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”
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 9:12 amform
fred
September 20, 2011 at 10:25 amI am heartened by the current political deadlock in the race to the bottom! By default we may get the Australian solution and a begrudging rediscovery of human rights and our 60 years of obligations under intenational conventions. All developed and civilised democratic nations process the claims for protection of asylum seekers within their national borders . We should too.
Can we regroup on the matter of a Human Rights Charter, or Constitution overhaul so that it includes the rights of human beings in Fair Australia? The human rights framework appears to have evaporated, or did the legal advisors actually have a look, and found that the offshore processing was not in harmony with a Malaysian non solution which washed our hands of the protection of asylum seekers who had legally crossed our borders?
Can we hear from some international legal experts on how to untangle us from international obligations, and the consequences of doing so?
What do you say, Malcoljm Fraser? f
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 10:51 amand Blimpy and Vera, here’s the bit of history you want to ignore, google “Flags Act 1953”
You’ll note that 1953 post-dates the end of WWII
Suzanne Blake
September 20, 2011 at 11:01 am@ SBH
The current Australia Flag has been used since 1901 and was approved by King Edward VII a year later.
The Flag Act in 1953 you mentioned was a formilisation to coincide with the Queens trip in 1954.
The flag’s original design (with a six-pointed Commonwealth Star) was chosen in 1901 from entries in a worldwide competition held following Federation, and was first flown in Melbourne on 3 September 1901.[1] A slightly different design was approved by King Edward VII in 1902. Over the next few years, the exact specifications of the flag were changed several times both intentionally and as a result of confusion. The current specifications were formally gazetted in 1934, and in 1954 the flag became recognised by, and legally defined in, the Flags Act 1953, as the “Australian National Flag”.
SBH
September 20, 2011 at 12:19 pmgeez you’re a dumbass Suzanne, you just can’t get even basic facts like your country’s flag right
Liz45
September 20, 2011 at 5:43 pmI wonder how many battle fields even had an Australian flag? I’ve never seen or heard returned service men or women even refer to having a flag. My father in law never referred to it or any over nationalistic views either for that matter? Quite the contrary? I think they had enough trouble looking after each other let alone looking after a flag?
I suggest, that if we really cared about ‘our flag’ we wouldn’t allow it to be made in China and sold for a song at the local $2 shop, nor on match sticks, pyjamas, quilt covers, serviettes and paper plates? I find that a real contradiction. The cheapies aren’t even the right colour? They’re a pale royal blue, unlike the official ones! I find the flag waving stuff quite nauseating and nationalism is pretty dangerous? Look at Hitler? Revolting flags all over the place! I think the US go overboard too!
It’s just a piece of coloured material after all – not flesh and blood!
Suzanne Blake
September 20, 2011 at 6:40 pmHi Liz
Quick Google search of Australia Flag in battfielf in 1945.
ww2australia.gov.au/lastbattles/return.html
My father fought in Korea and Malaya and in Korea it was under UN Flag, but they had Australian flag on their hill, behind the crest of the hill in the field mess.
I do agree, I hate seeing cheap Australian Flags and those in wrong colour.
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 2:01 pmSuzy, what’s a battfielf?
Suzanne Blake
September 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm@ SBH
Battlefield
The f is next to d!!
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 2:09 pmso the ‘l’ and ‘e’ after Batt? Just went for a tosca?