After a day of arguments over amendments to the Migration Act, the Gillard government remains at a political standstill on asylum seeker processing, with onshore processing currently the only viable refugee policy.
First Julia Gillard announced the Migration Act amendments the government was prepared to make in order to get the Coalition to approve them, in order to get around the High Court’s recent decision to rule offshore processing unlawful.
These amendments included assurances that offshore processing countries could not return asylum seekers to dangerous circumstances in their home countries, but these assurances did not have to be enshrined in law. Instead, it was reliant on the immigration minister acting in the “national interest” in picking countries for offshore processing.
“How can an obligation be an obligation if it’s not legally binding?” asked opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Unsurprisingly, Abbott then rejected Gillard’s amendments, saying the Coalition would only allow an amendement which insisted that asylum seekers in Australia were only sent to countries that are signatories of the United National Refugee Convention. Meaning, it would still be impossible for refugees to be sent to Malaysia — Gillard’s policy — but that they’d be able to be sent to Nauru — — a Coalition policy.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen continued to rule out offshore processing on Nauru, instead declaring the government “would not be going down that road”.
As Jacqueline Maley wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald: “If question time is capable of having a vibe, then this one had a distinct ‘I’d sooner eat a bowlful of my own hair than agree to your amendments’ feel to it.”
If Abbott truly believes the Malaysia policy is a bad idea, then he needs to reject any amendment that would encourage it, says Nikki Savva in The Australian:
“Abbott’s critics claim he would be a hypocrite if he voted against the amendments. In fact, he would be a hypocrite if he voted for them. Any one of the issues he has nominated is ample justification, this time at least, to just say no.”
Does that signal a win for onshore processing? Bowen says yes: “Onshore processing is the current situation — in the absence of any agreement, we do that.”
Onshore processing has long been supported by the Labor Left faction, who yesterday called for the legislation to be redrafted as it claims it breaches Labor party platform. But Labor caucus is expected to vote against the Left’s plan today.
But the government will still attempt to pass the Migration Act amendments through parliament today even though it is a “doomed” policy, as Michelle Grattan writes in The Age, since even if it manages to pass the House of Representatives there’s no way it will pass the Coalition and Greens-controlled Senate.
The latest Newspoll has a low primary vote for the Labor Party but Gillard’s own popularity ratings are up, reflecting that Australians appreciate when their political leaders attempt to compromise on an issue. Not that a compromising is everything. “Gillard’s winning a negotiating war, but the fundamentals have not changed,” writes Dennis Shanahan in The Australian.
65 thoughts on “Deadlock over Malaysia policy”
shepherdmarilyn
September 20, 2011 at 2:33 pmThere is no country between here and Afghanistan that is a signatory to the convention and we never talk such rot about people who manage to be lucky enough to get passports from the people who they then claim persecute them.
Funnily enough those with shiney passports like Indians and Chinese are mostly frauds. Here is Chris Bowen on Howards bill to stop West Papuans”
“They will not be treated differently if they happen to arrive by aeroplane?if they happen to be able to afford an aeroplane ticket.
The convention on refugees says clearly:
The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.”
Now we have people seeking asylum from all over Europe, they could all apply in other European countries and be quite safe, we have asylum seekers from every country in Asia except Japan, the only people that we have an obligation to are those here.
I have no idea why the two racist trash cowards are still going on and on.
They were told on 8 May that it is illegal to trade and traffic humans by force, they have been told every day since, our courts tell them, everyone tells them.
and for the ignorant who don’t bother to read the law and convention
Article 31 says we must not punish for being in the country “unlawfully”,
Article 32 says we must not expel any asylum seeker for any reason other than national security and I hardly see how 0.0001% of the worlds’ refugees or 7 people a day is a threat. Now Kenya could do that with 1400 people a day but we have no excuse when we realise that 12,000 people arrive here every day of the year without a murmur.
Article 33 says we must not refoule to a place of danger or to any place from where an asylum seeker can be forced home.
So Amber and all journalists, read the convention.
There is absolutely no such thing as off shore processing of refugee claims for Australia.
Bowen is now claiming he has to do it because we cannot force Iranians to go home but Malaysia can.
What a country, it
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pmTTH;
‘As an aside, so you think that Nauru is not affected by the High Court ruling on 198(a), why is that?’
you going to give your opinion on that one?
PB;
‘Then, providing the false name you’ve given doesn’t rhyme with Bin Laden’, thats not how it works at all, the process for identity checking so that a person can be assessed is very thorough, to suggest that DIAC are being lax is pretty crap mate, and what do you base it on?
TheTruthHurts
September 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm[“you going to give your opinion on that one?”]
Did you read the ruling. It dealt with guarantee’s of human rights in the country to which these people are sent.
WE processed the people in Nauru.
WE housed, clothed and fed the people in Nauru.
WE gave the security for the people in Nauru.
If Australia can’t process boatpeople in Nauru, we can’t process them on the mainland.
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 3:04 pmTTH;
thats rather simplistic there mate, if you read 56 and 58 of the ruling, it pretty much outlines why the current legal opinion is that neither Manus, Nauru, Malaysia or any other off-shore place can not be used.
The ruling boils down to the minister not being able to declare an instrument of Removal under section 198(a) to have a person removed to another country to have their claims processed. Thats because under the current interpretation, the minister can’t ensure protections, in the opinion of the High Court.
Happy for you to point me to any legal advice that you know of that defines that Nauru is the exception.
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 3:21 pmPETER ORMONDE;
uh, sorry peter, but the RRT is the body that reviews decisions made by DIAC in relation to refugee claims, so im a little uncertain why you would say ‘These faceless little desk jockeys exercise enormous power over people’s lives and they do so without any form of public scrutiny or accountability. They act on the basis of suspicion rather than evidence and they appear to be answerable to no one.’
Might I suggest the RRT provides the scrutiny?
If you have a look in to the issue of who is actually doing the processing of claims, I think that you will find that there are serious issues around the level of training being provided to DIAC staff, but I don’t think, as you seem to be suggesting, that DIAC is some how staffed by sociopaths who’s only joy is gained by putting people through the ringer.
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 4:23 pmKnackers…
No – my notion of accountability means that if an individual officer has a series of adverse decisions in the Tribunal then they are removed. Sadly this does not occur – the faceless anonymous officers continue their work of saying no on the slightest pretext or suspicion. They think that is their job.
And at a 25% success rate for appeals in the RRT – and the work of the same officers being overturned again and again – yes there is a decent case for my suspicions of sociopaths. Have a read of Dinstar’s post on Crikey from a few days ago – well worth keeping that one!
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 4:46 pmPeter;
have read that post, and dont make as much of it as other have.
Im wondering what you are basing these claims on, as, if you say they are nameless and faceless officers, how is it that you know that they are the same officers over and over again?
How is it that you know that there is no process for removal of decision makers if they have too many returns from the RRT or the MRT for that matter, hell even the AAT?
These matters are far to important to just throw around seemingly unfounded hyperbole, your assertions lack substance, which is unfortunate because at the heart of that hyperbole you are getting at an important issue. That issue is, as i have alluded to above, an issue of training, or lack there-of.
shepherdmarilyn
September 20, 2011 at 4:55 pmThe RRT is one person and they can say anything they like about anyone without being held to account.
They are almost entirely above the law, most are not lawyers and the courts often find them to be breaking the law.
The whole thing needs to be handed over to the human rights commission and ombudsman.
A person who wants to break the law to prove she is “tough” is not ‘tough’, she is stupid.
GocomSys
September 20, 2011 at 4:59 pmTTH posted Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 2:50 pm
Please try not to interrupt adult’s debates. You are being childish again. Stand in the corner or play somewhere else. How old are you by the way? About 6?
TheTruthHurts
September 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm[“Please try not to interrupt adult’s debates. You are being childish again. Stand in the corner or play somewhere else. How old are you by the way? About 6?”]
Typical leftist response.
At the ballot box we all just get 1 vote and thank christ lefties are a minority in this country because it almost always means despite them being a very very vocal minority they are electorally irrelevant!