JOHN MENADUE. Have we got to a tipping point in our cruelty to refugees?

Recent developments suggest we might be prepared at last  to act with humanity and decency. Prime Minister Scott Morrison  seems to be interested in taking up with New Zealand its long-standing offer to take 150 refugees from Manus and Nauru.  

Importantly, the Liberal Party backbench is also expressing concern. Russell Broadbent, Craig Laundy and Julia Banks are reported to have made representations to Scott Morrison about bringing at least some of the detainees from Manus and Nauru to Australia.

Bill Shorten has pledged to introduce a private member’s bill to improve the processing of medical transfers from Nauru. He has also reported as having written to Prime Minister Morrison urging him to take up Labor’s proposed medical transfer procedures.

These tentative but encouraging responses suggest that at last the cries of refugees and from across Australia, including by thousands of doctors, are being heard.

In the Wentworth by-election, a clear majority of voters want children on Nauru to be bought to Australia for medical assessment. 55% said that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would support bringing those children to Australia for medical assessment.

A poll commissioned by the Refugee Council of Australia found that 65% of Wentworth voters believe that children on Nauru should be brought to Australia.

See below an edited repost of an article I posted on 20 August 2018 on how we could get out of the appalling treatment and political log-jamb that is causing so much damage to innocent people and particularly children.

*****

We have a particular obligation for the refugee flows that have come out of the Middle East.  The humanitarian disaster and the displacement of people in the Middle East has been triggered by the US invasion of Iraq and our illegal complicity in it and the consequences that have flowed in Afghanistan and Syria.  Our invasion of other countries is a contributor to refugee flows. We have blood on our hands.

To hide our inhumanity, we are told and some believe that this tough approach on refugees is to ‘stop drowning’s at sea’. It is nothing of the sort. The tough approach is not to save lives. It is for political reasons and the belief that Australians will vote against any government that is soft on people arriving by boat. It is to exploit fear, the political stock in trade for a succession of Liberal Prime Ministers.

If the government was genuinely concerned about deaths at sea, it would be sending out the Navy to rescue those in distress on the sea. If it was really to save lives, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison would be queuing up for a Nobel Peace prize. But they know that talking about saving drowning’s at sea is a device to hide their inhuman policies. Please spare us the hypocrisy that we are being tough on refugees to save lives.

Hopefully after the next election ‘the better angels of our nature’ will prevail and we could have a prime minister and a leader of the opposition who could find common ground on politically realistic and decent policies.

An assumption that we all first need to make is that boat arrivals cannot be allowed to restart. Australians have shown that they will support a generous humanitarian program that is orderly, regular and controlled by the Australian government. But they will not tolerate unauthorised boat arrivals.

An orderly process requires that parallel arrivals by boat, with the help of people-smugglers must not resume.

One reason for the success of the Indochina program under Malcolm Fraser was that there were very few boat arrivals. The maximum number of people arriving in Australia by boat in any one year during the Fraser government period was 1,700. By mid-2013 people arriving by boat was approaching 50,000 per year before the Rudd government acted. The role of people smugglers and the number of boat arrivals was on a scale we had not seen before. And it was not Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison who stopped the boats.

On the basis of an orderly program and no ‘irregular arrivals’, I believe that a generous humanitarian program based on the following would be acceptable to most Australians.

  • An increase in the annual humanitarian program from 12,500 to 25,000 p.a.
  • Negotiate orderly departure arrangements with key countries that have minorities facing persecution and/or discrimination, e.g. Tamils in Sri Lanka, Hazaras in Afghanistan and Rohingya in Myanmar. I would expect that the governments in those countries would welcome the departure of those they regard as troublesome minorities. In 1983, Australia negotiated an Orderly Departure Program with Vietnam. Under that program 100,000 Vietnamese came to Australia in an orderly and government-arranged program which meant that many Vietnamese chose not to take the route of dangerous sea voyages. And they arrived with documentation.
  • Develop new migration pathways for people whose status is unclear – whether they are economic migrants or refugees. Presently we have over a million temporary residents in Australia. They include 457 visa holders, students and working holidaymakers. It is  possible to establish a new visa category to meet the needs of people who fall in the grey zone of refugees/economic migrants.
  • Abolish mandatory detention immediately. Mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating government in 1993. It was designed to deter boat arrivals. It has not achieved this and is very expensive. Few countries have such harsh, expensive and failed deterrent policies.
  • A longer-term and essential path for our refugee policies must be to build on the Bali process and establish a framework of cooperation in our region to manage flows of people into, out of and within our region. Together with others, I have been involved with the Centre for Policy Development to build a viable frame work of regional cooperation. We are developing what we call a Track II Dialogue between interested people, officials in their private capacity and others to break the impasse on regional cooperation and build the Bali process into a workable program of burden-sharing in the region. The successful Indochina program would not have been possible without the close cooperation of regional countries and settlement countries like Australia and the US. Every situation is different, but that earlier experience showed clearly that regional cooperation and burden sharing is essential. A new Australian government should actively support the development of a regional framework to manage the flow of displaced people.
  • We need to revamp the present refugee  Community Support Programme.  It is an horrendous expense for NGOs, community groups and churches when the cost is $20,000 per refugee visa.   For a family of five it is $100,000. Community supported refugees are bringing vitality to many country towns.  Country people are finding as we all find, that when we come face to face with refugees, our outlook and response is much more generous and welcoming. We also know that Canada has been very successful in involving local communities in Canada’s very generous and successful refugee programs.  Australia had great success in earlier years in our Community Refugee Settlement Scheme that operated for over twenty years.  We have a good track record in community refugee support programs.  They must be renewed. A first step must be to dramatically cut the $20,000 per refugee government charge and increase the quota to 5,000 and later 10,000 per annum.
  • We must also address the thousands asylum seekers on bridging visas in Australia who are awaiting refugee determination.  They are being treated shamefully by the Australian government.  Asylum seeker organisations are responding generously but hardships are very real.  A new government should immediately address ways, particularly through employment and educational support so that these asylum seekers waiting refugee determination can live in dignity and with the prospect of effective integration into Australia.
  • We need to undo the administrative model which links immigration, customs and Border Force.  The new arrangements under Peter Dutton are unacceptable. A separate Department of Immigration should be re-established under the name perhaps of Immigration, Settlement and Citizenship.  In particular it should have responsibility for the post-arrival settlement programs that were transferred to other departments by the Abbott government in 2013, including the Australian Migrant Education Program.  One of the great strengths of the Australian immigration system until recently has been an integrated national administration that brings together entry policy, post-arrival settlement services and citizenship policy.

But the immediate problem is the souls still on Manus and Nauru. After the election the prime minister should put to the leader of the opposition two key proposals. The first is that the remaining people who are being so mistreated in offshore detention on Manus and Nauru should be brought immediately to Australia for processing. There is no alternative and we should stop pretending there is. They should live in our community on bridging visas while their status is determined. Those who are found not to be refugees should be repatriated where possible. The second is that at the same time Operation Sovereign Borders be stepped up to ensure no more boat arrivals. As part of this policy, we should inform and negotiate with Indonesia and Malaysia that for every, say, 10 boat people that we turn back, we will accept 100 refugees from those countries that have been processed in an orderly way. That will be a tough policy for refugee advocates to accept, but I believe it is necessary to help the wounded souls still on Manus and Nauru.

 

print
This entry was posted in Politics, Refugees, Immigration. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to JOHN MENADUE. Have we got to a tipping point in our cruelty to refugees?

  1. Kien Choong says:

    I hear that the new Malaysian government intends to sign all the international conventions on human rights, but apparently will take a while. I presume the government (understandably) would like to ensure that Malaysia actually meets the convention requirements before signing.

    This may perhaps open the door for a “refugee exchange” deal between Malaysia and Australia. However, Australians must not think Malaysia will tolerate criticism from Australians about how refugees are treated in Malaysia – a future Malaysian government could respond to such criticisms by terminating any refugee exchange deal, and returning all refugees to Australia.

    There is certainly no room for sanctimonious criticisms from a country that has long treated asylum seekers so badly. However, I am sure constructive suggestions and capacity building assistance will be welcomed by the Malaysian government!

  2. Ben Morris says:

    If the Indonesian and their Army did not know about the activities of the people smugglers then Australia has very dangerous and porous borders. Anyone with worse intentions than the people smugglers and their customers will cause us serious trouble and with no warning.

  3. Malcolm Crout says:

    The only reason Morrison is feigning interest in these poor bastards is to improve the LNP electoral chances in Wentworth and next year’s general election. There is no other reason. He put those people there in the first place and rejected any attempt to have their conditions improved or removed to Australia for whatever reason. And he had the gall to insist that he was not obliged to answer any questions about “on the water” matters.
    This is Australia. This is the level to which Australian politicians will stoop to shore up their electoral position. It goes beyond ideology to something more sinister to which I’m struggling to describe. There is a certain evil in operation here and more so considering the man is a self professed Christian with all the values pertaining to that position. I feel so ashamed. God help us all!

  4. Sandra Hey says:

    Scott Morrison PM should not play New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters for a mug. This legislation before the senate since 2016 with relation to the resettlement of 150 refugees to New Zealand, is not acceptable to the New Zealand Government, I understand if Scott Morrison insists in pursuing this line, Winston Peters has indicated the offer of resettlement will be taken of the table. Could be that is what Scott Morrison is angling for.

    • tasi timor says:

      ‘Scott Morrison PM should not play New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters for a mug’

      Could be worth a try though on their past form. Ardern and several of her Ministers have told untruths to the NZ media about this issue, claiming there was no connection between their Nauru offer and departures of boats to NZ. In fact, they were so concerned they sent NZ police to work with POLRI. The Indonesian response was predictable – we’re a poor country, our police don’t have computers, give us money and equipment etc etc. Far more encouraging from Jakarta’s point of view, they have now drawn NZ into the people smuggling industry and can, when the time is right, bring pressure on NZ to decease support for West Papua. You’d think someone in Canberra would’ve given Ardern a cautionary headsup on this. Maybe they didn’t want to.

  5. tasi timor says:

    ‘But the immediate problem is the souls still on Manus and Nauru’

    And Indonesia. Some 10,000 arrived prior to Morrison’s belated and panicky announcement of a July 2014 cutoff date remain in Indonesia. They had hoped to access resettlement programs that have been abolished or reduced to almost no intake. Those with wealthy families supporting them [including in Australia] left for Europe when those lines opened. Those who remain have just as much moral claim, or better, than those on Nauru and Manus. And Indonesia presents a far greater moral hazard for their children than Manus and Nauru. anyone considering increasing resettlement numbers to accommodate these people should consider doing it sooner rather than later, before the lines into Europe close and attention once more turns to the southern routes. 4000 approx. Rohingyas arrived after the cutoff date and in any case were not smuggled into Indonesia with the intention of going to Australia. They were promised assistance by the US and Turkey. The real questions are 1. Why have so many of the 10,000 remained in Indonesia rather than leave for Europe? 2. Who benefits?

    The other day in a post by Mr McPhee he wrote stated that no boats had set sail since Obama’s offer to take people from Nauru and Manus. This is palpably untrue. The trope often perpetuated on these pages that people smugglers can’t be allowed to restart presumes they stopped. They have not. The money they made during the last peak is being invested, they’re diversifying. Nor are they or were they ever independent actors who respond uniquely to our ‘business model’ levers. They’re active, or not, at the whim of Jakarta. And Jakarta prefers to maintain people smuggling as a latent lever of their own.

  6. John Dwyer says:

    New Zealand is offering to take 150 per year so while we should be grateful for the help and get 150 souls out of purgatory as soon as possible John Menadue is right, we need all the Nauru and Manus captives brought here now. We can’t run a NZ solution over ten years! As for the argument that once settled in NZ refuges would turn their eyes to our great continent I would think its far more likely that they would, understandably, remain vey angry at the way we treated them and be more than happy to stay in NZ. How sad that as the circumstances that propelled so many onto leaky boats have radically changed, our politicians can’t bring themselves to say that our policy can now be modified simply because the first politicians to blink would immediately be attacked by an opposition party for political gain.

Comments are closed.