Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser sent the following letter to Immigration Minister Chris Bowen last week …
One of the consequences of the demeaning debate about asylum seekers has been the enormous pressure put on non-government organisations trying to fill a major gap to meet the basic needs of people who have absolutely nothing, asylum seekers who are destitute with virtually no support from government. It almost appears as though each aspect of government policy, which your government largely inherited, is also part of the general policy of deterrence.
The High Court decision now provides an opportunity to return to principle, to return to decency and establish a policy in which the majority of Australians could be proud. The recent Nielsen poll that despite the political debate, suggested that 53% of Australians supported processing onshore, is a remarkable commentary on the attitude of Australians having in mind the views of both major political parties.
If one of those major parties supported the humane approach and onshore processing, I believe that figure would rise remarkably and Australians could again be proud of their humanitarian program.
That would also enable the root and branch reconstruction of onshore support for new settlers. I have long believed something like a new Galbally Report on Post Arrival Services for people who have just come to Australia is long overdue. Circumstances have changed so much since 1977.
I have never believed in the policy of deterrence. I do not believe even the harshest of measures devised by the Labor Party or by the Liberal Party can match the terror, the harshness, the poverty of events in countries from which people flee. That is the motivator for people to get on boats. While that motivator remains, there will always be some people who provide boats.
Many of the refugees who came here in the immediate postwar years had to pay some people for some part of their journey either from Eastern Europe or out of the Soviet Union before they could get to Australia.
The High Court decision gives the government an opportunity to seize the high ground and fight it strongly on the basis of principle. While such a policy would be supported by many in the Labor Party, I know it will also be opposed by those who agree with John Howard’s view on these issues. I understand the internal differences, but it is worth an effort, it is worth a stand.
It would provide a better opportunity to break through the current morass in which the government finds itself.
54 thoughts on “Malcolm Fraser: High Court offers govt chance to seize high ground”
zut alors
September 16, 2011 at 6:59 pmThe irony that Gillard and her family were immigrants makes me shake my head in sheer disbelief at her bizarre stance on refugees. Can her heart really be as cold as John Howard’s?
Liz45
September 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm@DAVIDK – Agreed David.
@ZUT ALORS – The difference is, that Julia Gillard’s family didn’t suffer? Their lives weren’t in danger – that’s a big difference. My daughter in law’s father still can not speak of the terror he felt when he didn’t know if his wife and 5 young girls were alive or dead. He still can’t sit with his back to the door – any door, anywhere. They came here over 20 years ago, with one small suitcase each – fleeing from the militia that was being supported by the US in Central America. They went to rallies against Pauline Hanson – as did many of their compatriots – they’re all Australian citizens, and we’re lucky that they are?
AR
September 16, 2011 at 9:27 pmJust for the record – up to 1980, Frazer’s government accepted about 140,000 boat people. With family reunion, after they became citizens, that means up to 500,000 people who are now taxpaying, home and business owners & employers.
Nuff sed.
Liz45
September 16, 2011 at 9:46 pm@AR – Nuff sed indeed! The sun’s rising and setting ever since!
fred
September 16, 2011 at 10:01 pmGood acknowledgement of the enormous contribution of volunteers and NGOs who keep the flag of decency and compassion flying through this dark period of inhumane government . Are you listening Julia? Tony?
Whistleblower
September 16, 2011 at 11:26 pmWhether some of you like it or not, Gillard and Abbott are reflecting what the majority of Australians think about refugee queue jumpers, whether they come on boats or aircraft. That is one of the benefits of living in a democracy.
I’m old enough to remember Malcolm Fraser as the Minister for the Army pulling marbles out of a barrel with a big smile on his face, and as a consequence sending young Australians to their death in Vietnam whilst the then Australian Prime Minister was greasing up to LBJ. As a consequence I regard any born-again moral revelations from Malcolm Fraser with more than a grain of salt.
It could readily be argued that 30 years ago Vietnamese refugees were a direct consequence of that Vietnam intervention, and Australia had at that point a moral obligation to accept refugees fleeing from the North Vietnamese against whom we had waged war for several years.
The situation with current so-called refugees as queue jumpers is a little different. The majority of Australians are not predisposed to absorbing these people, unlike the different attitude 30 years ago to Vietnamese refugees arriving here as a direct consequence of of the action taken by ourselves in supporting the United States at that time.
Liz45
September 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm@WHISTLEBLOWER – And the fact that we’ve helped kill 1,450.000 people in Iraq and who knows how many in Afghanistan has no resemblance to the Vietnamese asylum seekers.
Those who keep on harping re “queue jumpers” conveniently ignore the fact, that in many countries there’s no queues to jump?
I find it contradictory that you hold Fraser in contempt over his ‘barrel activities’ but don’t carry that further to having any pity on people whose countries we’ve helped destroy?
Latest poll showed that 53% of people in this country want asylum seekers processed on Australian shores. What part of that is difficult to comprehend?
If I lived in these countries and my boys were children, I’d do what I could to flee such dangers, oppression and poverty. Many people who arrive here arrive with scars – both physical and emotional due to things you and I can only have nightmares over.
Anyway, when you have to trade decency and respect for some political gain, you need to take a good look at yourself – and so does the Govt and Opposition. They’re revolting!
We didn’t have hordes of Vietnamese arriving in boats for ever more? Did we?
I’m against invading other countries for the US or anyone else? The monies spent would solve many of the problems in Asia and other places. Imagine how many wells or farming expertise etc you could buy with the monies spent each day by our military(imagine the US contribution) in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Another benefit or obligation of living in a democracy, is that you behave like a civilized society with policies to match, not an autocratic country that speaks of human rights but doesn’t put the words into actions. I call that reprehensible behaviour!
What do people tell/teach their children I wonder?
fred
September 17, 2011 at 12:12 amI respect Fraser as the statesman who lead his nation in making the commitment to accept and resettle Indochinese refugees INSPITE of public opinion, and many in his own party.
We came to accept the Vietnamese, and today we wallow with pride in their achievements and we will accept the Afghans and Iraqis if only government and the media helped the community understand better who they are and why they lost the country of their birth. Just give them a fair go.
Celina Andreassi
September 17, 2011 at 1:11 amWell said LIZ45.
Jenny Haines
September 17, 2011 at 9:41 amHow is it that Malcolm Fraser can see that the Labor pollies can’t?