The first group of people to be intercepted off the coast of Australia by the Rudd Government in October 2008
By SENATOR SARAH HANSON-YOUNG
If the Labor Party still has a soul, it should be searching through it with a fine-toothed comb right now.
This week we saw the Government perform a complex and remarkably hypocritical double backflip (with pike) when it introduced legislation that Minister Bowen himself called “a stain on our national character” just four years ago while in opposition.
Excising the entire continent of Australia from the migration zone sounds extreme, and it is.
It is basically a move designed to withhold the international right to claim refuge in Australia from the handful of people who manage to make a perilous journey by boat all the way to our shores.
By making this change, the Government will be able to exile anyone who makes it to Australia to indefinite detention on Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Under John Howard, parts of Australia were gradually excised from the migration zone but, because of a number of brave Liberals who stood by their conscience, he was never able to force legislation through the parliament that would delete the whole country from the migration map.
In a shameless and brazen display of hypocrisy, it is now the Labor Party who is copying Howard’s failed legislation and excising the mainland from the migration zone, despite slamming it in 2006.
At the time they said it ‘offends our decency’, that it ‘mocks the parliament’ and that it was ‘shameful and xenophobic’ as well as ‘ludicrous, harsh, indecent, inhumane, unfair and gutless’.
They were right, of course, but it seems nothing will dissuade Labor from implementing the legislation now as it competes with the current Opposition in a desperate race to the bottom on immigration policy.
This worrying change in immigration policy standards, where the old parties constantly attempt to outdo each other when it comes to punishing vulnerable refugees, is both bad for the people who get caught up in the resulting inhumane detention network and bad for the quality of our national debate.
The twelve asylum seekers forced to turn their boat around off the coast of Sri Lanka in October this year.
While the two old parties are committed to policy changes that are so powerfully negative, it consumes the public debate and leaves very little room for the more humane and rational voices to be heard.
Labor and the Coalition are trying to dupe the Australian people into thinking there are only two options; ‘bad’ (punishing and deterring people) or ‘worse’ (people dying at sea), but the Greens and human rights and refugee experts like Amnesty International and the UNHCR know there is another option that is humane, safe and legal.
We could give these vulnerable refugees access to that quintessentially Australian idea of ‘a fair go’, we could give them protection and, importantly, we could save their lives at sea by offering a safer option than coming by boat.
It is disappointing that the excision is just the latest in a raft of bad immigration policy decisions being made by the Government.
The Greens have always been clear about our reasons for opposing the punitive offshore processing regime; it is costly, it permanently damages already vulnerable people, it is in direct contravention of Australia’s international obligations and, as we have always said, it doesn’t stop people from seeking refuge.
The only way to reduce the number of people who come to our shores by boat is to offer them safer pathways to seeking asylum in Australia.
We need to bring refugees directly from Indonesia and Malaysia; we need to actually enact the recently announced increase in Australia’s humanitarian intake that the Greens fought so hard for.
Over the last six months the Government has brought only 51 refugees from Indonesia to Australia, despite the fact that there are thousands of people waiting to be resettled who currently see a boat journey as their only option.
In these conditions, telling people to ‘wait their turn’ is tantamount to telling them to wait out the rest of their lives in a refugee camp limbo.
How many more boats of desperate refugees, fleeing war and persecution, will have to arrive before the Government admits it got this wrong?
Sarah Hanson-Young
How many more fragile minds will be ruined by the inhumane conditions of indefinite imprisonment in Labor’s half-baked and unsafe offshore detention camps?
I have met many people who have been caught up in Australia’s detention network and, when you see the real world effects of the terrible decisions that are sometimes made in Canberra, it is hard to stand by and let it continue.
The thought of families and unaccompanied minors being sent to Nauru and Manus Island because of the Labor Party’s plan to excise the entire continent of Australia form the migration zone is deeply distressing.
Amnesty International’s refugee spokesperson has said Labor’s plan is nothing short of absurd
“It flies in the face of our human rights arrangements,” he said, “and shame on those who support it.”
The Labor Party left its conscience at the door when drawing up this policy and it is worrying to see the ‘progressive’ members of the party, such as Doug Cameron, standing idly by and allowing this shameful piece of legislation to go ahead.
Senator Cameron is now talking wistfully about bringing “some guidelines and some structure” to Labor’s offshore processing regime, despite being remarkably silent when the party was actually drawing up the policy to send refugees offshore and voting down every amendment I moved to try and fix it.
The Labor Party is now prepared to excise the entire continent of Australia from the migration zone and, quite frankly, our country’s reputation as the land of the fair go can’t endure much more.
Comments
118 Comments so far
It is no accident that the refugees wanting to become Australians are coming from areas of the world where the birthrates are still high.
Common sense tells us that, whatever a country’s problems may be, a high birthrate can only add to them. It is hard to imagine how any modern government can supply jobs, education, clean water etc., to all their citizens, while they continue to breed at the rate our forefathers did. And when they fail, conflict is inevitable. Poverty breeds conflict and high birthrates breed poverty.
Parents in undeveloped countries create the conditions for conflict when they try to provide for their own future security by having four or more children. It is not reasonable for them then, to demand that countries that have practised greater restraint, rescue their able bodied sons from the situation they themselves helped to create.
For 36 years, in an overpopulated world, we have restrained our baby booms to fewer than two children per woman, which is lower than replacement levels. Australia should not have to shoulder the burdens caused by other peoples’ irresponsible breeding.
loading...
I can’t help thinking that, 50 or so years from now, we’ll look back on this with as much shame as we do on the Stolen Generation, White Australia or forced adoptions. At least I bloody well hope we will be…
loading...
The White Australia policy was unjust, because none of us can choose our race. It did have a beneficial side effect for which I am very grateful.
By excluding Muslims, the White Australia Policy ensured that our lawmakers were NOT selected by voters who believed that slavery, or the marriage of prepubescent girls was acceptable. And while there was plenty of domestic violence, it was not approved of, and few voters believed that a man had a god-given obligation to beat a disobedient wife. (Sura4, 35 of the Qur’an)
Our lawmakers were not selected by people who believed that, while rape should be punishable by death, a rapist should be immune from prosecution unless four male witnesses were willing to testify against him. Our voters did not believe that a woman who complained of rape should be punished harshly for adultery, unless of course she had four male witnesses to back up her story.
Our lawmakers were not selected by voters who believed that a woman’s legal testimony was worth half of a man’s, or that a person should be killed for changing his religion. (Bukhari, Sahih, 9,84 hadith 57)
Most of the current batch of asylum seekers have come from Islamic countries and many will themselves be Muslim. The Muslim men are asking Australia for a degree of freedom and security for themselves that they, by their choice of religion, deny their own mothers, wives and daughters.
All Australian women should read the Qur’an before they decide that they want to increase the Muslim vote in Australia by giving citizenship in our country to asylum seekers.
loading...
Senator….if this current Labor policy honestly irks you….why does the party that you represent, continue to support Labor in a pseudo coalition of convenience ?
Withdraw your support and let the Greens and Labor go it alone.
Show that the Greens are fair dinkum….if you dare ?
loading...
Yes our refugee policy needs to be reviewed. But what gets me really steamed up is the the fact that none of the political parties in this countries, the Greens included, seem to give a flying F about the indigenous community in this country. It is a national disgrace. Australians seem to think that our policies around refugees hurt our international reputation. Living in the UK I never really heard too much about it, but what I do hear frequently is how bad we treat our native Australians. There was a feature article in the Saturday Times here last year about it which made my skin crawl. If you think the refugee camps are bad, have a look at some of the ‘camps’ the aborginals live in. You would really be ashamed that this wa going on.
And yes, I am aware that this post is specifically about refugees, however in the 4 or so years I have been reading this website I have never seen a piece on the plight of our aborginals. C’mon Mia and team, can you please do something, perhaps around fetal alcohol syndrome, which in many cases is now 3 generations in?
loading...
You so right Regrets. I agree with everything you have said. I also want to add that I don’t understand why people who come here by boat, (not the genuine refugees who apply to come here through the appropriate channels) not only do they jump the queue, but they get set up in houses in the community. With so many indigenous and homeless who live in squalor, it’s hard to stomach the special treatment given to these ‘refugees’. Why can’t we house our own homeless first. I’m sure the thousands upon thousands of homeless would love a furnished dwelling and all the extra support we shower on these people.
loading...
Anonymous, where do you people get your info?? First point, in places like Afghanistan, there are no refugee camps where people can apply for refugee status. Instead the afghani’s are first focred to travel to places like Malaysia where they can then register with the UN. Of course, there are so many refugees currently registered with the UN that if you joined the end of the “queue” today, you would die before you ever reached the beginning. And that’s assuming there was one orderly queue where people were processed in terms of how long they’ve been registered. It’s actually more like a lottery and I don’t blame people people for trying to increase their chances. Finally, they don’t get anything other Australians can’t access. From the Gov anyway – once you get accepted as a resident refugees get Newstart etc like everyone else.. No more no less. Places like the Refugee Claimants Support Centre though are a charity who do help with housing and furniture – but that’s from donations.
I’m all for people having a view but please make sure it’s an informed one!!
loading...
refugees do get more support than our own indigenous and homeless, maybe not monetary, but definitely with housing,appliances, furniture, ongoing support, etc, that is a fact. Most, when placed in a house, are given $7000 worth of appliances and furniture, depending on the number of children. This is government support, not charity donations. That is a fact. All I’m saying if it is possible to set all these people up with furnished houses, we should be able to do the same for the hundred odd thousand homeless and indigenous. But we don’t ,do we. So please don’t say they get the same treatment as everyone else, this is not true. You don’t see homeless refugee families on the street do you? But I can show you plenty of homeless Australian families living in their cars, living in tents etc. I know this for a FACT, So now, tell me I’ve got my info wrong.
loading...
I’m telling you you’ve got your info wrong.
I’m also telling you that if you think the problem of homelessness is mainly caused by not enough homes than you know very little about the problem.
loading...
So I, and the homeless people I work with, who are on the government housing waiting list, and who have been on this list for YEARS, don’t know anything. ok, please tell us what we’re doing wrong.
loading...
I’m telling you that the vast majority of the homeless people I work with suffer from mental illness or addiction problems… finding a home is actually one of the simpler parts of a very complex problem.
Of course, if you worked with homeless people though, you’d know that already!!
loading...
Anonymous and anon2012, everything you have said is incorrect. Asylum seekers are NOT queue jumpers, they are NOT illegal (although Australia’s treatment of them IS illegal under international standards of law), they do NOT get special treatment or housing or other benefits, and others do NOT miss out on anything because of them. I hope one day you educate yourselves and learn some compassion.
loading...
I lived in Alice Springs and was mortified on my arrival when I first had a glimpse of those town camps and the state of many of the local indigenous population. I was to soon learn that the camps housed the aboriginals that had been turfed off and out of their own communities by their family and tribe for their anti social behaviour. This is a practise from before the advent of white man and usually meant death in the past. Obviously they were also unable to “make it” in the township either, happy to collect their welfare payments and spend it all on alcohol and gambling. These people have no interest in changing their lifestyle, becoming self sufficient or being the recipient of any charity unless it is given without strings attached. Little care is given to their children and these are often taken by grandparents and other relatives.
Also there is wide range of conditions from one community to the other and this boils down to the leadership from the aboriginal elders themselves.
The conditions these aboriginals (in the town camps) live in is appalling but the problem is complex and it has been finally realised that throwing more money at the problem which has been the federal and state governments usual response, fixes nothing.
The debate still rages as what is the best way to assist the indigenous and I personally believe that enforcing the education of the children (by reducing the benefits paid to the parents for school days missed) will be the only truly successful way to fully integrate the aboriginal people in today’s and tomorrow’s society as they are a welfare dependent people. After all in the rest of Australia if a child does not attend school on a regular basis, or is even consistently late to school the parents are soon taken to task regardless of their origin.
I would also like to note that I have some very good friends who are aboriginal and their attitude to their fellow indigenous peoples is scathing at best.
If you look deeper than headline grabbing articles and easily skewed news reports which are more than likely aimed at reducing Australia’s status you will find that enormous amounts of money are spent on indigenous health, education and welfare. The reason I believe all the money and schemes of the past have had little impact is the complete failure to hold the aboriginal people themselves accountable for their behaviour. The Women’s Council of NPY Lands begged for Australian law to be upheld (rather than aboriginal law) on the communities because of the high rate of physical and sexual abuse. Programs are running continuously and studies are also almost continuous looking for the way to break the alcohol and poverty cycle these people are in.
In your criticism I note that you have not included what should be done. As money being invested in the aboriginal people is not the issue, traditional lands being returned to them is not the issue, an apology for the stolen generation had been given so that is not the issue, access to health care and dental care is hindered only by remote and inaccessible locations. South Australian aboriginals had the vote before federation. What in your wisdom do you suggest?
loading...
Its inhumane and disgusting. I feel embarrassed by the way Australia is choosing to treat refugees.
loading...
The asylum seekers are not our citizens, yet we are providing them with safety, food, shelter, and medical care. They are not imprisoned. They are free to leave at any time to any place in the world that will take them, just not Australia.
loading...
Pingback: Senator Hanson-Young’s Bog « Rants of a Drunk Slag
What would you not do for your child’s future, I’d jump in a leaky boat too if it meant they wouldn’t be made into child soldiers, sex slaves and god knows what else. To just turn them away without establishing their reason for asylum is just disgusting.
What ever happened to compassion, humanity this country and a majority of people living in it are just too self involved with money, surplus etc c
loading...
Here, here!
loading...
Not so long ago it was the Greeks and Italians, then the Eastern Europeans, followed by the Asians and now its people from the Middle East, we have become an amazing place because of migration and Australian society has not crumbled or fallen to pieces, stop the panic and put better avenues in place in countries like Indonesia so people are not risking their lives due to a lack of paperwork.
Thank god I came here 25 years ago when Australias borders were not being re-classified.
loading...
Does anyone know how most refugees get to Indonesia? If we increase our intake from Indonesia, does that mean that we may then encourage more people to take a dangerous journey from other countries to get to Indonesia? This is a genuine questions, I like the approach suggested in this article, just wondering if this risks shifts the “boat people” danger to other seas?
loading...
Good question Lucinda, was wondering the same myself.
loading...
Most take a plane to Indonesia and from there organise the boat. Once on the boat and on the way, all their passports go missing at sea.
loading...
By offering a western standard of living to people in countries to their north, we are imposing a huge burden on Malaysia and Indonesia. They had the good sense to refrain from signing away control of their borders by ratifying the UN Convention on Refugees. They are already heavily populated, yet, because of the well meaning stupidity of the 1954 Australian government, they are being burdened by tens of thousands of people wanting to get to Australia and a western level of consumption.
loading...
I have no problem with Asylum Seekers, I have a problem with people dying at sea in leaky boats, the cost to Australia would be far less if we took more refugees and processed them in Malaysia or Indonesia and brought them to Australia in an orderly fashion.
The reality of the arguement that Sarah and her party puts forward is that it does not stop people dying at sea.
We can and should take more refugees and the reality is that the numbers would not be significant in the scheme of our total population.
I also think that if we made them feel more welcome and included in our society then they would become true aussie.
We need only look to our past to see that when people don’t feel included they do not fit it in and this causes tension between aussies’ and the newbies.
The rednecks need to wake-up and we need as a nation to accept our responsibilities these people a human beings after all.
loading...
D I wish your comment that ‘the number of refugees wouldn’t be significant in the scheme of our total population’ were accurate. That would make the whole situation so much easier.
loading...
It is accurate. We have 20 something million people in massive country about ten times the size of the UK. Even if we doubled our intake of regugees and immigrants, it would still be insignificant. We have one of the lowest intakes of immigrants and asylum seekers in the world.
loading...
We might have a massive country but most of it isn’t habitable. Some people seem to forget this.
loading...
Lots of Australia is habitable. A lot more than many other countries taking in huge numbers of refugees. And in any case, there’s a thing called industry. Australia needs more of it. We can make more of the country habitable by bringing more people in. We have to look to the big picture.
loading...
Lucinda, uninhabitable means just that. Doesn’t matter how many people we bring in and stick in the middle of nowhere, the terrain, environment , etc are UNINHABITABLE ! Some people don’t seem to understand this.
loading...
You are not understanding my point Anon2012. We have plenty of room for more refugees than we take. Discount the currently uninhabitable area – there is still plenty of room along the coastline. Immigrants can create jobs and create more industry. The notion that they take jobs away from Australians is misleading and stupid. We have one of the lowest intakes of refugees in the world and we have no excuse for it, we are just a country full of narrow minded red necks who refuse to open their eyes to the bigger picture.
loading...
Lucinda,I think it is you that is having trouble understanding, and naming all your fellow countrymen as narrow minded rednecks is a huge generalisation and frankly insulting.
loading...
What would you term people who are scared of the other and don’t want them foreigners here? I think redneck is perfectly apt.
loading...
That term may be suitable for a very few Kris2040, but, most Australians are and have been for a while now, welcoming, supportive and generous. Let’s not paint ALL Austalians as xenophobic red necks.
loading...
What anon2012 said and how.
loading...
It’s mostly “rednecks” who grow all the food you eat, D. and to do this, many live in the most remote and uninhabitable places in the country.
loading...
If they’re living there, it’s by definition, habitable.
loading...
Rather it is habitable because they went there and made it so. Have you been outback in a drought? I was born into a drought. Saw rain for the first time at age 2 but had friends who had never seen rain until I did and they were 7 or 8. Are you aware of how many opportunities are not available in remote areas? Where I grew up there still is not even a guitar teacher. And I wanted to learn it at age 10. Habitable means infrastructure.
loading...
Seriously? You’re comparing growing up in drought (my niece didn’t see rain until she was about three, and her brothers had seen it but didn’t remember. You don’t have a monopoly on drought as a kid) to not having a guitar teacher? What a dreadful hardship that must have been, not to be able to learn to play guitar!!
Everywhere has to have been made habitable – I really don’t think you’re making your point – just proving that you don’t want them foreigners here for no good reason than that they’re foreigners.
loading...
*zing*
loading...
I never mentioned farmers Ali – it is you who has just stereotyped them as rednecks. I said said this country is full of rednecks, I did not specify a particular group or say that everyone is a redneck. There are a LOT of people with “redneck” attitudes in this country – enough to disgust me. And they don’t all live in rural areas.
loading...
The sooner the better!
loading...
I struggle with this a lot. Wanting to flee your country for a better life, must be a scary thing to do.
Australia is a large western country, we have plenty of space for everyone…..
But what about Jobs? It’s hard enough to get a job as an Aussie these days.
Where does all the money come from to fund all these immigrants?
What about people who come from very violent cultures and bring that behaviour into our country?
But then my mind goes to another place…Why did the Victorian Government waste over 1 Billion tax payers dollars on Myki, when there was nothing wrong with the metcard system? 1 billion dollars is an awful lot of money that could be used to help those seeking asylum.
I’m just stuck. I want to help people, but I don’t want Australia to have to suffer for that either. I’m confused also as to why we had to send them to another country like Nauru. The expensive of doing that must be massive!
loading...
Bre, Australia is hardly a haven of non-violent people. You just have to go out at night to see born-here-aussie-white-australians inflicting violence on other people every day of the week. It’s not a case of “They’ll bring their violent culture here” when we talk about immigrants – I’m sorry, but Australians can be a very violent bunch!
On jobs – I see as many migrants running restaurants and cafes and fruit ships as I do anyone else. Migrants CREATE jobs in our communities!
You’re absolutely right – it’s VERY expensive to send people to places like Nauru and Manus Island, and then keep them there for years. It’s FAR cheaper to process them while they live in the community (someone correct me if I’m wrong but the last figure I saw was it’s 80% cheaper to do it this way, not to mention the mental health ‘costs’ of the person)
loading...
That’s a rather extreme generalisation that it’s only “born -here-Aussie-WHITE-Australians” that also inflict violence. You do know that other people of ethnicity have lived here for generations and are also violent. It’s not just a white thing.
loading...
No, but it is an Australian ‘thing’.
loading...
Consider the well studied laws of supply and demand. Migration increases the demand for goods and services which allows higher prices to be charged. At the same time the increased competition for jobs exerts a downward pressure on wages. High prices + low wages = higher profits. Good for the owners of businesses. Not so good for workers.
Migration pushes up the price of housing – good for those with two houses; bad for anyone renting or wanting to buy their first house.
loading...
I don’t like how they have to risk there family’s etc but there has to be a stop eg so many a year process them and send them over so they are safe. We are not going to be the great country we are if we become over populated to quickly. Come over but do it the right way for everyone’s health and safety,VOTE this government out NOW.
loading...
The Age has an excellent piece today from Waleed Aly. I won’t bother posting the link because I know it will hit the Mamamia spam filter, but I will quote this bit:
“What we really want is for asylum seekers to stop being our problem.
“That’s why we’re so selective about the lives we want to save. That’s why there’s no crying in Parliament, no hand-wringing, and no cross-party soul-searching when an asylum seeker is killed because we sent them back to the country they were fleeing. Those deaths don’t matter. We don’t count them. We don’t ask tough questions about the quality of the information we’re using to decide their home country is safe. And we certainly don’t go through absurd policy contortions to prevent it happening again. Why not? Are those asylum seekers any less dead?
“The point is that they’re out of our system. They aren’t ours any more. No care. No responsibility. Our desperate concern for the wellbeing of asylum seekers begins only when they board boats and ends when we intercept them.”
loading...
I read that article this morning. It was very good. Definitely recommended reading.
loading...
It was too a good read but it’s too emotive and a bit juvenile and ill-considered as a result. It’s also very, very politically correct.
loading...
Emotional arguments are generally not very well thought out arguments.
Reason should be free of emotion.
loading...
Quite so Bradley.
loading...
The UN Convention on Refugees is sexist. All over the undeveloped world, women are dying in childbirth and children are threatened by malnutrition and lack of medical care. Is the threat of “persecution” somehow more dreadful than death in childbirth or by starvation? The difference is that men get “persecuted” but it is women who die in childbirth and children who starve.
loading...
I find it interesting that SHY can stand on the high moral ground, when she and the Democrats will never be placed in the position of Minister.
These people who come on boats are illegal immigrants, until they are deemed to be refugees. So we can all spin that they are refugees, most if they can afford to pay 10s of thousands of $ to people smugglers are realistically economic refugees with possible humanitarian considerations.
Ask anyone in the Navy, Ashmore Reef is like a carpark, with boats lined up to be ‘captured’. The moment these people touch a Navy vessel they are technically on the Aust mainland.
SHY in defending boat people, place their needs above the genuine refugees sitting for years in Maylasia and Thailand, the same who are following due process.
SHY should clearly state, the decision she would make if in Bowen’s shoes. Not take a political high ground like she does. Does she believe that boat people should be given preference to approved refugees in gaining placement in Aust? Would love to know the pragmatics of the situation if she was the Minister.
loading...
Agree with Middle Australian. SHY does not elucidate why Australia is supposed to take responsibility for people who take the extreme risk of paying a lot of money to board an often unseaworthy vessel in order to enter a country by stealth and then subsequently claim refugee status.
loading...
They’re not trying to enter a country by stealth. They’re trying to get here to claim asylum. Their claims are investigated, and they are then granted refugee status.
Australia is supposed to take responsibility because it’s the right bloody thing to do and we seem to have a problem with recognising that we have an obligation to take far more refugees than we actually do, and then getting that happening.
loading...
They are NOT “illegal”!
Everyone, including all of us here, have a legal right to seek asylum, seek refuge in another place when we are in fear of being persecuted. That is an internationally accepted and ‘legalised’ norm.
The beauty of SHY not being “The Minister” is that she has a more balanced view that adheres to our international and legal obligations, without being swayed by current political flavours of the month.
loading...
It is NOT illegal to seek asylum in Australia.
Generally they cannot AFFORD anything – they sell everything they own so that one or more member of the family can make the dangerous journey while the rest of the family squats in a dwelling we wouldn’t see fit for our pets, waiting and hoping that they might get a chance to live a life too.
Humans have a right to have their basic needs met. Australia needs to pull its finger out and have better and faster processes for immigration and asylum seekers. A person should not have to live in squalor for years while they wait for their application to be processed. Offshore processing is all well and good, but to me it just sounds like an excuse to palm the responsibility off to some other country and leave people rotting in misery for years. And I don’t see how Australia can possibly have the right to break international law by excising itself from the migration zone. It is wrong and goes against basic human rights.
loading...
“A person should not have to live in squalor”, mmmm what, like the indigenous and hundred odd thousand homeless do? A person shouldn’t have to live like that HERE, but they do. It would be nice if we could house all these people first don’t you think? Or are people who queue jump more entitled than our own or even the genuine refugees who apply through the appropriate channels?
loading...
Why do we have to look after one or the other? Why not both? I am not here to argue about the rights of Indigenous persons – that is whole other serious issue. Both are issues I feel strongly about and I would fight for the rights of both groups of people.
And for last time, asylum seekers that come by boat are nearly all genuine, it is NOT illegal to seek asylum in Australia and they do not jump the queue. Their applications take just as long to process as anyone else.
loading...
We do look after one and not the other, Lucinda. That’s my whole point. There would be an uproar if our refugees were forced to live in the squalor that the indigenous and homeless have to endure. But they don’t do they. No, that treatment is reserved for our own indigenous and homeless. “Why not both” you say, why not both indeed.
loading...
For God’s sake anon, the quality of living of the Indigenous population is much more complicated than throwing money at them. A lot of them still feel spiritually lost in a sense and displaced from their traditional land. They do not have a sense of materialism like we do. Yes the housing issue is a big one, but we throw a LOT of money at the Indigenous community compared to the small amount we spend on assisting asylum seekers. Withdrawing assistance from a few thousand refugees is not going to magically fix the problems that the Indigenous population face. We need Education solutions for the Indigenous communities for a start because they are still not working. You seem to be just spouting out ill thought out nonsense to annoy people now.
loading...
How do you jump a queue that doesn’t exist? What are the appropriate channels?
I know quite a few refugees as acquaintances and they work hard. They know how bloody lucky they are to be here and work hard learning their English, in their jobs… They’re certainly not sitting around expecting the dole and complaining, which is more than I can say for others I have had contact with. They deserve all the help they get.
loading...
I patrolled Ashmore with the Navy, and our boarding parties went on board plenty of boats. They were all left to their own business. We didn’t take one person onto our ship.
Illegal immigrants are people who overstay their visas. They’re a bit harder to spot in Bondi or Cairns though.
People are actually Asylum Seekers until they are given refugee status. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT SEEKING ASYLUM. For anyone. You can do it anywhere you like.
loading...
I disagree with Senator Sarah Hanson Young. In former times, I would only have seen the human aspect of the boat-people issue but now recognise that the problems are also social, political and economic. Since my main concerns is always for those nearest and dearest to me and people who choose not to enter Australia according to established immigration protocol do not belong to this category, I put the welfare of myself and my family first and would prefer a government who can take good control over its borders and ensure that refugees are allowed into my community only after it can be ascertained that they are worthy of my confidence. I found that my perspective changed on this issue when I read Machiavelli’s statement that wise governance does not place confidence in refugees. This has apparently proved to be a historically verifiable statement. We have only to use the analogy of the modern or ancient mercenary, who can be bought and sold by anybody for a price, and in antiquity changed sides willy-nilly in the middle of a battle depending on which side would be more likely to win at any stage of the proceedings.
loading...
Dear Ali,
Your comment seemed very well thought-out, but I just wanted to respectfully add something into the mix – did you know that refugees are acutally arriving by legitimate migration means – seeking asylum is a legal right under international law. In fact, in many of the countries which refugees flee from there is no location for the Australian embassy for safety reasons, and so no way to apply for a visa the way you or I would. Have you seen any of SBS’s ‘go back to where you came from’ series? There were many people with similar views to you who were able to directly ask these questions of refugees, and I think you’d find it interesting.
loading...
Anna I haven’t seen that show. I have experienced the conditions from which they flee. Countries with military regimes for instance. I’ve had a bomb explode 500 metres away from me, had a member of the Iranian military kick me in the ribs and point a submachine gun in my face. Further, there is no guarantee that a person who is questioned is telling anywhere near the truth anyway. It is, after all, only TV.
loading...
It is, after all, real lives..
loading...
You know what I think this is? Simultaneously trying to appeal to people in this country that hate asylum seekers by being “tough” while trying to appease more compassionate voters on the grounds that this is for the safety of asylum seekers all the while absolving Australia of their international responsibilities.
I’m not sure that I have ever loathed a move made by any government more than this one. What the hell will this look like internationally? We are one of the richest, least densely populated countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living who currently only take a tiny fragment of the world refugee population. Now we are doing our best to avoid our international responsibilities. How am I meant to hold my head high and be proud of a country that treats people drowning of our coast as a political game? How are we any better than the countries these people are fleeing when we are rather indifferent to the loss of life, when governments have repeatedly failed to address this issue by putting the lives of other human beings before our petty domestic politics?
The reality is that there will always be asylum seekers as long as there are wars, violent extremists and corrupt governments in the world. Let’s not try and dodge the issue through legal trickery by pretending Australia somehow magically doesn’t exist. People make the boat trip to Australia through desperation. Dial down the level of desperation and you will find less people will make the trip. Invest in making our asylum application process more transparent and have the people available to process them. UNHCR have very few people in Indonesia to process asylum claims and the wait makes people anxious and desperate. End indefinite detention. Stop leaving people in limbo. And for gods sake will somebody please educate the general public on these issues? If I get one more email full of crap about all the “free things” asylum seekers get like they are living the high life I am going to scream.
loading...
Until recently, I agreed with Sarah & the many other good people who oppose moves to discourage asylum seekers from attempting the perilous journey by boat.
But I, like the Government, have changed my mind. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite.
I do not believe we have a “border protection” problem. But I do think there is a problem with deaths at sea. 1 in every 25 people who attempt that journey will die. I’m not ok with the number of people dying at sea & I think we need to try to reduce it.
The increased intake and resourcing for “at source” processing mean that we will be providing safe passage for many more people than before. But those measures alone will not reduce the number of people dying at sea.
It’s difficult, horrible for those caught in the middle and it may not work. But I think it’s worth trying.
loading...
20 years ago I lived in Germany for 1 year. At the time, there was a huge influx of migrants from Turkey. Given that it was not long after the unification of East and West, there was alot of stress on the country. Yet, after the atrocities of the Nazi regime, people realized what could happen. So, like it or not, they accepted this situation. And ultimately Germany bounced back and became sustainable. I am not saying it was easy, but they knew which was the lesser of 2 evils.
We all deserve human rights and dignity, a roof over our head a bit of food and a safe environment. What makes this possible is the attitude of all of us.
Global circumstances are pushing us together. Be it through economic crisis or environmental catastrophe, we are here together on this planet, and noone deserves to be here more than another -for the most part.
We can either band together in hard times and care for each other, or we can crumble. I don’t know what that would look like, but my bet is we have not seen the likes of hatred such as we are capable of if we allow that attitude to spread. The question would be, which is the lesser of 2 evils. Germany understood what could happen. I wonder if many of us do?
Australia has been extremely lax in providing any sort of education to new migrants, or the rest of us, on what it means to live together as many different cultures. It is something that is pressing, because we can either create a supportive and caring environment, or a pressure cooker ready to blow.
I’d like to see more emphasis put on ‘integral education’ and understanding and caring for each other and rising above our pettiness.
loading...
Sigh. I’m not really sure why my original comment wasn’t published but the essence of it was I’d like to see the Greens (and the other parties) develop some policy on educating refugees while they are in detention (if they must be in detention). Why not try to improve their English language skills, improve their understanding of Australia and it’s processes and policies so they don’t feel so alienated in the community, help them complete a TAFE diploma or improve their uni qualifications so they can be employed as soon as they are approved. If their application is rejected at least you’re sending them back to their country with improved language skills, a qualification and a better understanding of democracy to hopefully improve their own country. At least then their contact with Australia has been a positive one despite the rejection. And maybe that would give them some direction and hope while they are in detention instead of focusing on having nothing to do all day – hope, direction, support and focus can be a beautiful thing.
loading...
Refugee assistance programs like English (ESL) courses were cancelled by the Howard Government. In fairness, they were introduced by a Liberal government too, and Labor has never reinstated the programs.
loading...
But I worked in the sector up until three years ago? All refugees and migrants get 500 hours of English lessons at Tafe. Refugees with limited schooling get two years. I don’t think this has changed?
loading...
Yeah they do – my daughter goes to day care with kids whose parents are doing their English courses – they’re hard days to get care for when they’re at their classes!
loading...
That’s great but is it while they are in detention? Or after they are released? I thought they all had nothing to do all day?
loading...
After they come out – they go to Tafe.
loading...
The original poster is talking about while they are in detention rather than after their applications are approved. It’s no wonder they fight and protest – they spend months and months on end in those places. Surely they can have some kind of system where if they pass through a preliminary round in the application process within 4 weeks they can begin a process of moving into a community to start their lives while the months of further processing continues.
loading...
Thank you for this piece, Senator. Thank you for publishing, Mamamia.
I think this explains in easy-to-understand terms where we’re going wrong, and fantastically, actually offers a viable alternative to the disgraceful policies of the major parties.
loading...
As an aside, I find it a little sad that a change of policy is always considered a bad thing. Ignoring the specifics of this issue, I dont have any issue wth my elected representatives coming to a different conclusion.
When you’re in Opposition, you dont get access to anywhere near the same level of info as you do when in Government. If members of the Government inform themselves and come to a differwent conclusion, why is that so bad?
*Provided, of course, that major changes like changes to significant election commitments are taken to an election. I’m not defending JG/carborn price comments here.
loading...
I have a question for Sarah Hanson-Young and I mean it with genuine curiousity, no malice:
If we assume election outcomes reflect the views of the public, its clear the majority of Australian voters do not agree with Greens policies on asylum seekers. Do you think thats because the Greens are out of touch/sync with the general public or because the Greens havent adequately made the case for their policies?
(As I said, I dont mean to sound critical, I’m just curious. Its easy to criticise the two major parties but given the way the public votes, it becomes an implied criticism of the voting public as well).
loading...
“…its clear the majority of Australian voters do not agree with Greens policies on asylum seekers”
I don’t think that’s true – the Greens have many more policies than just an asylum seeker policy. E.g. you may agree with their asylum seeker policy but not with their policy on gay marriage.
I think it’s worth mentioning too the the Greens got 11.75% of the primary vote in the last federal election, which is not insignificant (Labour got 40% and they won!).
A few reasons why I think the Green’s haven’t done better (and this is personal opinion only):
1. People still have the view that they are tree-hugging hippies with no real policies
2. Labour and Liberal take named donations from companies for HUGE amounts allowing them to have massive TV advertising budgets. The Greens don’t take corporate kickbacks due to the clear conflict of interest that doesn’t seem to bother the other parties. Hence they don’t have as much money to buy advertising (e.g. the Greens will get volunteers to go door to door with flyers – the 2 major parties can afford to send you personally addressed letters through the mail).
3. Their policies are fairly socialist in general, and much of the Aus population is conservative. I can’t seem many coalition voters changing to the Greens any time soon.
I’m sure there are many more reasons, but that’s how I see it with my very limited political knowledge! I’d love if others add to the list of reasons as I’m genuinely interested,
loading...
I agree with you goose. And to add a little extra point 4, I think some people see voting for The Greens as a sort of wasted vote. I know my Dad – who is left-wing – has always voted Labor even though he relates with The Greens policies. To him, ‘it’s a two horse race, and there’s no point backing an outsider.’ He does vote for The Greens in the Senate, but that’s it.
loading...
So true! Well put.
loading...
I agree. My Pop was a Liberal voter, but when I found that out, it really shocked me, because he certainly wasn’t what I’d call conservative.
loading...
I started that sentence with ‘if we assume”. Clearly multiple issues influence voter behaviour.
And your first point goes exactly to what I am saying. If people thing the Greens are still tree hugging hippies then the Greens obviously havent done a very good job communciating with the public.
loading...
And my point was also that they haven’t done a very good job communicating with the public because they don’t have the same budget as Labour and the ALP
loading...
Are you familiar with their economic policies? I noticed they’re not mentioned in the list of reasons you cite.
I think their idea of how to handle money is the main reason few people will vote for them.
loading...
Totally agree Anon.
Just prior to the last elections, there was an excellent comparison in the paper comparing what Labour, Liberals and the Greens plans on many issues, with costs associated.
This showed that both Labour and Liberals anticipated reasonably similar total expenditure and income (although their allocation of funding and income differed). The Greens however, proposed much higher public expenditure, funded by… increased taxes. And who would pay those increased taxes? Us. I was really shocked at how much additional tax they needed for their way.
So while I support many of the Greens’ policies in regard to the planet, carbon tax etc, I just don’t trust their ability to run this country in a financially responsible manner.
loading...
Is raising taxes so bad? If you look at quality of life and happiness tests, some of the best countries in the world have the highest tax rates. Look and Norway, Sweden, Finland… You don’t need as much money in your pocket when you get paid to get educated, and healthcare and dental care is completely free, plus the numerous other benefits they receive.
loading...
I wasn’t familiar with their economic policies, but I am now. The policies can be found on the Australian Greens’ website.
loading...
Sorry that was me and I tried posting a few hours ago and comment not here so trying again:
There was a fairly comprehensive article in The Australian in July about the Greens’ policies; if I provide the link you’ll hit a paywall (and the MM filter seems to get upset). Google “Greens policies ruffle feathers”, click on the link that comes up and you’ll skirt the paywall.
When the Greens say they want to fund by “progressive taxation” they mean through income tax – they regard the GST as “unfair and regressive” (according to their website) whereas most economists (and a large portion of the public) feel it’s one of the fairer taxes, as even the tax dodgers have to pay it. (Not mind you, that everything that attracts a GST should – I’m looking at you tampons!)
My understanding is that while lots of people with liberal (not Liberal, but non-conservative) views are certainly attracted to some of the Greens’ policies (eg same-sex marriage, more regard for the environment than currently displayed by other parties, more humane approach to refugees etc), the party itself appears to have a terrible grasp on how national economies work. Their proposed modelling has collapsed in just about every other country that has tried it.
(Sorry if too long. Was trying to help.)
loading...
One day, Australia will have to apologise for how it treated refugees. But politicians here are so myopic they don’t realize or acknowledge the criticism from AI or UNHCR – we’re now in an “elite” group of countries who flagrantly ignore international conventions. I fear very real consequences for Australia – for instance, being isolated from other countries in our region – if we continue with an arrogant stance that is often viewed as Eurocentric denialism.
loading...
Why does Australia stay a signatory to the Refugee Convention when it so clearly does not want to fulfil it’s obligations under it??
How can we honestly be ignoring the simple fact that the reason people risk their lives at sea is because they are already in fear for their lives!!
loading...
They’re aren’t risking their lives at sea now. Once on board they set of distress beacons so they get transported here almost immediately. Oh, and anyone else can forget about helping the “distressed boat” , they wait for the Australians to come.
loading...
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Sarah has said above, but I think this whole situation is YET ANOTHER example of why we need a new election NOW! This continual battle and bickering by both the Labor and Liberal Party, lets not forget those independants, and the Greens is driving this country insane. Hung parliaments don’t work…have another election now please!
loading...
You know what though, in my opinion the issues we have in parliament are predominately our fault – the voting public. If I remember correctly, the last election had the highest percentage of donkey votes in history…if more people had actually voted properly then we might not have had the hung parliament we did, and Labor or Liberal might not have had to make deals with independents and the Greens to form a government. I also know of some people who just ticked any box because they didn’t have an opinion on which party – pretty socially irresponsible, but some people just didn’t care.
I just hope all the issues in parliament now will hopefully mean people go into the next election with a clearer view of who they want to be in government. It can be frustrating but I think we need to see things out til the next election so we can properly evaluate policies and the government’s wins and losses.
loading...
I would MUCH prefer for people who are apathetic to do a donkey vote than a proper vote.If they don’t care about the result at all then they should leave the outcome to be decided by the people who do care. I also can’t stand people who vote for a party because ‘that’s who their parents always voted for’ and know absolutely nothing about the policies.
loading...
I don’t agree with this. Hung parliaments/ruling coalitions are the norm through many strong performing and well functioning European countries such as Nordic nations, the Netherlands and Scotland, as well as in Canada and New Zealand. The mere fact that policy and legislation must be developed collaboratively, or at least approved by more than one party representing different idealogical positions means that there is an in-built system of checks and balances, a system of compromise and consensus.
loading...
Then can the parties and pollies (and media) stop all the carry on and actually get down to doing what you describe….
loading...
Do you have any idea how much a national election costs? We can’t afford one and a change in government won’t stop the numbers of desperate people fleeing their countries. “Stop the boats”? Come on. The Indonesian detention centres are already twice their capacity. Where will you send the people that you turn around? Please remember that turning around boats means pointing very large guns at desperately scared women and children.
loading...
How much does it cost us to continually have this ineffective bickering? More than an election I’d reckon.
loading...
Hi Sarah, just wondering … would the Green’s open boarder immigration policy be amended if the boats were full of Israelis?
loading...
Uhhhh, don’t Israelis want to stay in Israel?? Isn’t that the crux of the whole Israel/Palestine issue???
loading...
The Greens support the Palestinians over the Israelis….
loading...
Liberal and Labor should be supporting the Palestinians too.
loading...
It is a complicated thing- I do get deterring people from drowning. Australia is hard to get to and it is dangerous. people are drowning all the time. Why don’t Austrailan sent up immigration camps in Indonesia. Save them a trip? Process them there? I think it would only work if unsafe arrivals were deterred though and I can’t see any reason to get upset about legislation that reduces drownings.
loading...
Have you seen Indonesia’s human rights record?
loading...
What I mean is Australia pays Indonesia for us to have processing centre there- Instead of hoping o. A boat they could claim asylum in Indonesia instead of Christmas Island. I am sure Indonesia won’t mind as people will be moved to Australia in time
loading...
Yes, we could give vulnerable refugees a new life, and we do. It’s just that under GreenLabor, we give shelter to less genuine refugees and more single Middle Eastern men who have a great deal of money, a sense of entitlement, a very worrying and entrenched attitude towards the women who work at the detention centres and absolutely no compunction about lying to infidels. There is also concern that Iraq and Iran are shipping out mental health patients and criminals in an orchestrated fashion.
I’d like to hear SHY’s thoughts on that … no, actually, I wouldn’t.
MM, I’d like to hear from Julie Bishop. She has plenty to say. Oops to McTernan and the spin doctors. They mistook the Opposition’s dignified acceptance of their personal attacks as a sign of weakness. Pffft! Bad move lads.
loading...
“Iraq and Iran are shipping out mental health patients”.
Oh dear! Hey, I’ve also heard Obama is secretly a Kenyan-born Muslim.
loading...
Ever worked in a detention centre, Idol Dad? No?
Then you know NOTHING, because you are told nothing!
loading...
Being stuck in a detention centre and having my human rights violated would make me a mental health patient. Torture and trauma can do that to a person too, Merri. All the more reason to have compassion, in my opinion
loading...
I’d love to hear your ‘proof’ about that, but I won’t be holding my breath.
loading...
Merri, why wouldn’t the Muslims who want to hurt us (according to you) who are apparently so hell bent on coming to our country just arrive by plane like they did in the US for 9/11? It seems a lot more complicated for them to come by boat (where they might die)…..
loading...
You have to have your passport to get on a plane. Where are they going to ditch their passports once on the plane?
loading...
Oh, of course, why didn’t I think of that? Most Taliban insurgents have passports!
loading...
As usual politicians playing with people’s lives. Why can’t we process people on shore? With “boat people” making up a grand and massive total of 1% of total migration into Australia there is no reason they cannot be processed here. I’d be happy to have some of these people in my backyard. It’s about time the media started focusing on real migration problems and that is those that arrive by plane and overstay their visas and/or breach visa conditions e.g. tourists working, of which the vast majority are from Europe.
loading...
Its less about where the processing happens and more about stopping people from making the risky boat trip. Onshore processing has no deterrent factor.
Agree that the issue is blown way out of proportion though.
loading...