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 19, 2011 at 11:59 am@sbh and Suzanne – apologies for my dyslexia.
should read – “Sleep on. Many Australians risked their lives so you don’t have to speak Japanese, or German.”
Liz45
September 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm@WHISTLEBLOWER – How much history have you read about the invasion of Australia by the British? Tell me when and where the indigenous people rescinded the rights to the ownership of their land/s? What was the attitude via the British Parliament to the original inhabitants?
If Australia had been invaded by the Germans or Japan during either world wars, and set up their own form of govt, would you now acknowledge that they had the right to do that? Should Australia have fought that? And 66 or ??years later, would I be Australian, German or Japanese?
Liz45
September 19, 2011 at 6:10 pmYes, and one of those who risked his life and lost his right leg below the knee was the paternal grandfather of my three sons. He was the first anti war person I knew. He was the one who agreed with me during the Vietnam War, that ‘they’re not getting my babies to go and kill other women’s kids’? He always let me know that he agreed with me. He and his wife were loving influences on my kids – they took them on holidays(their annual leave) in a small caravan – they’d seen more of this country before they reached their teens. I guess he put his ideals into practice by showing love, care and example to his grandsons – rather than spin them yarns about glorifying war! Instead he used to tell stories of his experiences with his ‘leg’ that were lighthearted and against himself! We’d end up laughing tears!
He never promoted violence or hatred. He suffered every day for the almost 60 yrs after he came home. He never complained; he never spoke of his experiences as a Rat of Tobruk, and he never once said that he did it for ‘king, country or the flag’? I’d suggest that he demonstrated very clearly why he participated, on how he lived the rest of his life, and the ideals that were there for all of us to see. My sons were devastated when he left us, and now tell their kids about his life, and their privileged role in it!
Whistleblower
September 19, 2011 at 10:16 pm@LIZ 45
I have read enough history to know that “God and right” are generally on the side of the big battalions (Napoleon Bonaparte/ Voltaire) or more simply those who can shoot straight. Put simply if you can’t defend it you lose it.
The history of diplomacy is substantially based on opportunistic amalgamations of force to resist perceived greater threats of force. Accordingly we did a deal with Stal*n to fight H*tler (with due deference to those who have apoplexy and wish to trot out the hardy annual of Godwin’s Law and of course the moderator who has trouble with naughty words).
When the Romans invaded the territory currently substantially described as western Europe and the area surrounding the Mediterranean, they did so because they could, and because those who opposed them could not do so effectively. The Spanish conquest of Central and South America and the English and French and Spanish conquest of North America proceeded along similar lines.
Accordingly I would assert that ownership of land is merely a convention by the current holder by force to resolve ownership issues within that community. The original aboriginal inhabitants of Australia did not have the capacity to resist invasion, and we don’t know how many so-called ownership disputes occurred in the several tens of thousands of years in which aboriginal tribal groups operated within Australia before recorded history. Therefore I do not believe that your question concerning the decision of so-called “rights”has an answer because I don’t think there is one.
Across the Tasman, I understand that the original habitants of New Zealand had a much more well developed social structure and military culture and were far more effective at defending their presumed land rights from the British invaders, ultimately leading to the Treaty of Waitangi where some vestiges of original assumed ownership were conceded.
Whilst I have the greatest empathy for cultures that lack the capacity to defend themselves, I don’t want Australia to go down the same path of relative incapacity leading to ultimate takeover by hostile forces. If in 1942 the Axis forces had been successful in overrunning Australia I would have great difficulty claiming any greater right for the earlier British invasion than a later Japanese/German invasion. Ultimately if you cannot defend your territory you lose it. Unfortunately “winners are grinners” and in the absence of countervailing force the more powerful invaders make the rules.
The sad story of Palestine at the hands of its invaders after 1947 (we don’t want to invoke the dreaded moderator by using the “Z” Word) is a classic example of the use of force to override what were presumed to be civil rights under the Ottoman Empire.
Apparently a Palestinian can show evidence of 400 years of continuous occupation of the site of his olive grove or farm, but under the law of the occupiers (again we cannot use the “I” word for fear of the moderator) Palestinians have no legal right because Abraham was conferred title to the land by “God” some 3000 years earlier and this claim to title has greater relevance (probably because it is enforced by gun or bayonet).
I believe that quotation attributed to Mao Zedong – “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun “sums the argument nicely.
fred
September 19, 2011 at 11:46 pm@whistleblown,
UNHCR only processes claims for protection in countries which are not signed up to the intenational Convention. That’s why their offices in Malaysia and Indonesia are defacto “Australian offshore processing” centres. So when Nauru is signed up, their Government should be responsible for processing claims… and LOOKOUT Nauru…for granting permanent protection to all claimants who are confirmed to be refugees. Tony Abbott will need to make a very binding core written down promise to the Nauru Government to resettle the refugees!
Bit more homework needed on UNHCR and whether it has queues please. Don’t they just refer people who need resettlement to resettlement countries, and Australia and NZ says we’ll have this and that one, but not the sick, the lame, the old etc. Didn’t Gillard as good as say we are blacklisting the 800 – theyre not coming here? It’s Australia which creates a queue of its selected refugees, from one to a thousand human beings from Malaysia this year. UNHCR has a POOL of refugees who cannot go home- about 93 000 and a possible 100 000 not yet assessed and registered.
Yes, Parliament makes and amends and changes the laws of the country. But in the case of the Migration Act 1958 and the Guardianship of Children Act , they have drawn down international agreements which are legally binding on us. The logical extension of what is today being put forward to all the lawmakers is that Australia must withdraw from the Refugees Convention, the Rights of the Child etc . Can you see that happening? Are we a member of the developed democratic world? This weekend Abbott and Morrison were finally talking about the UN Conventions and human rights. Late, but better late than remain in denial or pretend you don’t know the law.Thier body language says they are caught out.
Whistle, You can’t seem to get your head around the process that changes terminology from asylum seeker to mandated refugee . A refugee cannot self select, and being a refugee is not a mind game: you have to have a well founded fear of PERSECUTION, and demonstrate to a governemnt ot UNHCR decisionmaker that you have convincing, compelling reasons not to go home. If you don’t get “persecution” could I suggest you read some case studies on Amnesty books or find some former refugees in your neighbourhood and ask them to explain what persecution is?
You are right that UNHCR does say there are millions of displaced persons and refugees , but UNHCR does not ask or expect Australia to resettle all of them. They often find resettlement places for only 70 000 a year… bit of compassion fatigue and the global financial crisis. We , the nation largely of immigrants and their descendants choose, yes choose to take 7 000 off that total this year. Selected, controlled , orderly program . Just like migrants, except these are refugees and we tale them for humanitarian reasons, not in the national interest.
But we have no choice about the asylum seekers who cross our border which makes you so uncomfortable. Some are so desperate they will knowingly take the risk that they have a 50% chance of dying. That’s how bad things are “back home”. They have no queue to jump. Abandon that myth please. We are legally obligated to protect them and process their claims of persecution. That’s what we signed up to do – in 1954.
And the numbers? Last I checked, it was an average of 4 000 maritime arrivals a years for the past three years. Under Howard 1999-2001 that wave of boat arrivals- Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians – brought us about 14 000 and then the Taliban was defeated etc and ASFP/Indonesian disrruption programs worked and Operation Relex turned back 7 boats with genuine asylum seekers etc etc and the boats sort of stopped for a few years.
If you think I’m a self promoter, think again. I’m morally obligated to return a favour to the total strangers who gave my family shelter and safety from the military occupers of our country who had a death warrant out for my father. They risked their lives in doing so. I can and do identify with others- people who have lost their country etc who are in the same desperate situation as we were in 1944.
And no. We were not ten pound poms or assisted passage migrants, but paid migrant full fares.
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 7:46 amBut they didn’t risk their lives to stop me speaking Japanese they risked and lost their lives in a fight for democracy against totalitarianism. So that people would be free from oppression. And incidentally they fought as british citizens under a british flag.
the line about speaking japanese belies a jingoistic lack of understanding of history that borders on idiocy, no actually in this case idiocy has no border protection
You too should be ashamed of your overt r*cisn
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 7:55 amby the way you to morons, can you name a single country that formed part of Japan’s co-prosperity sphere (Suzy, you’ll need to look that one up but windy will remember it from the news reels of the day) that currently speaks or at the time was required to speak only Japanese?
Whistleblower
September 20, 2011 at 8:20 am@SBH
Whatever your personal problems, try to stick to the facts. If we had lost the war against totalitarianism in 1940 to 45 speakingJapanese would certainly have been on the agenda. The Japanese had already printed occupation currency to be used in Australia after their projected victory.
The Japanese co-prosperity scheme was nothing more than rampant imperialism and any country that was occupied by them would form part of that schemewhether they like it or not. The push for Vietnamese independence after 1945 was a direct consequence of the Japanese occupation and the breakdown of French colonial rule. I also understand that anti-British activists in India were also prepared to join the so-called ” co-prosperity scheme”.
If you do a little bit of research you will find that Australian troops fought under the Australian flag as Allied troops, under their own officers and under their own flag. I think you are confusing the issue of aggregated command which in Europe and the Middle East was British and in the South Pacific was American.
You are also reminded of the old adage that” sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”.
Suzanne Blake
September 20, 2011 at 8:55 am@ Whistleblower
Well done. SBH is out of order.
Having lost a Great Uncle defending Darwin in 1942 (MIA, never found over Timor Sea), I can assure you the Australians fought under their own flag.
Later against the Communists the Australia often fought under UN Command, but under the Australian flag, ie Malaya Emergency and Korea.
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 9:12 amyes good for you colonel blimp and vera lynn more of the fact free propaganda nonsense we’ve come to expect.
oh and the rest of that quote?
“……and the highest for of intelligence “