The future direction of a major aspect of Australia’s asylum seeker policy is in the balance right now, with potentially very significant future impacts for many refugees, as well as for regional relations and the treatment of people moving through the region.
The Labor government made some significant changes on coming to office. Most important was the scrapping of the cruel and counter-productive temporary protection visa and the closure of the centre on Nauru. Having done those things, a lot of what is now getting so much public attention about the so-called ‘Indonesia Solution’ is not really very new.
Australian has been cooperating with Indonesia on trying disrupt asylum seeker boats since the Howard era. Funding has also been provided for some time to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to process asylum claims lodged in Indonesia and to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to help with the basic survival for those still there and with possible returns to other countries.
What is new is that people are starting to pay attention and look at what all this entails, both in terms of treatment of asylum seekers and the overall cost. As http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/23/bali-it-aint-a-tour-of-indonesias-detention-centres/ reported in Crikey last week, independent and committed advocates such as Jessie Taylor and Kaye Bernard have travelled through the region gathering evidence of the conditions asylum seekers are being kept in for long periods. Their findings are grim. Some mainstream media journalists are doing the same, as shown in http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26252679-25837,00.html this report in The Australian over the weekend.
The simple fact is that the ‘accommodation’ many asylum seekers have been kept in ranges from adequate to appalling. The Australian government, having gone on at length about the increasing cooperation with the Indonesian government, cannot now simply sidestep their responsibilities by http://www.theage.com.au/national/jakarta-may-force-people-from-boat-20091025-hepv.html saying the conditions are the responsibility of the UNHCR and IOM.
It seems we may be about to enter a major irony zone, whether the Coalition will be attacking the Labor government funding the locking up of children behind razor wire and keeping refugees detained for long periods in terrible conditions with no certainty about their future.
It would be a welcome extra irony to see all of this attention and pressure about the Australian government’s responsibility for what happens with the detention, processing and resettling of refugees in our region lead to a truly regional approach to effectively, efficiently and fairly deal with the issue, with corresponding increases in the way people in detention are treated in Indonesia (and ideally in Malaysia as well, where the treatment of refugee claimants can on the whole by much worse still.
Such a result is still along shot, but it is very unlikely the Australian will reverse cooperation with other major transit countries in our region, so we may as well try to apply maximum scrutiny and pressure about what is done there, and see if the standard can end up being lifted across the region. Who knows, maybe regional cooperation and recognition that taking in refugees does no great harm to a country might even lead to a more effective and safer process for assisting asylum seekers. That’s probably all very unlikely, but it will only be a chance of happening if the public scrutiny continues.
One of the big factors which assisted the Howard government in managing public perceptions under the Pacific Solution was a government in Nauru which was mostly happy to leave the whole thing to the Australian government – in return for various other forms of assistance – and even more importantly, performed the vital role of virtually closing the country off to any lawyers, journalists and other visitors from Australia. When I first visited the detention centres in Nauru in 2003, the hundreds of refugees still there – including many children – had already been there two years with barely a signal visitor from ‘outside’ the progression of Australian government officials. That can’t and won’t happen in Indonesia. The key question is whether people will keep paying enough attention.
The future direction of a major aspect of Australia’s asylum seeker policy is in the balance right now, with potentially very significant future impacts for many refugees, as well as for regional relations and the treatment of people moving through the region. The ‘tough & humane’ mantra of the federal government could end up tipping very heavily towards just one of those words – the key is which one it ends up being.
The Labor government made some significant changes on coming to office. Most important was the scrapping of the cruel and counter-productive temporary protection visa and the closure of the centre on Nauru. Having done those things, a lot of what is now getting so much public attention about the so-called ‘Indonesia Solution’ is not really very new.
Australian has been cooperating with Indonesia on trying disrupt asylum seeker boats since the Howard era. Funding has also been provided for some time to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to process asylum claims lodged in Indonesia and to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to help with the basic survival for those still there and with possible returns to other countries.
What is new is that people are starting to pay attention and look at what all this entails, both in terms of treatment of asylum seekers and the overall cost. As reported in Crikey last week, independent and committed advocates such as Jessie Taylor and Kaye Bernard have travelled through the region gathering evidence of the conditions asylum seekers are being kept in for long periods. Their findings are grim. Some mainstream media journalists are doing the same, as shown in this report in The Australian over the weekend.
The simple fact is that the ‘accommodation’ many asylum seekers have been kept in ranges from adequate to appalling. The Australian government, having gone on at length about the increasing cooperation with the Indonesian government, cannot now simply sidestep their responsibilities by saying the conditions are the responsibility of the UNHCR and IOM.
It seems we may be about to enter a major irony situation, whether the Coalition will be attacking the Labor government for funding the locking up of children behind razor wire and keeping refugees detained for long periods in terrible conditions with no certainty about their future.
It would be a welcome extra irony if all of this attention and pressure on the Australian government and their responsibility for what happens with the detention, processing and resettling of refugees in our region were to lead to a truly regional approach to effectively, efficiently and fairly manage this issue, with corresponding improvements in the way people in detention are treated in Indonesia (and ideally in Malaysia as well, where the treatment of refugee claimants is on the whole much worse again.
Such a result is a long shot, but as it is very unlikely the Australian government will reverse cooperation with other major transit countries in our region, we may as well try to apply maximum scrutiny and pressure about what is done there, and see if the standard can end up being lifted across the region. Who knows, maybe regional cooperation and a recognition that taking in refugees does no great harm to a country might even lead to a more effective and safer process for assisting asylum seekers! OK, I know that’s all very unlikely, but it will only be a chance of happening if the public scrutiny continues.
One of the big factors which assisted the Howard government in managing public perceptions under the Pacific Solution was a government in Nauru which was mostly happy to leave the whole thing to the Australian government – in return for various other forms of assistance – and even more importantly, performed the vital role of virtually closing the country off to any lawyers, journalists and other visitors from Australia. When I first visited the detention centres in Nauru in 2003, the hundreds of refugees still there – including many children – had already been there two years with barely a single visitor from ‘outside’ the progression of Australian government officials. That can’t and won’t happen in Indonesia. The key question is whether people will keep paying enough attention long enough to ensure big improvements happen.
10 Comments
What’s on 108?
Of course it is all highly illegal. We are just now settling 88 of the people we turned back in 2001 and we saw on 60 Minutes others have been rotting in hell holes at our expense for 5 years or more in Puncak while their family members are in Australia.
Interesting that Michael Usher went to find all these vicious people smugglers and found one old fisherman who was pulling his leg big time. No-one has left from West Papua and no small boats have turned up at Broome so Usher should feel like a dill except for one comment “we want to be found, we were not hiding”.
That’s because it is not people smuggling and never has been because not a soul has been smuggled into Australia. They come out in the open to find the authorities, otherwise what on earth is the point?
Rudd is a weak kneed hypocrite over this and (Edit: no).
He was in Adelaide when he told 9 year old Brinda she was an “illegal immigrant” who should piss off out of his sight.
It was Rudd who insisted that we ratify the people smuggling protocol but he has forgotten the saving clause that says
IV. Final provisions
Article 19
Saving clause
1. Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the other rights,
obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international
law, including international humanitarian law and international human
rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 1951 Convention and the
1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of nonrefoulement
as contained therein.
Now as the refugees are not being bought or traded they are not smuggled migrants are they yet we keep punishing them for daring to pay.
Strangely enough Mark Kenny showed in the Advertiser a few weeks ago that those who pay get refugee status super quick, those who sail themselves don’t.
And the Daily Telegraph outdid themselves with the report on the break down I sent them some weeks ago.
It is time Australia remembered something very basic.
The law is
application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Al Masri, 2002.
Enough already with policy, lets obey our own laws.
Rudd is more conservative than Howard. He has turned away, deported and incarcerated a higher percentage of refugees than the Liberals. Now it turns out his brother secretly profits from leased detention centers through a chinese front company he owns. Are we learning yet ALP?
Andrew: “It seems we may be about to enter a major irony situation, whether the Coalition will be attacking the Labor government for funding the locking up of children behind razor wire …”
I would love to see the Opposition attacking the government on that basis.
The Liberal party was once, in theory at least, the party of civil liberties, and of no more government interference in people’s lives than necessary. (A little bit like the Democrats, actually.) Malcolm Turnbull so far is flat out keeping the coalition in any semblance of unity. But I think he is one of the few to whom “liberal” means more than simply “conservative”.
A little-known, off-the-record quote from Kevin Rudd’s hero Gough Whitlam. An associate recalled that when asked in private whether Australia should object to the impending Indonesian invasion of East Timor, Whitlam reportedly said, “Oh, don’t you know they’re just kanackers and blackfellows in that place.” Or words to that effect.
wildbandicoote: The conditions in some of the detention facilities in Indonesia are appalling (although that’s been happening for some years), but I think it’s a big stretch to say ” (Labor) has turned away, deported and incarcerated a higher percentage of refugees than the Liberals.”
In regards to the former detention facility in Port Hedland, I am fairly sure I saw a correction from Kevin Rudd’s brother, published in a Crikey, stating that he doesn’t have a financial interest in that facility – which in any case is currently not being used as a detention centre and is unlikely to be reconverted to one.
I wonder if anybody can help me out? How many of those convicted in Australian courts of terror related charges entered Australia illegally? As refugees? As migrants? Born here?
Thanks.
Alan – I’m not sure to the full answer to your question. I will try to find out. But one thing I am sure is that none of the came here as an asylum seeker on a boat (which isn’t illegal in any case).
James – here is an example for you from the Lib’s Shadow Immigration Minister, Sharman Stone speaking in Parliament:
http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2009-10-26.173.1&s=migration#g173.2
She basically uses a new Human Rights Commisssion report to argue that the Labor government has gone backwards on the former government’s 2005 reforms regarding getting children out of detention.
Interesting speech by Sharman Stone at that link, Andrew.
Many in the Coalition now realise their 2001 policy went too far, and as Stone says they started rolling it back in 2005. But in Australian politics, it’s considered high quality rhetoric to point out disparities between past and present policies–as if the ability to learn lessons and grow were a weakness.
It turns out Rudd’s initial love of apologies is only for things his own hands aren’t stained with. The Stolen Generations apology was easy. He has a bit more trouble facing his conscience when he contemplates reports of Indonesian detention, as this story shows: http://www.smh.com.au/world/go-easy-on-boat-people-labor-tells-indonesia-20091026-hgq9.html
What irony! The whole point of the Indonesia solution is that the boat people never reach Australian waters so Rudd can fairly claim he has no control over what happens to them. It’s an exercise in hand-washing. But it won’t work unless he can force himself to look away.
What would be a really gutsy move for the Coalition now would be to apologise for their own excesses implemented in 2001. As I said, they’ve already demonstrated recognition of this starting in 2005. Apart from causing Wilson Tuckey to have a stroke, this apology would achieve three things:
1. Make Labor look like know-it-all thugs whose only apologies are phony
2. Announce the revival of a party of ideology, rather than reactionism and brute force
3. Put an end to the never-change-your-mind orthodoxy that rules federal politics in Australia
In point 2, I should say a party of principle, rather than ideology. Ideology sounds kind of Marxist.