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”
Whistleblower
September 17, 2011 at 10:09 amUnfortunately for them, Labor politicians are in the hot seat having to make decisions in the real world in a democracy where the majority currently do not favour self-selected migration when there are properly organised UNHCR queues.
This is made worse because the current situation has been exacerbated by election undertakings, targeting the chattering classes, to dismantle Howard’s Pacific Solution and now they are having to deal with the consequences.
Whilst passionate advocates may get their rocks off by whatever cause they choose to identify with to boost their own self-esteem, the reality is that politicians operate in the real world with real-world constraints. Both sides of politics see the danger in facilitating an open border situation where tens of millions of potential refugees could claim asylum for any number of conditions across the troubled sections of the world.
Retired politicians in their sunset years however are free from the constraints of “realpolitik” and accordingly can indulge themselves with born-again righteousness, probably to absolve themselves psychologically for past sins.
Clytie
September 17, 2011 at 3:35 pm“Whistleblower”, people who advocate passionately for refugees are often those who know them personally and have been involved in the real-world activities of resettlement and support. We know what works, and what doesn’t.
Incidentally, onshore processing and even a modest increase in our humanitarian intake won’t result in people “flooding” our borders. You should read the Immigration Dept. background information.
(Dislosure: I have never had any association with the Dept. of Immigration. I have volunteered in refugee resettlement and support programs for decades.)
Phillip Buster
September 17, 2011 at 8:28 pmYeah – pity he lost his trousers in that hotel back in the day though?
fred
September 17, 2011 at 9:34 pmWhistleblower, have you ever had a discussion with Aboriginal Australians about border control?Where did borders come from? Who drew them?
As far as I’m aware , traditional owners would welcome strangers, especially those fleeing persecution as long as newcomers behave with respect to the elders, to the land, to the spirits.
There’s not too many in refugee support work who espouse “open borders” without any controls,but building a euphoria and mystique around border control and border security against asylum seekers who turn out to be refugees, and refugeees are ok – that’s a bit rich, no, it’s very costly and unnecessary. We complain about the cost of resuing and then detaining asylum seekers who come by boat, but take a look at what is spent on defencce, and exactly what for ? A bit of overkill, toys for the boys?
Whistleblower
September 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm@fred
Concepts of ownership are derived from a social construct based on convention and the exercise of power. I don’t think aboriginal Australians 230 years ago had any idea about national identity or border control other than their own tribal boundaries in relation to which I understand there was substantial conflict between tribal groups for control of territory. As far as I’m concerned anybody born in the last hundred years in Australia is an Australian and I don’t care about their racial origin. We should all be treated as equal in this respect.
Whether you like it or not, ownership is totally a function of the power to defend one’s rights, and recorded history shows that without the capacity to defend oneself one is dominated by a stronger power.
The problem with unauthorised entry and access to the Australian legal system is well understood which is why both political parties want to keep self-selected refugees out of the country and away from refugee advocates who will exploit every avenue within Australia’s legal system. Furthermore because of a very generous position on family membership, once one member of the family is here this establishes a precedent for the whole family group to migrate here officially. I believe this situation is already being very substantially exploited.
The reason you’re not speaking Japanese, or sharing a bed with 20 self-selected migrants is that we have border control and that have been prepared to fight to preserve our country invaders. To do this you need a defence capacity, and there is not a country on Earth without some form of defence force, and Australia is no exception. I cannot believe that you are serious in confusing the requirement for defence and expenditure on dealing with refugees.
The problem with so-called refugees who bribe their way to the front of the queue is that probably more deserving cases are then pushed further back. I don’t care whether they arrive by boat or plane the problem is the same.
Furthermore it should be up to the Australian government how many refugees it wants to take in any one year, and to what degree equity is taken into account.
fred
September 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm@ whistle blown
So its ok to invade Terra Nullus and impose British conventions of ownership and citizenship etc on the occupants of the land? Australian citzenship was only created by a Parliament with no Aboriginal Australian representatives in 1949. You were born a Brit before that date.
Did you know that former refugees have the highest uptake in the shortest eligibility time for Australian citizenship, because theyhave lost their country of birth and want to belong here? Want to know the depth and breadth of the positive contribution of 700 000 refugees and displaced persons ( since WWII) to this great nation?
You cannot be a self selected refugee. Your claims have to be confirmed by Government. The Minister has to grant you permanent protection.
There is no queue for desperate self funded asylum seekers . Those who cross our border and have claims upheld are ours to settle. End of story. Most of the boat arrivals are proven to be genuine refugees. No terrorists.
What are your selection criteria for “more deserving cases” that you think get pushed back? Number of relatives murdered? Extra points for loss of provider and protector? If you are thinking an asylum seeker has no legal claim on a signatory country to the UN Convention, think again and tell Tony and Julia. They fail to comprehend this fact.
The refugees( claims processed) whom we generously select from UNHCR pools ( not queues) of tens of thousands in Africa, Middle East , Malaysia are an elective program – we have no legal obligation to resettle them. And Cabinet DOES decide on the quota we will settle, year by year. 7 000 refugees plus 7 750 humanitarian entrants. Is that a lot? The problem is that our Governments we do not have a policy on asylum seekers except what is in the UN Refugees Convention.
I don’t think we need to militarily defend ourselves against asylum seekers who arrive by boat, (and not those by plane), we just need to protect all claimants for protection while we fairly process their claims and turn around those who are not refugees.
It would help if you distinguished an asylum seeker who is still to have claims assessed from a mandated fully adjudicated refugee, who HAS been assessed and found to need protection and cannot go home.
The legal right to seek asylum lies in international and domestic law.
• 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 14 (1) “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. Australia was a major architect under leadership of Labor MP Dr Evatt.
• 1951 UN Convention for the Status of Refugees signed in 1954 by Liberal Prime Minister R G Menzies.
Article 1A “…A person with a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ”
Article 31 – do not discriminate against asylum seekers who arrive “illegally” or punish them for having arrived “illegally” or “unlawfully” because the applicant’s claim ( magic words eg “I am a refugee”) for protection from the authority ( Eg Immigration, Customs, the Navy) CANCELS OUT and voids any notion of illegality
• 1968 Protocol- extends the reach of 1951 Convention
• 1973 Migration Act 1958 : Convention obligations enacted into domestic law.
S36 : a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for a visa is a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Protocol
• 1994 Migration Regulations – codification of law – S 36 and S65
fred
September 18, 2011 at 3:43 pmDo you think Malcolm still has some influence with the moderates in the Liberal Party who do support universal human rights?
Maybe this speaking out- here- has pricked some consciences?
Great day when Labor Left and libera Liberals meet in the Centre to protect decency and law!
Thanks Malcolm.
SBH
September 18, 2011 at 9:42 pmGeez windy, I started reading your post with a view to responding but its turgid prolixity put me to sleep. I awake to find it’s now Sunday night.
I love the ‘the reason you’re not speaking Japanese’ wow that takes me back about thirty years.
Whistleblower
September 19, 2011 at 11:01 am@sbh Sleep on. Many Australians risked their lives so you don’t speak have to Japanese, or German.
@ fred Whether you like it or not, every nation on earth claiming sovereignty has at some stage acquired its territory by force. If you have any evidence to the contrary let me know otherwise stop bleating on.
I would leave processing of refugee queues to the UNHCR and would still send self select applicants to the back of the queue for appropriate consideration. If you think queue jumpers deserve better consideration let me know the justification.
It must wonderful to wind yourself up as a self appointed advocate but I choose not to play your game. In a Parliamentary democracy government can choose to change the legal framework, and if necessary change the Constitution by referendum if prior decisions need to be reversed.
In relation to self-selected refugees, refugee status is a state of mind in the case of the applicant, and such status can be readily established by those wishing to migrate into Australia by potentially millions of so-called refugees. How many millions you want?
By all means wind yourself up in legal protocols, but a well founded fear of persecution probably applies to millions and it may be necessary to change the way in which we deal with refugees to avoid anarchy before it happens.
Suzanne Blake
September 19, 2011 at 11:05 am@ Whistleblower
@sbh Sleep on. Many Australians risked their lives so you don’t speak have to Japanese, or German.
Absolutely right. Disgraceful SBH