Immoral? Evil? Maybe, but that’s politics for you…
|
If you’re anguished about Friday’s decision to temporarily suspend processing of asylum seeker claims from Sri Lankans and Afghans, understand that the Government will go even further, if necessary, to stop the flow of boats coming to Christmas Island. Over the weekend, Brendan O’Connor’s office put out four separate releases about the interception of boats. Four more boats. Doing nothing was not a viable political strategy. The numbers — the facts — are irrelevant. Eventually the perception that there was a guaranteed back-door route into Australia being exploited by people smugglers was going to cost Labor dearly in outer suburban and regional electorates. The fact that there has been a world-wide surge in Afghan refugees if anything made the case for action not weaker but politically stronger — it means the push factors behind the main source of boat arrivals on Christmas Island was not going to reduce, only increase. Politically it was a no-brainer. The loss of support from progressive Labor voters would mostly channel back to Labor anyway via preferences. But the loss of support from more conservative voters could have cost Labor marginal seats. The actual interests of the Afghans and Sri Lankans likely to be affected by the decision don’t count at all, although progressive-minded Labor MPs can console themselves with the thought that we’re only talking about potentially a few thousand people being exposed to the psychological harm of indefinite detention. But if this doesn’t stop the boats, then the Government will continue to take further measures to deter them. That’s the logic at work here. There’s no point incurring the pain of taking these sorts of measures if there’s no benefit. Immoral? Evil? Well, maybe, but that’s politics. Labor wants to strengthen its grip on power this year by picking up additional seats and further pressuring an Opposition now looking thin on talent. An extended period in office is there for the taking if the Government is smart enough. It will not tolerate losing marginal seats because of a scare campaign by the Opposition on asylum seekers. There is constant talk from asylum seeker advocates about “educating” and leading the electorate on the issue. That ignores that a lot of voters have no interest in being educated or led about asylum seekers coming here in boats. The Government will also defend itself by noting that, regardless of what it does with Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum seekers, it will still take over 15,000 refugees this year under its humanitarian program, the same number as it would otherwise have taken, and more than we’ve taken in previous years. It might even accuse the Left of being every bit as obsessed with boat arrivals as rednecks and One Nation-types out in the community are. This is political reality in an electoral system where you have to vote, and you have to allocate preferences so that, one way or another, it’s impossible to stop your vote filtering back to a major party in the House of Representatives. |
|
|
|
61 Comments
Wow - Okay, so it’s evil when Howard does it and politically necessary when Rudd does it.
Got it!
“one way or another, it’s impossible to stop your vote filtering back to a major party in the House of Representatives.”
When was the electoral act changed so that “A House of Representatives vote marked 12333 … is not formal. Any vote marked in this way will be rejected as informal.” (AEC Scrutineer’s Handbook for federal elections)
I can remember working at a federal election many years ago, and a vote like this would have been counted but “exhausted” after the first 2 preferences (I believe this would still be legal in “below the line” voting in the Senate)
Its an easy vote winner, which says alot about the views of the majority of the australian electorate. It comes down to the same thing each election year, which party is the toughest on the immigrants, and the toughest usually wins. I wonder, in his quiet moments what The K Rudd actually thinks about the asylum seeker issue? Me thinks he is probably sympathetic, and has a slightly leftist, humane view of the matter, but in reality, this will never be policy if they want to win an election.
Fitter, I think you’re fooling yourself. If you did an autopsy on Krudd you’d find alot of ‘Wizard Of Oz’ about him.
No heart, no brain, and no courage.
He just waits to see what the Coalition think and tries to head them off.
I wonder how Lindsay Tanner feels about losing his seat to the Greens in Melbourne for the sake of the MPs vying for the marginal outer-suburb seats?
“Do it for the team Lindsay”
ps nice call on the Wizard of Oz - Billy Blogs.
Very sad state of affairs, it will get to the point where the coalition will advocate just shooting refugees in the water and the labour party will placate and agree with the public being broadly cool with it.
The whole debate is totally moronic people’s main issue is immmigration which both sides will support high intakes of. Immigration views gets blurred with the smaller number of refugees and people worry more about the tiny number of boat people compared with the larger number of refugees by plane (which by the way are more likely to be terrorists any way (wealthier etc). The off shore processing is just as funny because they still end up coming to the mainland to be integrated or taken back. The politics of it is just about fooling dumb people.
This is hilarious, I’ve heard everything now BK! Billy Bloggs comment hit the nail on the head, “so it’s evil when Howard does it and politically necessary when Rudd does it.” Howard had the guts to stand by his decision and confront Australians with his decisions whether you agreed or not.. Where’s your mate Rudd my friend????? Hiding again like a pathetic little wimp.
I hope Rudd calls for a suspension of all military action in Afghanistan until we begin processing refugees again.
Yes. It is good politics when you look at the survey which reflects the Australian’s attitude. Then Rudd should come and say that insted of making outragious statements like “it is safe for the Tamils in SriLanka”. This government is fully aware of the dangers Tamils are facing post conflict. This Government supported and aided Govt. of Srilanka to complete the war and should take resposnibility for its consequences which is peopel fleeing genuine ” fear of persecution”.
The issue is not that refugees arrive by boat, it is that people smugglers tell their cargos that arriving in Australia means almost guaranteed refugee status.
No matter what you think about Howard’s Pacific Solution, it was effective in sending the message that paying a people smuggler thousands or tens of thousands of dollars was no guarantee of refugee status and that you would likely find yourself back where you had come from, having done your dough with the snakeheads.
When that message was diluted shortly after the Rudd Government was elected, the boats started to appear.
Following the media’s coverage of some of the refugee arrivals, particularly the fast-track processing of the asylum seekers who were picked up and taken tto indonesia then refused to get off, the numbers of boats have now increased significantly.
Rudd’s advisors are probably telling him the best response would be to reimpose the Pacific Solution, but the softer heads on his party’s Left are telling him that it won’t play well with the soft Left voters in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
If I was a betting man, I would expect that the facilities on Nauru and Manus Island will be refurbished for use, if it hasn’t already commenced.
I also thought Rudd had a Health policy when he tried to force Abbott into spewing out a health policy on the run by asking him to debate. How could he have debated Rudd when Rudd himself obviously never had a health policy. Talk about policy on the run, it’s changing day by day and lets out dribs and drabs as he goes, depending on whats popular again. Appoints a population Minister to hide behind so he doesn’t have to talk about population. Hides after Copenhagen and sends Wong out to bat for him. Sends out 4 Ministers at a press conference to attack Abbott. And the latest, sends out his 3 stooges to announce his policy change on asylum seekers. You need courage and conviction and stand by what you believe in to be a Prime Minister, Howard did this, Rudd has proven over the last 2 and a half years he has none of these attributes. How much longer his Ministers are going to keep going out there to do the hard yards for him is any guess, but there must be rumblings going on behind closed doors.
It wasnt so much that Howard imposed the Pacific Solution but that they used it politically and even seemed to enjoy it. Lets not forget that it was Keating and the ALP that introduced Detainee camps but they didnt make a song and dance about it.
Discouraging people smuggling is one thing. To exploit the plight of refugees for political gain is another. The latter is evil rather than the former. But I dont think Coalition supporters can understand the difference. Stephen Hawking would have more success explaining quantum mechanics to a chimp than explaining the difference discouraging people smuggling and political exploitation of a disadvantaged group.
@Billy Blogs While i’m far from happy with the actions of the Labor government, i think there’s a between a political party that seeks to make this an issue in the first place and a political party that reacts to their opponents hitting them where it hurts.
We now know that a press conference called early in the day regarding a ‘major announcment’ about health/asylum seekers or education is code for ‘another house burnt down last night and people died’.
The media had been waging a war on refugee boat people beginning from last year : hardly a week goes by without some comment about ‘boat people’. It goes beyond ‘racism’. The word ‘refugee’ conjured an image of people who are dependent on government handouts, which some tabloid newspaper exploited to huge success. This is why people who came by plane and overstayed their visa didn’t cause the same controversy. How they arrive matters.
The ‘Pacific Solution’ was not very cost effective : the Australian government was paying out like 2 million a month for the detention of just ONE guy in Narau. Indefinite detention is also expensive. The cheapest solution is to simply stop accepting refugees. At least Rudd is not sending the asylum seekers back to their own country to die, a policy I’m sure Mr Abbott will soon be advocating.
To understand this issue you have to have an appreciation of what fairness means to the average Australian. That conception of fairness does have many positives but it does have its limitations. One of those limitations is a preoccupation with proper process as being fairness in itself.
As ‘unauthorised’ boat arrivals appear to violate that concept of proper process then many people will stop there and say it is wrong regardless of the wider circumstances of those seeking to reach Australia. If you are going to say they are evil because of that point of view then you have given up the attempt to persuade and have sunk into empty sanctimoniousness.
The diference between ‘asylum seekers’ over-staying their visas, and arriving by boat is simple. One has papers showing their name, origin and background, while the other has absolutely nothing meaning we have to go through all matter of checks to have them allowed into the country.
But most importantly, no asylum seekers have died coming by aeroplane to this point in time.
The ALP are the party that made the white australia policy official Government policy and are the party that gave us mandatory detention for refugees. How can anyone possibly be suprised at this stunt?
BB@1 - it’s just as evil when Rudd does it. Arguably it’s worse IHMO - Howard was racist and anti-refugee to the core, so he was implementing his principles, whereas Rudd has (I hope) betrayed his. In both cases, the fact that it’s good politics makes me despair of my fellow “citizens”.
They could have told the truth instead of being cowards and killing innocent people in the process.
The media in this country are disgusting.
It is not news to announce that a few refugees have arrived, we don’t announce the 15 million other people who arrive every year, we cheer their arrival and demand that more come.
[Post edited by moderators. We welcome the feedback, but let’s leave out the profanity and personal attacks. Jason W.]
What about the breach of our own laws though? Doesn’t it count that a democratic government can take a racist, totalitarian stand over night that will kill innocent people to stop other innocent people?
It is illegal and immoral and those here who advocate it are deranged.
Overview
Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.
Protection visa
Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa.
Source? DIC’s website under refugees.
So who is trumpeting the word to refugees that we will uphold our own laws?
Assessment of protection claims
Applications for Protection visas are assessed by departmental decision-makers trained in the law, policy and procedures concerning the Refugees Convention and Protection visas.
The decision-maker assesses the applicant’s claims to Australia’s protection against the Refugees Convention definition of a refugee, Australia’s domestic laws, and all information about the conditions in the asylum seeker’s country of citizenship or usual residence. Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. All applicants are asked to attend an interview to discuss their claims and provide further information if required. Where needed, the department arranges qualified interpreters for any interviews.
Decisions are made on the individual circumstances of each applicant’s claims. There is no blanket approval or refusal of applications based on broad assumptions, for example about the
safety of particular countries.
Overview of the Offshore Humanitarian Program
The offshore Humanitarian Program has two categories.
• The Refugee category for people subject to persecution in their home country.
• The Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) category for people who, while not being refugees, are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to a gross violation of their human rights in their home country.
o People who wish to be considered for an SHP visa must be living outside their home country and be proposed for entry by an Australian citizen, permanent resident, eligible New Zealand citizen, or an organisation operating in Australia.
These categories go beyond our international obligations and have been introduced to enhance our assistance to those in need. (And here is the really big lie by DIC’s and the government over many years. We are trying to cut out our legal obligations by pretending that we are helping someone who is not entitled to our help but is a voluntary program.)
The number of applications for resettlement received is far greater than the visas available each program year. For instance, in 2007–08 more than 47 000 persons applied and around 10 800 were granted visas
Hazara again is beyond evil when we consider that we tried it in 2001 and 400 people nearly starved to death, we did it in 2003 and they nearly starved to death in Nauru and Indonesia, we did it in 2004 and many were killed when they went home, we did it in 2005 and many came back as refugees in 2008.
When our soldiers are kicking in the doors of Afghan families and murdering them in their beds it is depraved that we would condemn those who flee to detention in the first place let alone punish them over and over again on some bogus claim.
This article encompasses everything I hate about modern Australian journalism, particularly political commentary.
Keane makes assumptions here that are blindly followed by every political journalist who has any hope of climbing up the career ladder. (These assumptions are particularly attractive to male journos but girlies must toe the line if they want to get anywhere.) Here are the rules:
Don’t bother finding out too much about what the effects of a policy will be, apart from their impact on the electorate. The effects on the ground are irrelevant. We all know that policies are dreamed up not by consulting experts who could actually advance the issue but by dumb advisers who care only for approval ratings, so the results of a policy aren’t important, unless they actually affect voters and thus votes.
Frame the policy not only in terms of its effects on the electorate but how it impacts on the fortunes of the ‘ruling’ party in the never-ending Canberra football match.
Don’t, whatever you do, hold the policy up to any external ethical standards, unless this is done in an ironic fashion that shows how hopelessly naive such standards are. This is a fine line: you have to show that you are aware of the ethical standard, but that you are too clever to believe it is a useful yardstick.
And never, at any cost, give voters the impression that they have any other alternative besides voting in Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
This is lazy journalism that perfectly reflects the thinking of both Coalition and Labor functionaries who long ago gave up looking at the complex causes of problems and are only interested at simplistic solutions that sound good in a news bite. In other words, Australian journalists like Keane are turning into ersatz media advisers and ceasing to hold governments to account.
Of course we’ll eventually get the horror stories about the results of this policy, but we’ll get them long after the fact, and the political journos will pretend compassion.
If you want hard-hitting journalism with heart, read everything UK-based Johann Hari writes. We desperately need someone like him in Australia. Come to think of it, where’s Margo Kingston? (And why isn’t she working for Crikey?)
Bernard you are correct. I will be voting informally in the lower house because ‘formaly’ my vote is meaningless (on this and most other ‘issues’) and I have already been disenfranchised. Until I am able to exhuast my preferences when and as I see fit - as described by DSF - there is absolutely no point in me casting a vote. It’s evil when the Coalition does it AND when the ALP does it. End of story. I’m sure that Rudd, the ALP etc couldn’t give a shit about my opinion or my caorse of action (inaction), but I’ll sleep better while I continue to argue the politics of things.
I look forward to the extra-parliamentary aspects of poltics picking up in this country.
CMAGREE, I agree!
“the Government will go even further, if necessary, to stop the flow of boats coming to Christmas Island.”
Perhaps Bernard would like to suggest, in his next hard-hitting column, that we send out the Navy to sink these wretched boats before they arrive. Or maybe we should just follow the example of the Thai military and tow the boats back out to sea without fuel, food or water, that sounds like a good compromise! Immoral? Evil? Maybe, but that’s politics for you!
The above posters are incapable of telling the difference between political analysis and moralising. They also fall into the sanctimonious trap I pointed out in my first comment.
David Sanderson, I’m not for been santimonious. The problem with the position that the ALP is taking is that is so contemptuous of people that it is not trying persuade, argue, engage or lead people on issues like this. That is what is evil or if you prefer negligent. That’s different from some kind of moralism saying that people are bad or evil (because they don’t agree with me). I’m all for the issue been argued, but you have to recognise that parliament, the ALP and the Coalition are not about arguing out the matter on its merits, or for conducting a rational discussion. It seems that Rudd would like to neutralise the issue for purely cynical reasons and despite the human cost. Meanwhile people that care about human rights, fairness etc will have to continue arguing the point amongst the Australiam public. The fact that the political parties are bankrupt on the issue just makes that discussion much harder…
1.4 million Iraqis are dead, 2 million women are widows, 5 million are orphans and 7 million are displaced in and out of Iraq due to a war we started, yet we whine sanctimoniously that some might die getting here.
75,000 women die in childbirth every year in Afghanistan, 4 million women are widows, many hundreds of thousands of men are widowers taking second child brides to raise the children of those dead women, 12 million are hungry, and we whine that some might die coming here. Last year NATO and Australia slaughtered hundreds of civilians and we still whine that getting a ride to safety is more dangerous.
In Sri Lanka about 100,000 Tamils have been slaughtered over the years, journalists are disappearing, there are 110,000 still in concentration camps, 11,000 have disappeared and most of the Jaffna peninsula is a ruin, but we whine that a few might die getting here.
People who fly here and ask for asylum from all over the world might not be dying on the plane but most of them are frigging frauds trying it on whom we reward with the right to work, no detention, no punishment or penalty at all.
The notion that we punish a group of people who fled a country we blew up in the hope that other people will stay behind and die and fucking media in this country see it through the prism of sick policital point scoring.
It is odd to say that it “is so contemptuous of people” to do what the majority want. It is also lazy and smugly self-congratulatory to say that those who think differently to yourself are evil or racist.
As I said in my first post you have to deal effectively with the ordinary attachment to fairness as due process. There are limitations in that attachment but to arrogantly dismiss that attachment will ensure that the pro-refugee side of the debate will continue to lose the popular argument.
Finally, if the major political parties were truly “bankrupt on the issue” there would be no refugee intake at all. The chronic tendency of the left to over-egg their argument is a sure route to being dismissed as hysterical and unreasonable.
It is odd to say that it “is so contemptuous of people” to do what the majority want. It is also lazy and smugly self-congratulatory to say that those who think differently to yourself are evil or r*cist.
As I said in my first post you have to deal effectively with the ordinary attachment to fairness as due process. There are limitations in that attachment but to arrogantly dismiss that attachment will ensure that the pro-refugee side of the debate will continue to lose the popular argument.
Finally, if the major political parties were truly “bankrupt on the issue” there would be no refugee intake at all. The chronic tendency of the left to over-egg their argument is a sure route to being dismissed as hysterical and unreasonable.
good stuff cmagree I agree too its pretty cynical stuff and thats how the political journalism is in australia - glen milne comes to mind. I would say however though as cynical as the story is by keene he is way better than the standard stuff in the papers and does usually pull apart the policy detail as well as talk about the politics of it
David, I think you missing my point. I am NOT for condemning people on mass as evil or racist (and I haven’t said that!) and sitting somewhere up on my moral high horse. Nor am I for just saying that’s how it is, therefore how it should be and forever be. In fact almost no one is like that! I think the responsible thing is for difference to be honestly argued out. People that seek public office, and a position of leadership and representation have a responsability to actually, like, lead - not just tail opinion polls, spin madly and cynicaly manipulate purely for partisan gain. If that’s the main part of what you do as a politician why bother? Yeah, maybe there’s a tension between leadership and simple represenation through reflection - or there should be. Finally you are right, it could be worse. Australia could have no regugee intake (rather than a small one) and we could give up on been a siignatory to the rights of refugees. However things could always be worse …
“Taking” a mere 6,000 refugees out of 15 million after they are forced to wait for up to 25 years and only if they enhance us is pretty morally bankrupt if you ask me.
If you want rank hypocrisy, read Milne’s cry in the Opposition Orifice today where he calls the Rudd government “heartless”!
Just think about it for a second: here’s a rag that’s relentlessly called the previous policy a ‘failure’, that our borders weren’t ‘safe’ and that Rudd had opened the door to ‘people smugglers’.
But the moment the government is forced to adopt a different posture, (and what government wouldn’t?), the same voices start crying out ‘heartless’!
FFS, it’s not the government, it’s the media and polling of the stupid people who read the incendiary crap and then think they’ve got an informed opinion.
It’s us.
Oh, and just for the record: it wasn’t Howard’s incarceration policy that stopped the boats, it was the SIEV X’s sinking.
Stopped ‘em real quick.
Now, that’s evil, but I don’t hear anyone here making much noise about that.
@David Sanderson:
So where’s the major party leader who’s got the guts to tell the electorate that following due process means meeting our obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees? Or would that be too much like leadership?
Marcus, the well was poisoned by Howard, well and truly. To oppose “public opinion” (that’s manufactured by the media echo chamber) is not political ‘courage’; it’s suicide.
I see CHRISTOPHER DUNNE says Milne’s article described the government as ““heartless”!”
I had read Milne’s article and thought it excellent and almost certinly his best in quite some time. I would say that he writes tosh on occasion but that is considerably less than what Keane writes on a now seemingly never-ending basis. I had no recollection of CD’s quote. So I re-read it.
CD also commits (like Keane) a gross crime of dishonesty by asserting that Rudd was forced to do evil whilst Howard was wilfuly evil.
Both imply of course that their fellow Australians are largely “rednecks and One Nation-types” and Rudd merely bowed to the political reality.
Just to add insult to flagrant dishonesty and hypocrisy, those “rednecks and One Nation-types” apparently learned their inhumanity from Howard.
Lastly Milne said: ” On this issue, you can’t help but be reminded of Paul Keating’s charge that John Hewson “had a heart the size of a caraway seed”. Keating would no doubt have applied the same description to John Howard over Tampa. But in the case of asylum-seekers, Howard believed in what he was doing. Rudd doesn’t. Or if we believe all his previous humanitarian and Christian rhetoric, he shouldn’t. But he clearly thinks this latest policy reversal will get him through to the next election. This is not a case of no ticker. It is simply a case of no heart.”
He has no heart CD because despite him asserting a more moral position he blithely changed tack. That wasn’t Howard. That’s why Rudd is truly reprehensible. It’s why the moral position of the left is almost unerringly vacuous and relative to what suits them at the time when contrasted with the conservative position.
Both you and Keane are merely Rudd shills and patently quite unable to analyse let alone criticise
I really do think the lousy quality of Australian political journalism carries a lot of the blame for the knee-jerk responses of Australian politicians of all colours on this most vexed of issues.
From the troglodytes on talkback radio to the hysterical newspaper columnists to the partisan “straight” journalists of News Ltd to the pursed lips and arched eyebrows of television ABC news readers, our media falls over itself to scare the population on boat people.
There is absolutely no attempt by our journalists - possibly through wilful stupidity, more likely through lazy cynicism and a desire to please their grubby bosses - to actually do their jobs and reveal the truth about the refugees.
And don’t tell me this is about the lousy pay in journalism these days. While in New Zealand a couple of years ago - a place that pays journalists even less - the NZ Herald ran a brilliant series on what happened to the Tampa refugees.
Remember them? A large bunch of them settled in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. One story focused on an Afghan family, living happily in a working class suburb of west Auckland, their teenage boy a promising rugby player and the father a respected worker. The article humanised the refugee issue.
Why isn’t our media presenting stories like this right now? How about following up success stories from the Vietnamese boat people of the ’70s? It’s the obvious angle. But it’s too hard. So the Sydney editors get on the phone to the press gallery and get them to whip something up based around the day’s doorstops and talkback radio appearances, opinion polls and the ritual talking heads.
The Australian media is atrocious - a bunch of herd mentality mediocrities and careerists sucking up to their former, more highly paid colleagues who now make a living coaching politicians to intone inane talking points that pander to the population’s worst prejuidices.
And the worst of them work for Murdoch, a loathsome old man who has peverted democracy in every country his papers have operated in. I will tramp the dirt down when he leaves this world at last.
Ah but Christopher, can’t go telling the truth. Amazingly though the hypocrites are using the deaths on SIEVX to try and make it even harsher for refugees to pay for transport to Australia even though the chicken shit cowards refused a Royal Commission or inquest into the deaths.
commentators serving us up the realpolitik - we know already! It is amazing how many articles in the media can be generated on this subject when there is little new to report. The Australian’s capacity to generate news about asylum seekers is nothing short of astounding. They now suddenly seem interested in the stories of some of the refugees, timed to paint the government as cruel to desperate people (one photo yesterday came with the caption that children were amongst a latest group of arrivals) while also telling us that the government has failed to keep them away.
bernard you misunderstand the need for education about refugees and asylum seekers arriving, or you mix it up with the preaching that people with entrenched views get so annoyed with (both these groups are at the loud extremes of opinion). The urban mythology and assuymed ‘facts’ that have become a part of commentary often bare little resemblence to actuak reality and much of the commentary reinforces erroneous beliefs. It is the same with single mothers, dole bludgers, etc, homeless, the complexities of people’s lives get lost and many australians want hard lines. But it is vital that leadership take the place of views that would destroy other human lives. I think there is much room for a variety of views on the subject but most are uninformed and based on distortions of facts (often on both sides).
If the commentary ran like this on our own bushfire victims it would be shouted down (I can’t imagine anyone saying ‘That’s politics”), but the people being debated are not seen as very human, in part becasue of the lines of commentary that take us only into the political wrangling. We are hearing about the political reality (and commentators are making a living out of generating polarised debate on issues like this) but the subjects are very human… one sri lankan man now living in Australia called me the other night. His mother died last year in a bombing, his brother lost a leg, he has raised money recently to buy hands for a young boy whose own were blown off in the conflict. His story is common but his story is not relevant to ‘our’ (whoever that is) narcissistic political debate about ourselves. Some leadership in a number of quarters would be welcome any time now.
The Pacific Solution stopped the boats. Thats undeniable looking at the numbers.
It also saved lives. There would have been many more Siev X and Siev 36’ers had it not been for the strong conviction of John Howard to stop this evil people smuggling operations.
The boats stopped and with it so did the danger, no boats mean no drownings.
“an electoral system where you have to vote, and you have to allocate preferences so that, one way or another, it’s impossible to stop your vote filtering back to a major party in the House of Representatives.”
Except of course that if enough people vote for the Greens, your vote elects a Greens member of Parliament rather than filtering back to a “major party”.
It is a copout to blame majority opinion on the media. I find sections of the media as contemptible (speaking of which I thought Milne was sacked) as anyone but the media is not to blame for the popular opposition to ‘unauthorised’ boat arrivals.
Boat arrival advocates have simply failed to connect with ordinary conceptions of fairness. Lecturing and hectoring about treaty obligations and strongly intimating that ordinary people are r*cist scum or dupes (as many of the above posters have done) if they disagree has led to the whole pro-refugee cause being tainted with an ugly (unearned) elitism and arrogance. It is time this smugness and arrogance was punctured and that people who are prepared to talk in more restrained, moderate and respectful terms came to the fore.
I’ll stand by what I said above, ie Howard poisoned the well on this issue, and he did it flagrantly and cynically. He didn’t get the monicker of the “Rodent” for nothing; it was rat cunning.
But an odious legacy.
Alex Downer boasted that the coalition secretly towed refugee boats back out of Australian waters. As a result the people smugglers sink their boats.
The temporary visas did not allow family reunions so the refugees brought their whole families over. The abolition of the temporary visa effectively stopped this practise.
Seeing as how there are no ‘queues’ for these boatpeople to join, I would prefer to have something organised such that they could have their status confirmed on their homeland soil and we fly them here by air for free.
Perhaps this way the refugees can keep their money and we can avoid detention.
Stand by what CHRISTOPHER DUNNE?
Quoting “heartless” when Milne didn’t write that word?
Or misrepresenting Milne’s perfectly appropriate criticism of Rudd that he has no heart because he has no true moral compass?
Or that being moralistic for Rudd is nothing to do with the issue he is being moralistic about and everything to do with the image he wants to project?
Moses brought us a commandment about graven images.
Oh forget it Christopher…you wouldn’t understand.
Only a slime merchant would use the term “rodent” for our former PM and be proud of it. I’m sure it would stagger the approximately 50% of Christopher’s fellow Australians who voted for a rodent 5 elections in a row.
But respect for your fellow man is not a progressive lefty strong suit is it?
Perhaps the Crikey commentariat needs a pied piper?
David Sanderson, the people held up most commonly as advocates for boat arrivals are not always the ones people in the refugee sector (or even the arrivals themselves) feel aligned with, they are often seen as preaching elites and they can be more radical in language than others that you don’t see too much of on this issue, but they are just giving their view as they are entitled to and it is not their fault that the media fixate on them to keep the debate polarised. Moderates are not of much interest to the media, with a few exceptions, and time pressured journalists stick with sources they know. But it is really only a few who take the extreme positions you mention with labelling people racist, etc, and the right wing commentators have taken this on with a victim mentality, as if ordinary people are now the victims of refugee advocates. It is just another polital line, it is nasty on both sides but these are the extremes.
Although there has long been an undercurrent of tension about any arrivals, the media have continued to drive and allow that tension to increase. It is ridiculous that no-one talks about the people arrving on planes and that we don’t have a government or opposition, or many in the media, who are willing to put the numbers and reasons people leave into persecpective. Australians who don’t have time to devote to an issue like this, and most people are only interested in the headlines, do believe what they read. The media are definitely complicit with the opposition politicians and their supporters who exploit the undercurrents that are often not related to refugees at all. There is resentment about outsiders taking over in some parts of Sydney especially and refugees are the easiest and most vulnerable targets even though they represent only a small percentage of arrivals to australia. And if you have a particular point of view, either way, you end up sounding preachy just by expressing it. Getting the language right so as not to inflame is not that easy especially when the debate is already inflamed and people get so emotive about it.
“That ignores that a lot of voters have no interest in being educated or led about asylum seekers coming here in boats.”
Bernard, I am sure you’re right, but they were and are relentlessly “educated” and led by those demonising asylum seekers. Having worked in the immigration portfolio during Tampa “crisis”, I am sure if most Australians were exposed to as much well-resourced information about the reality of the asylum-seekers as they were to the distorters and manipulators their attitudes would be very different.
The clear agenda of the narrow band of opinion presented in the corporate media is often presented as mainstream opinion or otherwise devoid of an agenda and I think you are making the same mistake here.
It surprises me what passes for being a humanitarian these days. Apparently encouraging people to board un-sea worthy Indonesian fishing boats that set out across the sea in the middle of the night is A OK with many on here.
That surprises me. I agree that we should be stopping ALL boats from coming this way, and increasing our intake of refugees through the correct channels. This would include flying them here on a QANTAS jet so we can be relatively sure they will arrive safely.
The idea that it is good (I heard someone say “Good luck to them” recently) that these people are leaving Indonesia in these boats is possibly one of the cruelest things I’ve heard.
Billy Straw Man, who encourages people to board unseaworthy boats? I think the point people make is that we should be a) compassionate and b) follow international law.
The thing that is always obscured is that they are making a refugee claim at our borders, not settling illegally in the country (i.e. entering without clearing immigration and settling into the community).
I’d bet for sure however that the ‘real’ economic migrants are doing that, either by overstaying visas and subsequently using falsified papers or by entering via the sea and living undocumented or with false papers.
It’s just these poor buggers, doing the right thing, who are penalised.
maybe, when the three months are up, the Govt. can say: “see, we removed all the ‘pull’ factors, and the boats still kept coming. The ‘push’ factors are far more important.”
Billy Blogs, that is the problem with the so called debate. Maybe there are a few people , very few, who encourgae refugees to get on boats but most on the advocacy side don’t. It is not a safe way to arrive here and most advocates would try to deter any people they are in contact with from travelling that way. But when people take it on themselves to do that out of desperation then they shouldn’t punished. The poisiton of most advocates is not so polarised but the most sensational comments on all sides are what the media and people in the debates pick up on. Being violent towards people in order to stop boats is just not an option we should ever consider again. We should be upping our intake anyway.
That’s where the problem lies, Wanda. If you give a rock solid guarantee that they will be processed quickly on the mainland and all you have to do is reach Christmas Island, you ARE in fact encouraging people to take that risk.
Many of these people come from land-locked countries that have little-to-no idea about boats, let alone be able to swim.
Several years ago, a boat arrived from West Papua. It didn’t arrive through a people smuggler, it was a direct case of people who fled their homeland becasue they were in danger from the Indonesian government. If I recall correctly, it was Howard that allowed them to stay despite the Pac Sol that was in place. This despite the problems it created with the Indonesian govt who wanted them returned so they could be ‘punished’.
Billy Blogs, the West papuans arrived to the australian mainland so by law they were required to be processed under australian law, otherwise they would have been taken to Nauru. Then the Inonesians got upset becasue they didn’t understand australian law and thought that the west papuans were specifically being given better treatment by Howard, so Howard tried to excise the whole mainland. But he couldn’t get the legislation up becasue his own party wouldn’t support the legislation in the senate - everyone knew by then that offshore processing was a disaster. There was talk that we were going to be flooded by west papuans but it never happened. Even under Howard boat arrivals were processed under Australian law if they reached mainland instead of offshore territory but you will find that most refugees dont understand the nuances of Australian policies, people smugglers lie anyway, and the push factors are dominant in creating the outflows. Australia is a cheap option.
But if treating people fairly is an indirect encouragement then so be it - the alternative is too damaging. Perhaps the oppsition and the media could play a role in not advertising australia’s policies so loudly …. But we get such a tiny number by boat and the issue is blown out of proportion. This is a complex problem for govenrments but it can never be an answer to treat people badly. And I’m sure the twenty thousand or so people who have come over the past thirty years are glad they made it here, so nothing about this is simple.
I point well made on the West Papuans, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on the push/pull factors. I’m not comfortable encouraging people to make the dangerous journey. I believe the asylum seekers are more savvy than you give them credit for. The smugglers (Not Tony’s bathers) are fulfilling a need - I don’t believe they have commission agents in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan sending people down to Indo.
Anyway, the extremes sprouted in the media from the dilusional left and the red neck right don’t help at all. Many posters on here compalin about the red necks and the MSM while here we are, on the internet and they are going hammer and tong at the other extreme.
thetruthhurts, it is not undeniable that the Pacific Solution stopped the boats. It is arguable but there is no evidence that offshore processing in other countries was a deterrent. In 1998 the boats increased under Howard, the Taliban had taken control in Afghanistan and millions were pouring out of the country, it was a new wave of refguees from the country. Conditions in Iraq under Saddam had deteriorated and many more Iraqis were on the run. These were the main groups coming under Howard and I don’t believe anyone says this is because he was too soft? In late 2001 the Taliban were taken out of power, the Bali process began early the next year, 353 drowned on the SIEVX, and yes the forcing back of boats on the ocean in 2001 is likely to have had some effect. Indonesia became more cooperative in stopping the boats - there are many likely reasons for the change in numbers. The Pacifc Solution and TPVs seem to be the least likely reasons.
But the boats started again when Howard was in power. In 2007 83 Sri Lankans arrived by boat, the first in a new waves of people fleeing Sri Lanka when the peace processes broke down in 2006. Most had never heard of the Pacific Solution, they would have come anyway they said, and their well known people smuggler was back in business - the same one who was caught smuggling people recently on the boat still stuck in Merak. The numbers from Sri Lanka have slowly increased since then and in Afghanistan the Taliban have taken up with a force again compelling more people to flee. In Pakistan 1.7 billion Afghan refugees have just been given new registration to stay for another three years but the conditions there are dangerous for Hazaras in particular who are easy to identify. I don’t disagree that policies can have a deterrent effect but it is overrated. Desperate people will take route where it is offered by agents (smugglers).
billyblogs, people smugglers lie and rip off refugees regularly and the smugglers do have links in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan for people to buy their passage, although I guess most find an agent in Pakistan or malaysia, etc. once they have made it over the border. Australia is quite often a cheap option and under the last government and this goverment the smugglers (yes let’s not get confused with the one’s Abbott wears…) tell refugees the same spiel. I don’t believe in encouraging people to come, the loss of life over many years has been tragic and in an ideal world there would be a queue that a refugee could one day reach the front of, but most will never be resettled and I may take the same option if I had no other choice, I can’t judge what others do. The conditions where people are in countries life Malaysia and Bangladesh and Thailand can be extremely dangerous so when people say they should stay and wait in those countries where they are not wanted they don’t know what saying. And I am not sure why we expect those countries to deal with millions of refugees while we complain about a few thousand…
Those of us that wonder whether terms such as “boat people” and “population control” are really euphemisms for “white Australia” might like to try this self-test.
The situation in Zimbabwe with the enforcement of land rights has been a significant factor in the destruction of that country. The land rights issue is suddenly alive and well in the Republic of South Africa”. Two boat loads of white farmers from both those countries just arrived on the WA coast. Was the cause the push factor by murderous RSA and Zimbabwe blacks, or was it the pull factor of the WA police being a popular work place for previous escapees from those troubled lands?
Of course it is simply illegal to turn anyone back. Full stop.
A timely rebuttal for wayward Marilyn who writes:
In Sri Lanka about 100,000 Tamils have been slaughtered over the years, journalists are disappearing, there are 110,000 still in concentration camps, 11,000 have disappeared…
1/ Waging a civil war was a silly idea after all, eh?;
2/ If the standard of journalist in Sri Lanka is anywhere near that in Australia, they won’t be missed;
3/ They’re temporarily living in ‘concentration camps’ for their own protection (from themselves as a matter of fact); and,
4/ You’ll likely find a goodly proportion of the 11,000 who have ‘disappeared’ somewhere between Sri Lanka (where they belong) and Australia (where they are not welcome).
Regards,
Peter de Quetteville.