it could assist in developing a common asylum processing system and infrastructure in the region.

    Balanced with a commitment to resettlement and appropriate alternative migration pathways, as well as safe and transparent return for people who are not refugees or who do not qualify for other visa programs, this would go a long way to restoring the spirit of international cooperation envisaged in the refugee convention.

    References

    1. See for example James Milner, Refugee Studies Centre Working paper No4 Sharing the Security Burden: Towards the Convergence of Refugee protection and State Security, May 2000.

    2. A key NGO umbrella organisation that brings together civil society and regional NGOs to identify and work out practical ways to support the development of a protection framework in the region for displaced people.

    3. Crisp, Jeff and Christina Boswell Poverty, International Migration and Asylum; Policy Brief No.8, UNU- WIDER 2004.

    4. See for example UNHCR Global Report 2012.

    Arja Keski-Nummi was formerly First Assistant Secretary of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2007-2010. This article was published as a contribution to ‘Australia21’. It was part of a series of articles on refugees and asylum seekers.  See www.australia21.org.au. 

     

  • Repost: Nation building or border policing? Guest blogger: Peter Hughes

     This was posted on November 15, 2013. 

    Increasingly refugee policy is portrayed in terms of border protection and stopping the boats. We are losing sight of the enormous nation-building benefits that we have received from immigrants and refugees.  John Menadue

    The repositioning of the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio as “Immigration and Border Protection” was a clear indication by the incoming government of its political priority – stop the arrival of maritime asylum seekers!

    In the process of shuffling programs around to accommodate this, Australia lost something.

    The settlement programs that provide initial support to migrants and refugees after arrival in Australia were moved from the Immigration portfolio to the Social Services portfolio. The Adult Migrant English Program was moved to the Industry portfolio (after inexplicably spending two weeks in transit in the Employment portfolio).

    Through these programs last year, some 15,000 refugees were assisted with specialised humanitarian services and around 60,000 adult migrants received English language training. 216 grants were made to organisations assisting migrants with their initial transition into Australian society. Many other services, including translating and interpreting, were also delivered.

    It has been hard to find an articulated rationale for the portfolio changes. Apart from one commentator on this blog, public commentary has been muted.

    The Immigration portfolio and the Department, since its inception in 1945, has been primarily about nation building. This has continued under successive governments, with a short break in continuity in the early 1970s.

    One of the great strengths of Australian national administration of immigration over that period has been that the Department has had a strong connection with migrant communities through its management of the initial settlement process. This has given it an important insight into the experiences of migrants and refugees when they get to Australia. It has enabled nimble adjustments to programs to deal with the particular circumstances of constantly changing national groups coming into the country. It has also enabled preparation for Australian Citizenship to be built in at an early stage.

    Australia’s immigration program is regarded as one of the most successful in the world. The fact that last year saw the largest immigration program in the nation’s history absorbed into our society, with almost no controversy, is a testament to that. Our “one-stop shop” has been one of the secrets of our success. Why discard it?

    One other equally unheralded shift of policy responsibility also took place. Responsibility for national multicultural policy also shifted from the Immigration portfolio to the Social Services portfolio. Interestingly, the community debate about its location after it moved from the Prime Minister’s portfolio to the Immigration portfolio in 1996 has been whether or not it should once again come under the Prime Minister’s wing. The idea that multicultural policy is just another social service is a novel one.

    The previous Coalition government updated multicultural policy in the late 1990s with a strong and effective policy under the banner of “Australian Multiculturalism”. It then let the policy wither on the vine in 2007. The challenge is now for the responsible Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, to keep multicultural policy (reinstated by the Labor government in 2011) alive and kicking.

    The problem of maritime arrivals, although seemingly intractable, is likely to prove transitory. In the meantime, we must neither lose focus on the enduring, longer term, goal of nation building through immigration nor weaken our capability to deliver it.

    Peter Hughes is Visitor at the Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU, and formerly Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

  • People like us: personal reflections. Guest blogger Trevor Boucher

    One of my great-great grandfathers on my mother’s side was transported to Australia in the early 1840’s for stealing lead from a chapel roof. The lash and Van Dieman’s Land didn’t reform him, although marriage in Geelong to an Irish orphan helped- even though a couple of manslaughter convictions followed.

    Not that I knew about this as a child born in 1936 in remote eastern Victoria. My family historian brother later extracted the information from a reluctant Mum (a crusading Salvationist’s daughter). Her opinion was, “We don’t need to talk about that sort of thing.” With hardworking and upright Dad being a Methodist local preacher, the numerous local Catholics (of Irish origin) were to be treated with some reserve –not really people like us. For their part, they probably saw us as “wowsers”. The hundreds of Chinese alluvial gold miners who once dug up the place had long gone. They didn’t meet “White Australia” prescriptions anyway.

    During the Second World War years Dad returned from a visit to relatives in the Western District with stories of how a companionable Italian POW assigned to them sat at the family dinner table.

    A few years later Dad employed on our farm one of the “Balt” refugees then coming into the country. Although he spoke funny, he seemed to be a decent person to have around.

    Both my parents had limited educational opportunities. In Dad’s case it was through family and financial circumstances, in Mum’s because she was a girl. They wanted their kids to have a better chance.

    So they sent me off to boarding school in Melbourne in 1949. Boarders included Chinese “boys” sent by the Missions from Rabaul, people whose wartime internment by the Japanese had delayed and interrupted their schooling. They were great fella’s; impromptu and illicit after hours Chinese tucker in the boarding quarters provided a great introduction to different food. Another student was the daughter of a Jewish refugee doctor from central Europe.

    Then came teenage hitchhiking around north-east Victoria. I was a bit of a problem for my mates. Being blonde and blue eyed, I looked too much like a “reffo” from the Bonegilla migrant camp. The word was out that they, not being “people like us”, were a problem if you let them into your car. So I was hidden away from the edge of the road while the mates did the hitching.

    Back at the school I was elevated to dormitory master. There were different faces in the streets as the mass immigration recruiting ground of Arthur Calwell (he of “two Wongs” fame) was moved from northern European climes to the warmer Mediterranean, bringing in “wogs” and “dagoes”. A Greek kid arrived at the school with not a word of English, and was fluent within weeks.

    By then the melting pot of the Snowy scheme was a great demonstration of how Australia could manage the welding together of many diverse cultures. The term “New Australian” was coined in an attempt to get away from derogatory references to newcomers. It worked for a while.

    Like others, I was caught by National Service Training requirements. I spent my twenty-first birthday with the Melbourne University Regiment in the bush at Puckapunyal, helping set up a jungle training shooting alley as part of national preparations against the “coming hordes from the North”.

    In late 1972, another brother escaped being Vietnam fodder. Malcolm Fraser later let in Vietnamese boat people; something I remember each time I visit my highly competent Vietnamese dentist.

    Through most of my early life, people of aboriginal descent were in the shadows around my old country market town, Bairnsdale, having come from nearby Lake Tyers Mission settlement. The lawyer in me found the Mabo decision when handed down by the High Court a road to Damascus, yet despite formal constitutional and judicial recognition, attitudes of other Australians generally remain apathetic towards dealing effectively with the continuing profound disadvantage that stands in the way of First Australians being “people like us”.

    My elder daughter Katherine has married Colin, an ethnic Chinese from Malaysia. They have three gorgeous and talented children – Nicholas, Hannah and Julia. What a gift!

    A few years back I took Bryce, the elder son of my younger daughter, Nicole, from Canberra to the cricket in Sydney. Going up the afternoon before, we walked down a Sydney suburban shopping street. I was struck by the fact that nearly all shop signs were in Chinese or another non-English language. There was scarcely a Caucasian face. I said to Bryce, “Do you notice anything different around here?” He said he didn’t and we walked on. A few minutes later he said he had spotted the difference. “What is it?” Bryce’s answer: “They’ve all got I-pads.”

    Some days on after- school pickup of his young blonde brother Trent,  I meet the latter’s best mate, a refugee kid from deep in the Sudan- someone with the best smile and the brightest dark eyes, the best rugby player in the team.

    Waiting in the schoolyard each day are parents from all over the globe. Among them are modestly dressed mothers who I take from their dress to be Muslims. Happy kids mix with each other. At a well attended school concert, kids dance as they sing a song in Arabic.

    As I chat about these things on the way home Paige, sister of Bryce and Trent, chimes in from the back seat to say matter-of-factly that her school friend (from Indonesia) has been fasting all day because of Ramadan and will be away, at prayers, the next day. This leads me to reflect on how religious observance and practice were a major part of my upbringing, my Protestant Mum going to great lengths to ensure that we ate fish on Good Friday.

    Travelling interstate, I can’t remember the last time that the taxi driver from and to the airport was someone who once would have been described as “dinki-di”. Someone has to do that tough and not greatly rewarding job, just as other immigrant people work hard at jobs that are not appealing to the “mainstream”.

    Names in today’s telephone book, like names of players in sporting teams, strongly demonstrate a world-wide spread of family origins of Australians.  On the other hand, when I indulge my pastime of attending country clearing- sale auctions I don’t see the faces of a typical urban Australian street, just faces reflecting the time of my childhood.

    Last weekend a couple, friends of over 50 years, visited. We got talking about the latest drownings of boat people – this time of people trying to get into Europe from the African continent and the Middle East. Leaders overseas have called for broad solutions. Our friends tell us that they are both offspring of boat people. Both sets of parents came by ship as “10 Pound Poms”.

    It strikes me that ten quid is not much compared with the amounts desperate boat people are reported to be paying to “people smugglers” or (dare I say) as air fares for a “legal” arrival followed by a visa overstay.

    The old Protestant/Catholic divide has gone but religious prejudice stays around. It seems funny that proposals for a Muslim school, a mosque and even recently a Muslim cemetery in the country still meet with NIMBY- type objections (for example, adverse traffic effects). Sadder still to me (now an agnostic) is that if one follows the claimed lineage of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, they all lead back to the same “big fella”. Were I to choose to be buried, which denominational section would I be put in? Would it matter?

    While my great-great grandfather came involuntarily to a continent then little changed from the way it had been managed by indigenous people for centuries, succeeding waves of boat people –people seeking a better life-  and their descendants have created a diverse society that is rightly envied elsewhere. People once feared as being “different” have not only fitted in, widening the sense of “us”, but greatly enriched Australian life.

    My granddaughters, Gracye, Ellanor and Maddison, sing the National Anthem at morning line-up at their little country school at Numeralla. They are too young to catch the irony in the words that “for those who come across the seas” we have “bounteous plains to share”.

    Australian society and its composition have changed and pressures for further change will not go away. Sitting on our island we would be both foolish and inhumane not to recognize that there are many more at-risk human beings beyond our shores who are desperate for somewhere to go and who, on any analysis, are simply people like us.

    The great thing is that kids of today don’t see the differences between people that my generation did.

    The Australia of my childhood has changed. It is still changing. But is it better and does it hold more promise?

    You bet!

    PS  The daughter of the great-great grandfather referred to earlier married a man (my great grandfather) who had changed his name on arrival in Australia. He was a Swedish seaman who jumped ship in Melbourne. That means that I am a descendant of someone who today would be classed as an “illegal maritime arrival”.

    Trevor Boucher was Commissioner of Taxation for eight years. This was followed by two years as Australia’s Ambassador to the OECD.

    This article by Trevor Boucher was published before Christmas in ‘Australia 21’. For further information see www.australia21.org.au.