The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Rather than feed xenophobia, Rudd should push diplomacy
|
Kevin Rudd has prevented 255 Sri Lankan asylum seekers coming to Australia from Indonesia. The asylum seekers were already at sea when Kevin Rudd put in an urgent call to the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, requesting that the Indonesian Navy intercept the vessel and escort it back to Indonesia. The people on the vessel are from Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankans are ethnic Tamils, suffering at the hands of the majority Sinhalese following the defeat of Tamil resistance in a civil war which has waxed and waned tragically for the past 26 years. Around 300,000 Tamils are being held in camps controlled by the Sri Lankan Army under the most appalling conditions, including a shortage of food, medical supplies and adequate shelter. The old and very young are dying at the rate of several hundred a month. Who would not want to escape, particularly with conditions set to deteriorate with the onset of the monsoon season? This weather will also affect the ability of boats to undertake the voyage, so the pressure is on to complete the journey now, before the weather sets in. The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, admitted to the House of Commons on 13 October that the British Government was aware that the extra-judicial killing of Tamils has taken place. Others claim that it is ongoing within and outside of the camps. Australia has not sought humanitarian assistance for Tamils detained in the camps. The Sri Lankan government has denied access to international aid organisations whose protests at this, and the conditions inside the camps, has been muted. The international media has also been denied access in order that their witness will not generate criticism. Dr Bob Birrell of Monash University says that the Tamils should wait to be processed by UNHCR, but UNHCR is not allowed access to the camps. And if placed in the same situation would he patiently wait to suffer illness and possibly die? I think not. Australia has not sought access to the camps to process refugee claimants, which in any case is a process fraught with difficulty when conducted under the eyes of the military. In light of its own complacency and compliance Australia can hardly complain when desperate people take matters into their own hands. When it comes to criticism we have seen how thin skinned Kevin Rudd is. Does this stem from a lack of confidence or courage? There is no way Kevin is going to lose the next election, so why does he let the opposition get away with the wedge on refugees? The issue is not an election winner or spoiler for either major party. Why can’t he get out on the front foot and put the facts relating to refugees fairly and squarely to the Australian people. The opposition has no coherent, compassionate or long term policy with regard to the processing of desperate people and have indicated that they are still prepared to play with the lives of those most in need of protection. It does them no credit. Most people arriving by boat are found to be refugees after due process. Illegal immigrants arriving by plane run into the tens of thousands each year, maybe 50,000. Some pay significant sums of money for illegal visas, some stay after arriving on valid visas. In addition refugees are being demonised in the face of some dreadful and corrupt student visa practices. Kevin Rudd was quite right to castigate the egregious former minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock, for seeking to claim that the Howard government had ‘success’ with respect to refugee policy, but if Kevin Rudd is to claim any sort of genuine humanitarian success, rather than narrow and cruel political success, he will need to ensure that he quickly processes those that he has sent back to Indonesia. It is untrue to claim, as Professor Robert Manne of La Trobe University and the Opposition have done recently, that the slightly more humane approach of the Rudd government has led to an increase in refugees seeking to come to Australia by boat. There has been a worldwide increase in the number of people seeking refugee protection. A deterioration in security in Sri Lanka for Tamils and in Afghanistan have pushed people toward the safe haven of Australia. For make no mistake sending these people back to Indonesia is to condemn them to a debilitating existence on top of the effect and memory of the horrors they sought to escape. They will be warehoused in Indonesia, a country which is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, for up to 10 years under conditions which will lead most to suffer mental deterioration. True they knew the risks they were running but to take those risks the situation they sought to escape must have been pretty bad. Just ask refugees already living in Australia, as I have, what the conditions were like in their ‘home’ countries that led them to undertake such dangerous risks. The AFP, on behalf of the Australian Government, has entered into an unsustainable relationship with their Indonesian counterparts over the blocking of refugees coming to Australia via Indonesia. The Indonesian Police and Army are involved with and indeed in many instances control people smugglers. To the concern of the Indonesian Government both the Army and Police are involved in many corrupt money making activities in Indonesia. Deploying various strategies to counter the activities of their counterparts the AFP, in concert with other Australian agencies, has had some success in stopping the flow of boats. But money will not stop the flow and when the political relationship takes a dip, boats reappear on the water in order to make a point to Australia. Three months ago the AFP, following a 2007 coroner’s report, made a somewhat overdue announcement that they would commence investigations into the death of five Australian journalists killed by Indonesian soldiers in the takeover of East Timor by Indonesian soldiers in 1975, with a view to prosecuting the soldiers involved. The Indonesian military was not impressed and boats have been appearing on the horizon ever since. Kevin Rudd has turned a boat back with the help of the Indonesian President, but will he be able to do that again? This intervention highlights the short term and ad hoc nature of the refugee policy that Kevin Rudd inherited from his predecessor. It is not sustainable and it is unnecessarily harsh. As Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd should be careful not to feed hysteria, supported and promoted by the tabloid press and the Opposition, nor to endorse their xenophobia. People smugglers exist because of a tragic need, and referring to them as vermin and scum bags, betrays a surprising ignorance of the real world, it is un-Christian. It plays to the lowest common denominator in the Australian community. Kevin Rudd should deploy diplomatic resources to bring pressure on the government of Sri Lanka to allow processing on shore. How he now chooses to handle this humanitarian crisis will be a defining moment personally and politically. Bruce Haigh is a political commentator, retired diplomat, who served in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. He has dealt with the issue of refugees since 1972 and is a former member of The Refugee Review Tribunal. |
|
|
29 Comments
Thank you Bruce for putting the facts calmly and rationally before us - I heartily agree with you. My fear, is that Rudd will be ruled by stupid and racist fears, hatred even, by the Opposition and the ‘lowest common demoninator’ of (shamefully) too many vocal people/media in the community. Sadly, too many tortured people have been the brunt of brutal decisions in the past. I pray this will not happen this time. Some may call me a ‘bleeding heart’ but I’d prefer that to exhibiting no heart at all. I unashamedly feel like hugging all those kids, and want them and their parents off that boat - it’s only a matter of time before serious illnesses will break out, such as gastroenteritis - I’m sure sanitary and fresh water conditions are very basic. Little kids who’ve been traumatized won’t cope with this type of stress on their bodies. I’m not a doctor or a nurse - it’s just common sense!
If we don’t want the boats to arrive, we should stop killing people in their countries, or supporting dictatorships that are oppressing people. If my children’s lives were in danger, I’d flee too - anywhere? What is the risk compared to the terror of staying ‘put’? This nonsense about their risk taking is ludicrous - every minute of their lives is a risk while they stay in their home country!
Thanks for such a rational piece of writing Bruce.
This week has certainly been one of the darker and sadder moments of the Rudd Govt.
It would be a tragic irony, if the MSM’s endless beating chorus of “the honeymoon is over”, actually came true because Rudd adopted the Howard meme of demonising refugees.
If we brought in as many boat refugees as Canada on a pro-rata basis my understanding is we bring in 20,000 not the pittance we bring in now. After the fall of Vietnam, millions fled. Australia took close to 200,000 from the camps around SE Asia. No harm was done here though many had opposed the Vietnam War itself.
The only concern I have with the people who are launched in boats for what seems to be the final leg of their journey is that these are refugees who had sufficient money to pay their way. Many more, without such resources, are living in the camps that are so evil across Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Thailand.
Australia is an extraordinarily lucky country - we need to share our good fortune with many more thousands who do not share what so many here take for granted.
Given there are millions in camps, how many could we take, quickly, and substantially increase our intake annually. Let’s say we aimed to take 200,000 in the next 12 months - then 50,000 a year for 10 years. Take them from the source camps and also from the way camps that mark their journeys.
It is doable if we want to do it.
Best wishes,
Martin
Every country in the world insists on the right to control its borders and access to it its country. We either a have a humanitarian process of refugee access based on United Nations facilities, or we leave open our borders to the more industrious and well resourced potential emigrants who can pay for the privilege of being smuggled into the country. What the chattering classes failed to realise is that Australia is not capable of housing the tens hundreds of millions of potential refugees in the world and accordingly we must maintain border control. This includes a significant problem of students and tourists overstaying their tourist visas in the hope of becoming permanent citizens. The difference between boat people and those who breach their visa conditions is that the boat people are stating up front that they intend to migrate illegally. It should be noted that in many cases these boat people deliberately access Indonesia on tourist visas with the express intent of illegally migrating to Australia. These people whilst they may have been refugees when they left their country of origin are not refugees in Indonesia. By definition they are potential migrants forcing away into Australia. on the same basis the government government should crack down on the visa over stayers on the same basis including mandatory detention and deportation to maintain a consistent stance.
Whether we like it or not Australians have a high standard of living solely because the resources in this country are allocated over a relatively small population base. We are already suffering from environmental pressure from the impact of existing population levels on water resources. Whilst one can be sympathetic to the suffering of people in countries less fortunate than ourselves we have to draw the line somewhere. It is quite obvious that it is our high standard of living which is the attractor, and the rational “refugee” will choose the destination with the greatest social security benefits.
As a previously enthusiastic supporter of a change in Govt, frankly I’m having increasing difficulty distinguishing between the current Govt and the previous one.
Just checking, but could you please confirm there has in fact been a change! I think that the Greens will do particularly well at the next election…..
Michael, I’m having the same trouble. As Bruce observed, Rudd’s present actions may not be an election loser but they are certainly a vote loser - two in my household for sure.
Rudd’s shown his true colours this week - the man’s a coward. I commend him, the other Kevin, Philip, Malcolm and the rest of them to Luke 10:25-37.
Christians my a-se! And I’m a devout aetheist
Seems odd that these Sri Lankan refugee Tamils don’t seem interested in travelling the short, much safer and lower cost, distance to Tamil Nadu in southern India to seek aid there from fellow Tamils (and UNHCR).
This issue is an arsehole magnet. Odd, in a country pretty much built by refugees.
Michael, David, I saw a letter earlier this year in the Oz summing up what seemed to be the basis of Rudd’s skyrocketing popularity. The writer said that in spite of some worrying idiosyncracies, she felt the bottom line was that “Rudd cares and Turnbull doesn’t”. I thought it was a crock then and still do. Rudd seems to me to be that rarity, a person who thinks that he is God, his very existence a gift to Australia and the answer to every problem, and that whatever benefits him will automatically benefit society.
Greg Angelo, look at the numbers, which Bernard Keane discussed in yesterday’s article “Boat people: driven by Rudd or war?”:
13,750 …………… the number of places allocated for humanitarian migration in Australia this year
4,750 …………….. the number of refugee applications to Australia last year
278,000 ………….. net total migration into Australia in the year to March
55% ………………. the rejection rate of refugee claims by applicants who come by plane
2-15% ……………. the rejection rate of refugee claims by “queue jumpers” who arrive unauthorized by boat
As for your point about re-migrating from safe Indonesia and no longer being refugees, did you actually read the above article properly?
“For make no mistake sending these people back to Indonesia is to condemn them to a debilitating existence on top of the effect and memory of the horrors they sought to escape. They will be warehoused in Indonesia, a country which is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, for up to 10 years under conditions which will lead most to suffer mental deterioration.”
You’re welcom to argue against that on facts, but isn’t it a waste of time to comment on it without even reading it?
Greg Angelo,
You wrote: ‘We are already suffering from environmental pressure from the impact of existing population levels on water resources’.
If that is true, how come that we accept well over hundred thousand migrants every year?
And how come that we do not care about our water resources in mining uranium, the Australian taxpayer does not benefit from?
Apart from that, I tend to believe that we have no time for Tamil refugees as we are too busy watching elections in Iran and ‘our resources’ are too busy liberating women in Afghanistan.
Bill Cushing
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everybody on this planet has every right to choose the place of abode.
Article 13
(1) Everybody has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Article 14
(1) Everybody has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
Bill, Australia did not have to sign this Declaration. Many countries did not.
Given the potential number of dissadvantaged boat people available for import,what is the number per year Australia should take to satisfy the compassion of the average Crikey commentoriser.
It’s too easy to just say we should do more, please qoute your ideal refugee intake number on future posts and unless you say infinity you are actually just like Ruddock supporters but you’ve set your qouta higher.
And just like Ruddock at some saturation stage you will have to put in place programmes to deter and stop the intake.
So you’ll be right where we are now with some decisions to make.
We are happy to sacrifice a few collateral Afghans and Iraqies in the terror war by dropping bombs on them and declaring them terrorists, i think the same strategy could be used against boatpeople. The deterrant effect would be remarkable and it would be cheaper than locking them up.
James Bennett, how about starting with a total number (which is in the hundreds of thousands) and giving preference to migrants on this basis:
1) those with family members in Australia or other significant connection to Australia
2) refugee applicants who are already here and who satisfy UN tests of being genuine refugees
3) all the other applicants
Adding up categories 1 and 2, you could subtract their total from the 278,000 we brought in last year and still have plenty of room for hundreds of thousands nice blue-eyed Christian trained consumers with high credit limits who will fit right in and know what kind of flat-screen TV is better for watching the cricket on.
Correction:
1) those with family members in Australia or other significant connection to Australia
2) refugee applicants who are already here and who satisfy UN tests of being genuine refugees
3) refugee applicants from “the queue” allocated to us under UN commitments
4) all the other applicants
Then again, I am trying to talk rationally with somebody who just suggested mass-murdering boat people. James Bennett, I’ve noticed a couple of occasions when someone mistook your name for me. Would you consider changing your blogging name to something that doesn’t include our first name?
People, any suggestions for a new name for him?
So James
The actual number you would allow in is ?
And when that number is reached how do we then compassionately deter more.
The boat people/ Afghan war comparison is valid - do you seriously believe we aren’t blowing up innocents over there.
They are just a little further away.
Re the name - it’s not so difficult James - the ones i post have the surname Bennett,the one you post have the surname Mcdonald. Concentrate, you’ll work it out.
For your repeated recommendation of mass murder, I’m going to propose the moniker of “Loser”. Now hang on, it’s as bad as it sounds, there have been losers who had big achievements before they lost. Adolph Hitler for example. Idi Amin. Slobodan Milosovic…
The total quota of all migration I would suggest would be whatever number the government, in its infinite wisdom, sets for this year. Which I believe is significantly upwards of 200,000, whatever, look it up. Preference to those with a connection to Australia and to the vulnerable first. That will still leave plenty of blue-eyed westerners you can gather with and lose with in the TAB and talk about a golden age when white men used to be proud of their heritage.
“The opposition has no coherent, compassionate or long term policy… ” and that will disadvantage them with an electorate with the attention span of a brain damaged mosquito, the compassion of a starving rabid dog, the collective IQ of ..a.. tory voter and the decency of a smack dealer.
Roll on the DD, even if it becomes, yet again, double DISILLUSION when the Greens are ignored by the sheeple.
The numbers of genuine refugees to be ‘let in’ is, and must be, indeterminate.
Simply, if people claim to be refugees, it is our legal and humanitarian duty to shelter them and offer succour, until we know otherwise.
What on earth is wrong with Australia?
Aphra: “What on earth is wrong with Australia?”
I noticed in old 50s newspaper articles it was to refer to the post-war refugees proudly as “new Australians”.
It’s a good question: what happened to us.
Maybe part of it is that in an era when published current affairs is nine parts Opinion (the capital-O section of the paper that many readers turn to first) to one part information, it’s possible for misinformation to spread more prolifically than information if it pushes the right buttons.
In the “information age”, it’s not the unprecedented access to information that counts, its the even greater access to opinion that swamps information, making it even easier to wedge than it was during the age of the Berlin Wall.
We’ve seen the facts again and again and again:
- wars and unrest, not Australian border policies, determine boat people numbers
- refugee numbers are less than 5 per cent of net immigration quotas even in a bad year
- most real refugees never have any access to the UNHCR “queue”
- the overwhelming majority of boat people are found to be genuine refugees
- it’s not “illegal” to show up at the door and ask for asylum
The vast majority of anti-boat-people polemic cannot withstand simple examination under those facts. But you try to show someone these facts and the eyes glaze over, they go vague and consult some inner bigot, then come back with another unsupportable myth you’ve already disproven, until you come back in a circle to the original point. And so it goes.
I left out “common”. In old 50s newspaper articles it was common to refer to the post-war refugees proudly as “new Australians”.
Aussie tourists still flock to Indonesia, so it can’t be such a terrible place to live.
Why do the ‘refugees’ want to leave this big holiday resort?
They’re in detention centres, Rae, not lying on the beach and going to nightclubs. See http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-08/2009-08-20-voa8.cfm?CFID=302522864&CFTOKEN=81209710&jsessionid=84302ac3a1d045347305657292a6d5f615c2
For the same reason as Aussie tourists do RAE.
Nice place to visit, but a hard place to live.
Interesting quote:
“When it comes to criticism we have seen how thin skinned Kevin Rudd is. Does this stem from a lack of confidence or courage? There is no way Kevin is going to lose the next election, so why does he let the opposition get away with the wedge on refugees? The issue is not an election winner or spoiler for either major party. Why can’t he get out on the front foot and put the facts relating to refugees fairly and squarely to the Australian people. “
My view Bruce (great Conversation Hour by the way with Richard Fidler a while back):
Kevin ‘Science’ Rudd PM has tasted the ambrosia, that intoxicating liquor of power combined with popularity. Every politician has sniffed at least some of that drug. Even a humble ex local councillor here. He’s as addicted as any junkie in any gutter in a back lane of Sydney, or other world city. And so the imperative for a fix of popularity overtakes basic human decency.
And why is it also dumb politics in the longer term? Because this is what a progressive but unpopular decision to embrace those refugees would do - it would show everyone else in Australia that when the chips are really down, when you or you or you find yourself in a minority of some kind you’ve got a friend in our prime minister. But now we know the truth - if you are in an unpopular minority by bad luck or bad judgement, this PM will ruthlessly reject you, so you better be afraid of him with all that power, because he’s a self serving bully and no one is safe in a minority in Australia with a leader like that at some time in the future.
And the irony is we are all in a minority in some fashion. ‘Science’ has thus sewn the seeds of his own demise. But I think it started with appointing War for Oil Nelson. The unstable neurosis that must cause the HAL 2000 brain of Science must be excruciating and bound to end in tears.
Hi Tom, a few of us were wondering about your nickname for Kevin ‘Science’ Rudd. Why ‘Science’?
An article in yesterdays sydney Morning Herald had some interesting facts about asylum seekers in Australia;
” When comparing 2008 figures with 2007, asylum seeker numbers increased by
122% in Italy
121% in Norway
89% in the Netherlands
70% in Turkey
53% in Switzerland
30% in Canada
20% in France - according the the UN High Commissioner for Refuges.
Australia only had a 19% increase!
Australias numbers are small in absolute terms too. About 1700 have come by boat this year, but Italy had 36,000 boat arrivals last year. Most prefer the US(49,000 in 2008) Canada(36,900)France(35,200) and Britain(30,500).
The reason is not because they have “gone soft” but because of the violence in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka.”
As for Turnbull and Sharmon Stone etc carrying on about resuming the horrors of the TPV’s for instand, the unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia continued to increase AFTER the introduction of TPV’s in 1999 (48% more asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2001 than in 1999) The evidence shows, that TPV’s have no value as a deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals”.
“Regardless of how they arrive, people coming to this country seeking asylum have the right under International Law” The changes to the Laws on Immigration came about after non-partisan Senate Committees, and they’ve been recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the UN Human Rights Committee.
When Turnbull, Stone or WA Premier Colin Barnett call for an inquiry, they should take another look at the inquiries already conducted, and look to implement the report’s recommendations!
GREG ANGELO “The difference between boat people and those who breach their visa conditions is that the boat people are stating up front that they intend to migrate illegally.” You conveniently omit to mention, that some people who come here by plane give false statements on their visa - some deliberately intend to apply for asylum either when they arrive, or when their visa expires, or when they’re caught!
As already pointed out, Indonesia is not a signatory to the Migration Act, and so doesn’t have any obligation to abide by the laws. Their track record on human rights is horrific - just ask the people from East Timor or West Papua etc. I’ve read many accounts of how Indonesia ‘look after’ asylum seekers?
Kevin Rudd needs to publicly explain the facts to the Australian people, and stand up to Turnbull, Bishop, Stone and the racist and revolting creep from Darwin(who yesterday referred to the Sri Lankans as “scum”). Turnbull should be asked the simple question; ‘Do you want the treatment of asylum seekers to go back to how they were under Howard’? Put him on the spot, instead of letting him shoot his mouth off. His past boss helped this situation to develop by assisting in the killing of Iraqis and Afghanis; allowed the killing of civilians in Sri Lanka, Sudan and Somalia by or allowed by the US.
96% of asylum seekers come by plane. Rudd should keep on uttering this simple fact too - over and over and over!Wave the recommendations of the Senate Committees under Turnbull’s nose - then ask him what he’d do. When he doesn’t have an answer, tell him to shut up!
From another string:
“Ah yairs, explained elsewhere on the comment strings here, only recently though.
Back on early election when Rudd was questioned on Tasmanian forests, and Michael O’Connor was appointed onto the national ALP execuitive from Forestry union within CFMEU (having condoned violent union protests against anti logging folks), Rudd said to the effect of:
We will decide forests on the “science”.
But over 100 best biologists wrote a letter Howard as PM prior to 2004 election where Latham flamed out, saying in clear language most of that forest should be saved. It was hard to reference but I found the list, first linked to defunct Earthbeat, also published by me at the time.
But Rudd didn’t follow the science. He is a, and I mean this in a front bar room and also legal technical sense, a big f*cking liar. The forests policy fraughtness is emblematic of Rudd on king coal climate (iCoal 2.0 indeed, as per Get Up).
So there we have it Kevin “Science” Rudd. A logical hook for him as an accomplished academic to grab at, his default rhetorical indeed. But when he said it under pressure in an interview, it was without sincerity or conviction. He is thus hoist on his own hook/petard. Science is a purely ironic term.
The fact he looks like a walking lab coat only amuses more even more. It’s a slow fuse this tag and joke. But it bears repeating, repeating, repeat ……..”
Liz, those figures prove it. The surge in illegals entering Australia, Italy, Norway, Holland, Turkey, Switzerland, and France, is obviously due to the ALP going soft on border protection.
Tom, thanks. “… looks like a walking lab coat” indeed. As I also said elsewhere, if you ignore his appearance, voice and demeanor and concentrate only on behaviour, he’s far more like a streetfighter than an intellectual.