In all the commotion about the timing of the AHRC’s kids in detention report, everyone seems to be overlooking 6 things:
- The kids are still in detention
- Abbott knows they’re being abused
- Abbott and his Immigration Minister are responsible for that abuse
- Abbott knows detention of children is not a deterrent
- Abbott says he feels no guilt
- Abbott agreed to remain quiet on Sri Lankan human rights abuses
That last point may seem a bit of a tangent, but it’s not. Stick with me, as I walk through each point, then draw them together…
The kids are still in detention
As I write this, nearly a fortnight after the release of the AHRC’s report, there are still 211 children held in immigration detention facilities within Australia (that’s according to the government’s own figures from January 31, 2015 – p.3).
Abbott knows they’re being abused
The AHRC report detailed the harm caused by the detention of these children (p.62):
- 233 assaults involving children;
- 33 incidents of reported sexual assault (the majority involving children); and
- 27 incidents of voluntary starvation/hunger strikes.
Abbott and his Immigration Minister are responsible for that abuse
Under international law, all asylum seekers who come to our shores and ask for protection are our responsibility. Under the UN Refugee Convention, we are required to take in asylum seekers who come to our shores, and assess their asylum claims.
And while they’re detained by us, they are legally our responsibility. The Department retains full control and responsibility for everything that happens to children in these places.
And our Immigration Minister is the legal guardian of any unaccompanied minors in detention: So he is personally responsible for any unaccompanied minors in detention…
the minister has the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as the parents of an unaccompanied minor would have if they were in Australia. The guardian is responsible for an unaccompanied minor’s basic needs including food, housing, health, education, and protection from harm.”
Our government (and the Labor party) know that their policy of mandatory detention causes harm to children. The recent AHRC report is only one of several expert, independent reports to confirm this. Yet the government insists on pursuing its policy of detaining children. They are, therefore, knowingly committing acts of physical, sexual and emotional abuse on children. I say “committing”, not merely “enabling” because that’s exactly what’s happening, according to the government’s own definition of child abuse. The Australian Institute of Family Studies defines child abuse as:
any non-accidental behaviour by parents, caregivers, other adults or older adolescents that is outside the norms of conduct and entails a substantial risk of causing physical or emotional harm to a child or young person.”
According to this definition, a person is guilty of child abuse even if they’re not the person carrying out the acts of abuse. They merely need to do something that “entails a substantial risk of causing physical or emotional harm to a child or young person”, which clearly our government is doing (and knowingly). So, in fact, the government isn’t just sanctioning child abuse, it’s committing it. Systemically.
Abbott knows detention of children is not a deterrent
According to the AHRC report (p.11):
Both the Hon Chris Bowen MP, as a former Minister for Immigration, and the Hon Scott Morrison MP, the current Minister for Immigration, agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers.”
Abbott says he feels no guilt
When asked on radio if he felt any guilt, Tony replied:
None whatsoever”
Abbott agreed to remain quiet on Sri Lankan human rights abuses
Since the Sri Lankan civil war ‘officially’ ended, allegations of torture in police custody persist. UN human rights commissioner Navi Pillay warned in 2013 that Sri Lanka was becoming increasingly authoritarian. Tamils face the risk of sexual violence, torture, murder, imprisonment, and enforced disappearance. Juan Méndez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, concurs. According to an estimate by The Sentinel Project, ‘the overall risk of genocide in Sri Lanka is medium to high’, as ‘conditions point to a likely renewal of conflict in Sri Lanka that could escalate to mass atrocities including genocide’.
In a report by the International Truth and Justice Project – Sri Lanka, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said:
The evidence presented in this report gives the lie to the Sri Lankan government’s propaganda that it is reconciling with its former enemies. It shows how anyone remotely connected with the losing side in the civil war is being hunted down, tortured and raped, five years after the guns fell silent. Shockingly, more than half of the abductions in the report took place as recently as 2013-2014. The testimony collected here comes from 40 witnesses, almost all of whose families could afford to pay a bribe for their release; one wonders what happened to those whose relatives could not afford to pay and to those without relatives. The sheer viciousness and brutality of the sexual violence is staggering; as is the racist verbal abuse by the torturers and rapists in the Sri Lankan security forces. Thirty-five of these witnesses were forced to sign confessions in Sinhala; a language they do not understand. In some cases people were forced to turn informer as well as to betray innocent bystanders in order to survive and left to bear the subsequent terrible burden of guilt. I find it horrifying that almost half the witnesses interviewed for this report attempted to kill themselves after reaching safety outside Sri Lanka. This indicates the Sri Lankan government has achieved its aim in destroying these souls, who are unlikely to regain happiness and peace in their lives. My deepest hope is that the cycle of revenge will be broken. In order for this to happen, the international community must intervene. It is imperative to pierce the skein of impunity that surrounds Sri Lanka – an island where the war is clearly not yet over.
Here are a few very unpleasant victim accounts of their torture at the hands of the Sri Lankan government (click to zoom):
Indeed, Australia still warns tourists to “exercise a high degree of caution in Sri Lanka” because of an “unpredictable security environment”, “politically-motivated attacks” and ongoing “post-conflict security force activity”.
Yet in November 2013, Abbott defended Sri Lanka’s alleged use of torture:
sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen”
And in March 2014, our government opposed a UN resolution to conduct war crimes inquiry in Sri Lanka.
Finally, about 10 days after the release of the AHRC report, the reason became clear. Sri Lanka’s new prime minister revealed that the Australian government agreed to keep quiet on Sri Lankan human rights abuses in return for help stopping boats carrying asylum seekers:
It was being done by people with Rajapaksa connections, but once this deal was done between Australia and the Rajapaksa government, where you looked the other way [on human rights abuses], then the secretary of defence got the navy to patrol… You could not have got anyone out of this country without someone in the security system looking the other way, the police or the navy.”
So why aren’t the media hounding him?
Clearly Abbott knows about the abuse he’s causing, enabling and helping to cover up. And in the case of kids in detention, he knows it’s not even achieving anything. Yet he persists with it. So why aren’t the media jumping up and down about this? It’s a scandal on a platter, but there’s almost complete media silence on it. Instead, they’re all reporting on the timing of the report, its alleged partisan nature, and – of course – the latest ‘terror threat’ (surprise, surprise).
Come on, Australian media. Abbott, Dutton and Morrison shouldn’t be given a pass here!
Glenn nobody wants children in detention. There were over 2000 when Abbott came to office and under 200 now and dropping. You as partisan on this as Gillian Triggs.
Hi Russ. Thanks for your comment. I agree and disagree…
1) Clearly SOMEBODY wants children in detention, or they wouldn’t be there. Our government could have them out overnight if it wanted to. It’s completely false to claim otherwise.
2) I completely agree Labor are nearly as bad as Liberal on their asylum seeker policy, generally, and on this, it seems, worse. (I’ve criticised Labor for their inhumane approach here: http://www.glennmurray.com.au/labors-richard-marles-is-just-a-watered-down-version-of-scott-morrison/)
3) My post targets Liberal, not because I’m partisan, but because Liberal is in power, and it’s up to them to do the right thing. Also, it was Abbott who said he feels no guilt, not someone from Labor. And it was Abbott who kept quiet on Sri Lankan human rights crimes, not someone from Labor.
At least we agree on something though… 😉
Hi Glenn
1) I believe Bowen and Morison are saying that having children in detention is not a detterent to the asylum seekers and illegal immigrants bringing the children with them.
What concerns me is if Australia have a hard rule that no child will be placed in detention that children will be sent across without their families and it will be a pull factor and put children at greater risk.
2) I wasn’t implying you were partisan to Labor.
3) Were you as outraged by Sarah Hyphen Young’s “accidents happen” comment as you are on Abbott’s “no guilt”?
They are identical in deflecting the blame from the unfortunate consequences of their respective policies.
I disagree with your first point. The report says very clearly that both Bowen and Morrison “agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers.” If it meant they agreed it didn’t deter people from bringing children, I’m sure it would have said exactly that.
Re your second, who were you saying I was partisan to, then?
Re your third, I’m not sure what comment of Sarah’s you’re referring to. Can you link to it for me?
Hi Glenn
On the first point you could well be correct but could send me a link of the statements they each made under oath rather than the summary?
In response to your second I was guessing the greens but the socialists wouldn’t come as a surprise to me. Either way further to the left of Labor.
On the third I can’t find an original transcript of the interview but will link to The Spectator cause I’m guessing you wont accept the myriad of Murdoch press articles on it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/8357711/lathams-law-21-july-2012/
When 200 boatpeople drowned off the coast of Java in December, Hanson-Young was asked if her party accepted responsibility for the loss of life. ‘Of course not,’ she replied. ‘Tragedies happen, accidents happen.’ In all my experience of Australian politics, I cannot recall a more callously inappropriate statement.
Sorry, I don’t have the statements. Haven’t had time to look into it.
How was I partisan to the Greens or socialists (and which socialist party, exactly?)? I didn’t mention either, and neither is responsible for kids in detention.
Re Sarah’s comments, I completely agree with her. You’re missing the critical distinction here (and I suspect willfully). What asylum seekers choose to do is on them; what we choose to do to them is on us. Or, more specifically, on the party that chooses to do it, and the people who voted them in. You can argue all you like about so-called ‘pull factors’, but ultimately it comes back to two simple facts: 1) Asylum seekers are perfectly within their rights to seek asylum in another country; and 2) If they choose to get on a boat to do so, that’s their choice.
It’s also important to note that we’re not stopping them from getting on boats now, either. In fact, their numbers are growing. All we’re doing is stopping (most of) them from reaching our shores. More than 54,000 people boarded boats in our region in Jan-Nov 2014. That’s 15% more than the same period in 2013. Approx 540 people are estimated to have died attempting the passage in 2014, and hundreds more are alleged to have died in smuggling camps in Thailand. http://www.unhcr.org/53f1c5fc9.html
That is where you are wrong, Russ. This government DOES want children in detention. When those 2,000 children were in detention under the Labor government, they were there for an average of around 75 days. The average is now over 400 days. That is one of the reasons the report was done; experts the world over know that long term detention leads to mental health breakdown in children. The other reason that this report ( just one of 36 which have been done in relation to Immigration Detention over the past four years), was undertaken is that it is part of a ten year review process. It was planned in June 2013, during Labor’s governance.
Ah yes, good point, Linda. Thank you.
Hi Lynda
I don’t think for a second Labor want children in detention, however, if I am reading your argument correctly you absolve Labor because the average time detained was less per day even though the number in detention was 10 times more?
Linda simply pointed out the differences in time in detention. She said nothing that implied any support or absolution of Labor. Please, let’s stick to the facts.
I’m certainly not absolving anyone. Labor brought back offshore detention, which is appalling. Kids don’t belong in detention. No asylum seeker belongs in detention for any longer than a few weeks in a reception centre to do health and security checks. Many European countries manage that in under four weeks.
I only referenced Labor in response to your comment that the report is partisan.
Sorry when you said this Government DOES want children in detention I took it on face value and thought you were exclusively talking about this Government.
Any government that leaves children in detention obviously wants them there. If they didn’t, they’d let them out. The reason they want them there is because they think you and I want them there. The asylum seeking debate in Australia has far more to do with votes than it does with boats.
Russ, you didn’t take Linda’s statement at face value at all. She said, “This government DOES want children in detention.” At face value, she’s saying simply that this government wants children in detention. You chose to infer something else.
Thank you linda. Your points seem to have been “ovelooked” by those wishing to pillory Professor Triggs; or perhaps they didn’t bother listening to her testimony, just as they didn’t bother to read the report.
An appaling mysogeny, racism, callousness and refusal to acknowledge inconvenient truths now seem to characterise the predominating attitudes in our country, and many others.
Agreed, Phil. And in the process, the Forgotten Children continue to be forgotten.
Hi Glenn
As far as I can see the transcript with Trigg’s and Morison went as follows:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/Hon%20Scott%20Morrison%20Mr%20Bowles.pdf
President [Triggs]: Is the detention of children a deterrent for the purposes of stopping the boats?
Minister Morrison: Children being detained in facilities has been a consequence of the policies that more broadly have been effective in securing Australia’s borders, restoring the integrity of our immigration program and stopping children dying at sea.
In nobody’s language is Morrison agreeing under oath with the summary you have highlighted at the top of this post.
I also like how you question why I think you are partisan to the greens and then in very next paragraph carry on your blind support for them.
No, if that’s the statement the report is referring to, I agree with you. I’ll contact the AHRC and ask them which statement they’re referring to in that passage. (There’s no citation in that bit of the report.)
Re me being partisan, I’d make two points:
1) You said my post was partisan. I asked you how, and you replied only that my comment was partisan. How was my post partisan?
2) Partisan implies prejudice. I answered your question about Sarah honestly and with evidence. If Morrison had said the same thing Sarah did, I’d have answered the same way. There was no prejudice, I simply agree with her. I don’t care who the party is; we are responsible for what we do to people, not what they choose do do for themselves. It’s pretty simple.
I note you’re once again evading and deflecting, too. Examples:
– You said nobody wants children in detention. I said “Clearly SOMEBODY wants children in detention, or they wouldn’t be there. Our government could have them out overnight if it wanted to. It’s completely false to claim otherwise.” You failed to respond.
– You said my post was partisan. I asked how. You said to either the Greens or some unnamed socialist party. I asked how I was being partisan when I didn’t mention either and neither is responsible for kids in detention, and you evaded the question and moved on to say my reply comment to you was partisan.
– You said the report’s statement suggested Bowen & Morrison were saying kids in detention merely doesn’t deter asylum seekers from bring kids with them. I refuted that, and you ignored me.
– You asked if I was outraged by Sarah’s “accidents happen” comment. I said no with logical reasons and evidence, and you ignored it all and jumped straight to accusing me (again) of being partisan.
– Similarly, you accused Linda of absolving Labor, when she gave no indication that that was the case. Then you rationalised your misdirection as taking her at ‘face value’ when face value actually means to accept something exactly as it appears, which in this case would have been simply that she believes this government wants kids in detention. She said nothing more than that, so at face value, there’s no more meaning to be had.
This is exactly the sort of trolling behaviour that prompted me to stop discussing things with you on a previous post. Please, if you raise a point and I refute it, at least have the respect to note my reply, and if you can’t refute it with verifiable evidence, say so.
If you don’t, I’m not going to pay you the respect of chatting with you at all. And no, that’s not a threat. I know you’re not hankering for my company. I just find trolls dull and predictable, with nothing intelligent to offer, and I have far better ways to spend my time.
So, can you do it?
If you lift the ban on my IP address so I can answer with a keyboard rather than my phone I will have a sporting chance. My missing of key words and spelling errors will also improve.
I don’t agree that I am a troll but we don’t agree on much so if you believe that I can’t really hold it against you. I have never been accused of trolling on any other website and a person as opinionated as myself spends a lot of time posting 🙂
I find it difficult to reply to all yours and others points often because the reply option is not there for me. By the time I reply it is a few posts down and ruins the flow.
I will address all your points but don’t have time this arvo. Hopefully I can do it on my keyboard tomorrow.
I hadn’t blocked your IP address, I’d blocked your email. I’ve unblocked it now. Hopefully we can have a productive conversation now.
Thanks Glenn
For far too long we have heard the two main Australian Political Parties in a meaningless battle of verbal vomit over children in detention. It has gone on far too long and the only people standing out and supporting those kids is the Greens. On Data Retention, on Climate Change and so many other issues the Greens are the only ones standing up to be counted. Sarah you were magnificent.
When yesterday I heard our Human Rights Commissioner being vilified by the top law-giver of our whole nation, the Attorney-General, and to hear the vitriol spewed forth from Government with hardly a whimper from old, old Labor … you poor tired old men and women of the left, I decided to join the Greens.
As I am still writing my first book on “The Politics of Deceit” I really wanted to remain a-political for a short while longer, but the kids in detention, the Data Retention issue, the desperate need to do something about Climate Change and to protect and enhance the Human Rights of our great Australian Nation I am going Green. Let the rabid right, that uncouth religious right, the snivelling argy-bargy parties argue themselves into oblivion, it is time for those Australians of Good Will to stand up and say ENOUGH!
We are the one country in the world WITHOUT a Human Rights Act or a Bill of Rights, we need people like our wonderful Commissioner for Human Rights to lead us into the future of a better nation. Every person in this country living below the poverty line, every Indigenous soul in this country, every person stuck in a psych centre or a prison without just cause, every disabled and disadvantaged soul wanting justice and human decency WANTS A HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OR BILL OF RIGHTS and I for one am going to work to my dying day to see that happen! I take a stand for a better Australia at 70 years of age and I invite all to join me! I am joining the GREENS!
Very well said, Col. I take my hat off to you. I, too, value my independence from party politics, but I occasionally wonder if that’s the best way to achieve my goals. (Which I believe are the same as yours.) I’m giving serious thought to throwing in with the Greens somehow, as I agree, they’re the only party worth anything at the moment. They’re not perfect, by any stretch, if only because they’re a political party. But they’re streets ahead of the competition.
Col and Glenn,
I grew up in the middle of the Lib/Lab aurgument as child.
My father was a young liberal treasurer during The Dismissal, which resulted in the open act of child abuse in being kissed by Malcom Fraser after his Rose Hill speach. My grandfather was a NSW labour god who helped organize the rolling strikes that gained us our now rapidly dwindlng rights in the workplace, including a livable minimum wage.
As a kid, we were one percenters, I could never reconcile the Liberal rhetoric with a functioning empathetic and caring society that worked for the benifit of everyone in society. I’m having even greater problems with their rhetoric and agenda as an adult. As for Labour/Labor as a kid they talked the talk even if their walking dragged slowly after Gogh. As soon as they changed their name to the American spelling it was a dead give away they were going down the same Chicago School policy path as the Libs…the exact reason we find ourselves in many of the predicaments this country is in…..including the dwindling lack of general empathy in our society which was the survival trait that saw our species through two near extinctions over the last 250,000 years. As an adult I see Labor as the lesser of two greater evils. Both parties are wedded to the current system which by it’s nature creates continual crisis that efffect the majority but allow a small minority to attain huge amounts of wealth at the expensive of the majority and the commons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AULJlwoI3TI (Speaker: Professor David Harvey) sums up a lot of our systemic problems, the commodification of people…..detained refugees are a commodity which private security firms make a fair wack of money from out of the pulic kitty….which is why children and assylum seekers in general are in detention for so long…..and the alienation of ordinary people.
I agree, there’s more humanity, empathy and sense coming from the Greens. Of all our political parties the Greens are the ones who will pick up on these issues and probably the only party left still able get out of the straight jacket and to think outside the box.
Good rant again Glenn.
Glenn,
Short of forming a Social Democratic Party or something of the sort to create a completely new and more human-hearted party, the Greens are certainly the best option with the present options.
In some ways a new more middle of the road party might have more traction. Since reading Bob Brown’s new book “Optimism” I think we missed an opportunity to not elect a man of this calibre and compassion to power. He of those who have served during the last twenty years in Federal politics stand taller than nearly anyone I can think of, but of course he would never have been given the blessing of Murdoch, and that is the crux of Australia’s whole problem. When Murdoch is stripped of his power by News Corp next Shareholder’s Meeting, we could have a chance to choose people for PM with at least some degree of intelligence, concern and spiritual energy. Until then we will experience the dregs of a Murdochracy – mere mediocre mud-slingers!
The Greens are the only remaining Australian party with a shred of integrity in the Corpocracy of Australia, once known as The Commonwealth of Australia. But I have reservations as to the soundness of their organisation and decision making. Although a frequent Greens supporter I remain ambivalent about them for a variety of reasons. Having said that I’ve now embarked on a full blown essay on the topic of the movement which became the world’s first green party, so I will leave it at that for now and go wrestle.
Hi Col and Glenn,
Have you seen this piece in The Monthly?
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/february/1422709200/tim-flannery-and-catriona-wallace/fixing-politics
I found it very interesting. It is time for a major change in the political landscape, not just switching to another party in the same and very flawed system.
Events have brought me to the point of feeling unable to support even the Greens anymore. Feeling strongly about the selling off the power infrastructure, among other things, I offered to support my local Greens candidate for the coming state election. But it turns out she gets quite a lot of votes from the defense force community here who vote Green and give their preference to the Libs, so she will not giver preferences to the left.
I think people voting that way are quite confused about the aims and policies of the Liberal party which are aligned with the wishes of their corporate backers.
I feel I can’t support the Greens campaign knowing I am supporting votes to the Liberal Party.
Anna
Thanks Ann. No, I hadn’t seen that article. I’ve added it to Pocket to read later. Who is your local Greens candidate? I’ll get a friend of mine (a Greens member) to ask about that situation. Unacceptable!
Anna – perhaps you should move to Greece.
I am always amazed at haters of corporations. They are the wealth creators and upholders of natural selection.
Hi Glenn,
Our media may not be criticising Abbott, but the world is!
Found this letter from the International Coordinating Committee of Human Rights (ICC) on the STOP Rupert Murdoch FB page tonight.
This is the crux of it:
“It is understandable and even to be expected that independent NHRI (National Human Rights Institution)reports will contain information that is critical of government or unpopular, this is in order to bring attention to human rights that are being violated or areas in which human rights may be improved in a country; and particularly the human rights of those who are most vulnerable. An NHRI should not be hindered in investigating any matter of concern.
In a healthy democracy a NHRI report should be received within the spirit that the contents and recommendations contained therein is to further the adherence to
international human rights norms and standards and ensure the promotion and protection of human rights.
Finally………………..we request that you take note of our deep concerns and that
you address the matter. In the interim, my office will be sharing our concerns with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with our ICC members.”
https://www.facebook.com/pages/STOP-Rupert-Murdoch-Australia/570097129715470
Of course the problem is……we need “a healthy democracy.”
Anna
Very good editorial in The Age this morning:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/the-attack-on-triggs-is-an-abbott-stitchup-20150225-13ogxw.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-14omn0023-optim-nnn%3Anonpaid-27%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-age-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter
Yep. And this: Attacks on our Human Rights Commission are part of a broader disturbing trend http://www.theage.com.au/comment/attacks-on-our-human-rights-commission-are-part-of-a-broader-disturbing-trend-20150225-13o6e8.html
“The AHRC report detailed the harm caused by the detention of these children (p.62):
•57 serious assaults
•233 assaults involving children
•207 incidents of actual self-harm
•436 incidents of threatened self-harm
•33 incidents of reported sexual assault (the majority involving children); and
•183 incidents of voluntary starvation/hunger strikes (with a further 27 involving children).”
So basically you just lied when you said at the beginning that these incidents were caused by the detention of children, as the incidents you describe don’t all include children. Fear mongering will get you nowhere.
Hi Gerard. Well spotted, thanks. Fixed. 🙂 And no, I wasn’t lying, I was rushing. I run my own business, so any time I spend blogging here is time I don’t spend earning money.
Glenn – Are you going to post again soon? I’m missing your insight.
You will be glad to know I am back posting.
I just re-read this post and it is a bit like Q&A. Everyone argue with the Conservative.
Oooh and everyone furiously agrees with everyone else except me.
Could I guess your opinion on?:
marriage
the worlds climate
economic refugees
why is left left leaning politics so collective? Free markets free ideas…