Over 160 people are feared dead after an unseaworthy boat packed with asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Iran sank off the coast of Indonesia yesterday. The tragedy again sparked debate over asylum seeker policy and offshore v. onshore processing.
There are differing accounts of survivor numbers, with Indonesian authorities saying 34 people are confirmed safe — including two small boys, while Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare said 87 people were rescued by Indonesian fisherman. The boat was packed with between 215-250 asylum seekers — including 40 children — although it had an official capacity of just 100.
Survivors spoke of their escape to news.com.au:
“Khadzim Huzen, a 30-year-old Afghan, told AP that after the big wave hit, the ship started tipping into the water, and everyone rushed to the front. A fight broke out for life jackets.
There were only 25, he said, and nine already had been taken by the crew.
‘In the end, as everything was being swallowed up by the water, we just grabbed hold of anything we could,’ he said. ‘We formed small groups in the water and tried to help each other stay afloat.'”
Tom Allard in the Canberra Times explains how people smugglers sent the asylum seekers on their deadly voyage:
“Many of the asylum-seekers flew from Dubai to Jakarta, where Indonesian officials are said to be ready for the migrants to arrive, charging them each $500 to pass through the airport without visas.
They arrived over several days and were taken in four buses on a 23-hour journey to an unknown location on Java’s south coast.
The modus operandi highlights the increased confidence of the smugglers and the huge demand for their services.”
Cardinal George Pell, who was openly critical of John Howard’s treatment of asylum seekers in the early 2000s spoke publicly yesterday about the need for the government to adopt offshore processing.
“The people-smugglers are evil and irresponsible money-makers prepared to risk the destruction of their passengers. These deaths are a tragedy,” Pell told The Australian. “It’s difficult to see any alternative to the government and opposition promptly agreeing on effective offshore deterrents. Australians do not want more tragedies like this.”
Time to focus on the kingpins in the people smuggling war, not the bit players, writes Susan Metcalfe (author of The Pacific Solution) in The Age:
“I understand that it can be difficult to catch the heads of operations in other countries, and that corrupt officials often collude in smuggling operations. But there is no excuse for Australian laws that do not discriminate between different levels of involvement and do not allow room for leniency where it is warranted.
Like many other asylum policies and laws created for political reasons over the past decade, this is simply another that is ineffective, unfair and has no logical basis.
Both parties should now support investing more heavily in tracking those dealers who run the people-smuggling shows in the region.
If the Coalition genuinely wants a policy that deters boat arrivals and ensures the safety and rights of refugees, it should work with the government to ensure the security of anyone returned to Malaysia.”
The Coalition must help the government pass changes to the Migration Act to allow offshore processing so that these deadly boat voyages end, says The Australian‘s editorial.
“The people-smugglers are responsible for the deaths, but the onus is on Australia to do everything possible to stop the boats.”
88 thoughts on “Tragedy at sea: over 160 asylum seekers feared dead”
Bloody OiCrikey
December 20, 2011 at 12:42 pmThanks Peter, not Mr or Ms just Bloody haha. If people truly care they will calmly try to find a solution, those who are jumping up and down are disingenuous, they don’t give a toss about the refugees or their deaths they just want to keep them out.
geomac
December 20, 2011 at 2:02 pmBLOODY OICRIKEY
Thanks for your contribution . I may not agree or disagree with all you had to say but gave us a considered opinion instead of a meaningless rant . Thats what I hope to find on this site instead of political slogans .
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 2:30 pmI tried to post this at 8.52 am. Still nolt happening. Again there is no queue! I shall leap into a craft of my own making then:
No not really Mr McFly
Any set of policies that oblige asylum seekers to climb onto overcrowded dangerous boats is despicable.
Troofie/Geewizz believes that this can be stopped by throwing such people into prison, by towing their boats out to sea, by treating them as criminals. “Sending a message”.
There are a few problems with this, not least it is illegal and abrogates our obligations under the UN Convention and a few other duty of care issues. Also it does not work.
If Troofie and his ilk were actually concerned about the plight of asylum seekers they would be keen to establish a humane process offshore which made such trips unnecessary. But that is not what concerns them. They are angry because asylum seekers “get economic incentives, free houses, centrelink handouts for life.” That they are “queue jumpers” stealing places from the nice polite poor people waiting in line in the UN camps. This position asserts there is a queue. There is not.
Of course those asylum seekers who arrive on valid visas and apply for asylum once they are here are no less “queue jumpers”. But it is boat people who get them wild, who make them frightened of a tsunami of uncontrolled immigration from the swarming hordes to our north. The yellow, brown, brindle peril.
The debate has moved past this.
It is not about blame and guilt – all governments since Gerry Hand introduced mandatory detention have been guilty. The challenge is to solve it, to keep people safe, to treat people fairly and to provide a safe refuge for people who need it.
This can be easily resolved – we’ve done it before. It involves offshore processing centres adjacent to source countries operating on Australian law. It means winning the co-operation of regional countries and increasing the number of countries willing to take successful asylum claimants.
This is a humane and workable response. It is not about imprisonment and it honours both the letter and the spirit of the UN Convention.
Sadly that is not what the Troofies and the Abbotts are interested in. They think that, with enough razor wire, with enough detention centres, with sending the boats back, we can drive people away. In short we make Australia as unattractive and unpleasant as the countries they are fleeing. Hateful and despicable stuff. And at its core deeply r*cist and selfish.
Not Australian at all.
Suzanne Blake
December 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm@ Peter Ormonde
We are the magnet for everyone who wants a better life. Why head to Europe, Africa, USA, Asia? Thats right head her instead.
We will be over run, literally
Already we have criminal and other enclaves and yes we do have some that are hard workers and who assimilate well. But we need a limit and a few thousand a year is our limit. There should be no welfare for 10 years as well. Make them work first.
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 2:56 pmThanks for sharing that with us all Sooz. Nice to know I was right.
Actually if more people met characters like you and Troofie I’m sure they wouldn’t be quite so keen to come here and “over-run” us at all.
How about Tony Abbott, Troofie and SB be made roving ambassors of ill-will throughout our neighbouring states and war zones? Just let them know what sort of people we have here … just be yourselves. Talk about a deterrent! Let’s send a really hateful message to all those people smugglers out there Julia.
GeeWizz
December 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm[“There are a few problems with this, not least it is illegal and abrogates our obligations under the UN Convention and a few other duty of care issues. Also it does not work.”]
The lefties keep saying it doesn’t work… when it did work and will continue to work.
There were 5500 boaties in 2001 before the Pacific Solution was introduced and only 1 boatperson in all of 2002 despite worldwide asylum seeker numbers peaking in that same year.
The fact that it worked so well really troubles the left because it means they have to admit they were wrong and as I have pointed out in other posts here, lefties are never wrong.
On the ground results is what matters and in that respect the Pacific Solution was an absolutely roaring success, a near 99% decrease in boat arrivals is an achievement the Coalition can be proud of.
[“They are angry because asylum seekers “get economic incentives, free houses, centrelink handouts for life.” That they are “queue jumpers” stealing places from the nice polite poor people waiting in line in the UN camps. This position asserts there is a queue. There is not.”]
Bingo. And there is a queue.
How do we know there is a queue? Because there are people waiting in this queue.
Because we have accepted people from the queue.
Australia has been quietly accepting people from this queue for decades now… the queue the lefties pig ignorantly refuse to acknoledge exists. Did the people we accepted from this non-existant queue simply come out of thin air? Is it a giant conspiracy by the right that these people have come through the non-existant queue?
This whole debate is about morals, values and fairness.
There are 13,750 humanitarian positions available so they will be filled either way, so the question we must ask ourselves…. the question the lefties MUST ask themselves is this:
Who should be the decider of the most in need, most vunerable, most deserving and most appropiate people to take one of those very precious 13,750 spots.
1. A slimey people smuggler in a back-alley in Jakarta
2. The UNHCR and Australian Government working inside one of the many hundreds of refugee camps packed full of starving desperate people.
It’s a question that the left refuse to ask themselves, because they feel ashamed and embarrassed.
Kat Smith
December 20, 2011 at 3:02 pmHere are a few things I don’t get. Firstly, Suzanne must not read the news because she seems to be under the impression that asylum seekers only come to Australia. Either that or she only watches Today Tonight. Did you know Suzanne, that there was an island off Italy call Lampedusa that received more asylum seekers in a few weeks (some sources say even one weekend) than Australia often has in one year? Don’t believe me, a quick Google search will fix that for you. Did you also know that European countries such as Sweden receive thousands more asylum seekers than we do each year. And did you know that Malaysia and Indonesia have a much much larger asylum seeker population than we do here in Australia. Seriously, your statement is so silly I think perhaps you were just trolling?
Anyway, back to the things I don’t get regarding comments on this story. Why do people such as Geewhiz assume that ALL lefties support Gillard and are thus just as much to blame for people dying on sinking boats. That is a ridiculous assertion that stereotypes all left leaning voters and honestly just makes no sense. Its like me suggesting that Geewhiz was a huge fan of the crazy right wing policies of Hitler (because all the right are the same, yes?) I agree with the person who suggested that you have a very polarised view of the world. But I wish to add lacking in education in there as well.
Secondly, yes Gillards policies are abysmal, but where do people get the idea that blood is now on her hands? How is she personally responsible for these poor people getting on a boat that sank?
Finally, why do people assume that refugees come here solely for the welfare? I volunteered at a refugee legal centre for many years, and I can tell you that is not the driving factor behind many decisions to put your life at risk. $400 a fortnight is hardly enough to live an ideal life either. Especially if you were previously working a fairly decent job but had to leave because, you know, the ruling group of militants wanted you dead. I know many refugees who came here and worked two jobs ti put themselves through english classes to get a better job. Many of them were doing jobs regular Australians see as “beneath them” such as cleaning or abattoir work. As someone else pointed out, there are soooo many more Australian people also on welfare simply because they don’t want to work. Trust me, I live next door to one of them. He has told me its a lot easier to be on centrelink than work.
Finally, I wonder whether any of the people who bleat on about our own poor population, the state of our Aboriginal population or “legitimate” refugees ever give anything toward such causes? I find it doubtful.
Kat Smith
December 20, 2011 at 3:18 pmAlso Geewizz, I have to ask people like yourself who are constantly alluding to a queue and compassionately advocating the more deserving starving refugees – how do you know they are more deserving? Is there some sort of scale by which we rate those who are being killed and tortured and raped by members of militant groups and their houses bombed by forces who invaded under the guise of helping them lower than those who are fleeing famine, persecution and rape? Do some reading Geewhiz (unless you enjoy holding on to that narrow mind of yours) and you will realise that all refugees, no matter what their situation, are deserving. There is not one suffering a more legitimate type of suffering and persecution than another. I also have to ask, if there was some way for those starving in a camp to get here illegally would you still be as sympathetic? Or is it the fact that they suffer and do not have the same means to remove themselves from their situation that makes them more worthy of your sympathy?
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 3:27 pmNow now troofie …. it’s not about “morals, values and fairness”. What would you know of such bleeding heart nonsense?
No – you said it yourself above … it’s about “” encouraging people … with economic rewards, a free house and a life time of centrelink hand outs…” It’s about the return of the John Howard policies – which have just been deemed illegal, incidentally.
The people who are now coming were the people holed up in Indonesia and Malaysia by John Howard’s “success” at Stopping the Boats. Sadly he could do little to stop people fleeing persecution. He just stopped them coming here by boat.
Trouble is Troofie, they are perfectly entitled to come here by boat. The law is on their side. Not yours. Not the government’s. Not John Howard. You just wish it was otherwise. You just wish that we could turn them back… shell them…. sink them …. make them all go away before we are “over-run” as your female alter ego Suzanne Blake warns us all.
Folks. Here we are talking with one of the last remnants of John Howard’s aspirational graspers. Filled with fear. With malice. Ignorant. Poorly schooled. Selfish. White. Wanting the picket fence safety of Howard’s nostalgic promise. The tumbrils of history will grind their bones to dust.
Just thought I’d share my feelings there.
GeeWizz
December 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm[“No – you said it yourself above … it’s about “” encouraging people … with economic rewards, a free house and a life time of centrelink hand outs…” It’s about the return of the John Howard policies – which have just been deemed illegal, incidentally.”]
Actually nothing in Howards policies was deemed illegal.
Malaysia was deemed illegal because they:
1. Cane Illegal Immigrants
2. Have a shocking human rights record
3. The Australian Government can’t guarantee quality of life there
4. Malaysia is not a signatory of the UNHCR on Reffo’s.
Nauru passes all these requirements. Not only that but there have been many previous High Court challenges against the Pacific Solution(what you think the refugee industry lawyers weren’t working then?) and all of them struck down, the left couldn’t lay a glove on it legally.
[“Trouble is Troofie, they are perfectly entitled to come here by boat. The law is on their side.”]
Actually the UNHCR refugee charter makes it quite clear in plani sentences that an Asylum Seeker can only claim asylum if coming directly from the country of persecution.
In my mind that excludes almost every single one of the illegals arriving on our shores except for maybe East Timorese, Sri Lankans and Papuans who manage to come here directly via boat.