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”
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 5:35 pmSooz,
Must just be sheer dumb luck then that neither of youse can spell too good then but innit?
Thanks for the concern for my general level of cheeriness over Xmas. I’m knitting myself a new foil hat – thanks for the pattern by the way.
Sadly we seem to move in different circles Suzanne. My chats with the locals here tend not to dwell on what is annoying them, what they are peeved about or the sprouting of opinions. We chat about cattle and feed prices, the weather, the foxes and rabbits.
Do you ever notice how many people cross the street when they see you coming? You must be a little ray of sunshine about the place I’d reckon if this is all you find to chat about.
You seem to spend so much time on here chatting to me that I’m surprised your pool of deep political talent runs much past the weekend soccer mums Suzanne. Don’t know how you’d fit it in.
Filth Dimension
December 20, 2011 at 5:55 pm@ snoozenbake
“Your views are the other lefties are the minority, which is why you attack and get uptight daily and start looking at shadows or MSM!!.”
woah! do you write puzzles? this one is a twister.
shepherdmarilyn
December 20, 2011 at 7:31 pmArticle 32 of the refugee convention forbids expulsion from our territory and just because Nauru signed the refugee convention doesn’t mean they have the ability to protect refugees when they can’t feed or support their own people.
And us forcing refugees to Nauru is illegal.
Seems though that while Bowen was in Geneva reaffirming that commitment not to expel Gillard the moron wanted to recall parliament to break the law.
I have not ever heard of such a thing in any democracy in the world.
Archer
December 20, 2011 at 8:22 pmshepherdmarilyn Tuesday, 20 December 2011
“Gee, that does not happen. They are refugees, they are not stealing spots and if you think about how frigging ridiculous that sounds you might see sense, they are not doing anything remotely illegal so grow the hell up.”
Try arriving in the U.S. without relevant documentation and see what happens. Try arriving in the U.K. without relevant documentation and see what happens.
Try arriving at the port of Calais in France to cross into the U.K. and see what happens.
Try swimming or boating from Nth Africa to Sth Italy and see what happens.
You keep quoting the United Nations as though they were the bastions of all that is good and righteous, when really it is a conglomerate of corrupt little countries controlled by major powers who have the ability to veto.
They couldn’t organize the proverbial in a brothel and if they do it’s an inadequate resolution, a toothless tiger.
GeeWizz
December 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm[“Article 32 of the refugee convention forbids expulsion from our territory and just because Nauru signed the refugee convention doesn’t mean they have the ability to protect refugees when they can’t feed or support their own people.”]
Nauru has the worlds most obese people per capita Marilyn.
You really need to get off the crack pipe and come drifting down to reality some time.
Besides Nauru isn’t feeding the queue jumpers, Australia is. Nothing wrong with Nauru therefore.
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 9:35 pmTroofie….
“Nothing wrong with Nauru therefore.”
Well nothing wrong except that the High Court doesn’t agree with you; the Government doesn’t agree with you and even Tony Abbott doesn’t agree with you. He knows the Immigration Act must be changed to permit deportation to a third country, whehter they’ve signed up to the refugee convention or not. He refused to do so. He’s such a silly dill isn’t he? Only opens his mouth to change gear lately.
Now speaking of dills, obese doesn’t mean well fed incidentally. Don’t you think for one minute that blubbery paunch of yours is a sign of well-being.
Nauru is in serious financial trouble – thanks to some dodgy investments in Australian real estate and the GFC, hence it’s enthusiasm for being our little Guantanamo in the south Seas. And tell the Nauruans about peak phosphorus! They’ll all be looking for somewhere to live soon. Too.
Meanwhile I have started hoarding razor wire. The way things are heading there’ll be a world-wide shortage soon enough. I should make a killing. No one ever went broke underestimating the sense of the selfish and grasping .
GeeWizz
December 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm[“Well nothing wrong except that the High Court doesn’t agree with you;”]
Actually the High Court said Malaysia was illegal because they cane people, aren’t signatories of the refugee convention and don’t have guarantee of quality of life there.
The High Court said that conditions in Nauru are different to the Malaysian Solution as the Australian government was involved in running the centres in Nauru.
If we can’t process people in Nauru, we can’t process them in Australia.
I double dare and physically challenge gutless Gillard and blubbering Bowen to pick up the phone to the President of Nauru and prove the coalition wrong.
GeeWizz
December 20, 2011 at 10:49 pmPretty pathetic watching blubbering Bowen begging for Scott Morrison to talk to him and make a compromise.
Doesn’t blubbering Bowen realise he is in no position to be making demands. And it’s amazing that he is showing the press gallery the letters from the PM wanting more talkfests without actually specifying what she wants in the letters.
Of course the reason why we don’t have a solution yet isn’t Morrison not being suckered into Labors policy blackhole, but rather Labors inability to use this other little device called a Telephone… invented by Alexander Graham Bell back in the 1800’s…. pick it up…. press some buttons… and talk to the President of Nauru.
Can we please see the letters and telephone correspondence you have had with the President of Nauru, Miss Gillard?
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 11:00 pmTroofie Yes the Court sort of said a bit of that about Malaysia and an explicit duty of care.
But it went on…. and here’s your problem right here:
(from 2011 HCA 32 – statement issued by the High court of Australia August 31, 2011)
The Court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to remove from Australia asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined. They can only be taken to a country validly declared under s 198A to be a country that provides the access and the protections and meets the standards described above. The general powers of removal of “unlawful non-citizens” given by the Migration Act (in particular s 198) cannot be used when the Migration Act has made specific provision for the taking of asylum seekers who are offshore entry persons and whose claims have not been processed to another country, and has specified particular statutory criteria that the country of removal must meet.”
Read this slowly a few times Troofie. Put it through some sort of sill translator if you have to.
Like I said Troofie – no one agrees with you – not the High court, not the Government, not even Tony Abbott. Only Suzanne Blake .
Peter Ormonde
December 20, 2011 at 11:17 pmSorry that was meant to be “dill translator” … or silly.
Now Troofie I just know you’ll be saying that just because it’s the High Court that’s no reason to be taking their word for it innit?
So here’s your pin-up boy Scott Morrison writing in the Australian on September 21st, 2011:
“There is no doubt the High Court decision has changed judicial interpretation of the Minister’s discretionary powers under section 198A of the Migration Act….
The Coalition is prepared to work with the government on legislative change to put the issue of offshore processing beyond legal doubt.”
Worth a read actually that article, Morrisson sets out in painful detail all the legal and policy changes necessary before Nauru can even attempt to clear the hurdles arising from the decision and that, even then, changes to the Immigration Act here would be required to put Nauru “beyond legal doubt”. Google up “Malaysia Policy Sunk from Start”. It’s on the Liberal’s website.
A gift.
.