Last week, I sent the following letter to my local MP, Karen McNamara, Federal Member for Dobell
Dear Karen,
I’m appalled by the Liberal government’s treatment of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat. I’ve detailed my concerns in this article (which has been read by more than 27,000 people in the last month): http://www.glennmurray.com.au/australia-boat-people-illegal-policy.
You’ll note that my article discusses the specific international laws the government is breaching, as well as a number of other areas in which the government is misleading the public.
Can you please read my article and respond to me, explaining how, given all these facts, the Liberal government can justify its actions?
Note that I’m not interested in hearing the standard rhetoric – the party line. I’ve heard that too many times already. What I want is a considered personal response that addresses each of the points in my article. As my elected representative, I believe it is your duty to address my concerns. (And as you’ll see from the comments on the post, these are not just my concerns.)
If you cannot refute at least the majority of my points (with verifiable evidence), then I’ll assume you have no good or acceptable reason to support the Government’s inhumane, unethical and unlawful asylum seeker policies. That being the case, I’ll expect you to offer your personal commitment to taking a stance against them.
Note that I plan to publish a follow-up post, detailing this request and your response.
I’m also very concerned about the ongoing and highly secretive TPP negotiations your government is taking a very active part in.
My understanding is that these negotiations will limit our ability, as a country, to make legal decisions on food labelling, access to medicines, energy, copyright and more.
I’m particularly concerned about the plan to include ISDS clauses in numerous future international trade agreements. I’m concerned that if we sign the TPP, Australia will be vulnerable to being sued by foreign corporates if they feel we are impeding their expected profits. Just as Ecuador was sued for $1.77 billion by a foreign oil company, for cancelling a contract they thought wasn’t in the country’s interests. And just as Canada was sued. Twice. Once for investigating the impact of fracking. The gas company thought they were delaying anticipated profits, so it sued them for $250m.
In fact, my understanding is that Australia is ALREADY being sued under just such an ISDS clause. Tobacco giant, Philip Morris, is currently suing Australia because it enforced plain cigarette packaging. It tried a High Court case first, and that failed, so now it’s pursuing the matter via a bilateral trade agreement signed between Australia and Hong Kong in the early 1990s. If Philip Morris wins, who picks up the bill? We do. The people who actually pay tax!
I’m not only concerned that these ‘cases’ will subvert our High Court, but that they’ll be heard in secret offshore business ‘courts’, presided by business-people, not judges. And obviously these people will tend to find in favour of the corporations. (Currently 70% of these sorts of cases are decided in favour of the corporations.)
Just as importantly, I’m horrified that our government believes it’s acceptable to negotiate and sign such agreements when we, the general public, are not allowed to see the full text of the agreements in question.
Please respond to me, detailing:
- Why you think it’s acceptable for your government to participate in these highly secretive negotiations.
- How you feel the 2010 inquiry by the Productivity Commission (which found few benefits and “considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions”) was wrong and should be ignored, out of hand.
- An assurance by the government that the full text of all TPP chapters being negotiated will be made available to the public before any agreements are signed.
If you cannot satisfy my three requests above, I’ll assume you do not have any good or acceptable reason to support the TPP negotiations. In this case, I’ll accept, instead, your personal commitment to taking a stance against the negotiations.
I’m currently writing an article on this issue, which I expect to receive similar traffic to my refugee article. I’ll detail your response there.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely Glenn Murray
Today, I received an email reply from her
Dear Mr Murray Thank you for your correspondence regarding Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) and the future of Australia in a global economy.
OSB is a military led, maritime security operation implemented by the Abbott Government to address Labor’s failure to manage our borders. The cost of the former Labor Government’s failures on our borders over the last five years has been substantial in humanitarian and financial terms.
Since the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders on September 18, following the swearing in of the new government, there has been an 86 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals by boat to Australia.
This stands in stark contrast to the record of the former Labor Government. Labor’s failed border protection policies resulted in an environment where more than 50,000 people arrived illegally by boat and more than 1,000 people have perished at sea. More than 14,800 people who have been waiting offshore in desperate circumstances have also been denied Australia’s protection via humanitarian visas.
Labor’s border protection budget blew out by more than $3 billion per year and to more than $11 billion in total.
In relation to the publication of OSB Information, the Government believes that an awareness of on-water procedures undermines the Government’s capacity to conduct our operations, gives advantage to people smugglers, potentially puts our people’s lives in danger and may, in certain circumstances, undermine bilateral relationships. For those reasons, the Joint Agency Task Force, which controls OSB, believes that there is a sound basis for not discussing events that occur on water and to provide a brief of information for release on a weekly basis.
With regard to the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations, I have attached a copy of an opinion piece by the Trade & Investment Minister, The Hon Andrew Robb AO, MP from Monday 10th February 2014 in the Australian.
I hope this information is of benefit to you. Yours sincerely Karen McNamara MP
Here’s a copy of the opinion piece by Andrew Robb that she attached…
Rubbish reply. So I replied with this
Obviously Karen has failed to address any of my concerns. So I replied with this:
Thanks for your reply, Karen. Unfortunately, however, you clearly didn’t read my request or my post. You’ve answered none of my questions and refuted none of my points. I’ll spell those concerns (and my specific questions) out for you, this time…
Asylum Seekers
I’m not interested in Labor’s mess. If something Labor did is your only reason for maintaining a draconian policy, then you really need to have a long hard look at your policy making process.
What’s more reverting to costs as your justification is ludicrous, as you could reduce costs massively by allowing refugees to be integrated into society after a 1 month processing period. By allowing them to work and be productive members of society. So let’s not diminish this conversation with meaningless rhetoric.
Again, here’s what I asked:
“Note that I’m not interested in hearing the standard rhetoric – the party line. I’ve heard that too many times already. What I want is a considered personal response that addresses each of the points in my article. As my elected representative, I believe it is your duty to address my concerns.”
Here are my concerns and questions:
- Asylum seekers are NOT illegal. They’ve broken no laws at all. Under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14), everyone has the right to seek asylum. The terms, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘illegals’, etc., are completely incorrect. Please explain how you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to accuse desperate people, who’ve broken no laws, of being illegal.
- Australia is breaching the Refugee Convention (http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html). The Convention requires that contracting states do not “… impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence” and that they do not “… apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary.” But by locking up asylum seekers in detention centres and refusing to process their asylum claims (no boat people asylum claims have been processed since August 2013), we’re restricting their movements unnecessarily and penalizing them. And by pushing/towing asylum seeker boats back to Indonesian waters from Australian waters, we’re doing the same. And by changing workplace safety laws to exempt Navy sailors from their obligation to take ‘reasonable care’ to ensure the safety of asylum-seekers, we’re penalising asylum seekers. Plus, the convention also prohibits contracting states from returning asylum seekers “… to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” But by forcing asylum seekers back to Indonesia, we’re returning them to a place where the lives and freedom of many would, in fact, be threatened. Many asylum seekers are Shia Muslims who are fleeing persecution by Sunni Muslims in their home country. Indonesia is 88.2% Muslim, and the majority of those Muslims are Sunni. So Shia Muslims face persecution in Indonesia just as they faced at home. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- Australia is breaching the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS – http://www.imo.org/ourwork/facilitation/documents/solas%20v%20on%20safety%20of%20navigation.pdf). The convention requires contracting states to: “…ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and co-ordination…” The 2012 Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, interprets this to mean “Where assistance has been provided to persons in distress in a state’s SRR, that state has primary responsibility to ensure that coordination and cooperation occurs between governments, so that survivors are disembarked from the assisting ship and delivered to a place of safety. “ But Australian defence personnel are not helping asylum seekers disembark or otherwise reach safety. Instead, they’re leaving them to fend for themselves, hours offshore of Indonesia. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- Australia is breaching the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS – http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm). The convention requires contracting states to: “… promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose.” But Australian defence personnel are not co-operating with Indonesia to ensure the safety of asylum seekers. Instead, they’re leaving them to fend for themselves, hours offshore of Indonesia. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- Australia is breaching the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR – http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15436&filename=70(69).pdf). The convention requires contracting states to: “… ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea … regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found” and to “… provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety.” But Australian defence personnel are not delivering asylum seekers to a place of safety, they’re leaving them to fend for themselves, hours offshore of Indonesia. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- Australia is breaching amendments to the SOLAS and SAR Conventions, which require contracting states to: “… arrange disembarkation as soon as reasonably practicable” (http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Facilitation/IllegalMigrants/Documents/Leaflet%20Rescue%20at%20sea.pdf) and Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea (http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Facilitation/IllegalMigrants/Documents/Leaflet%20Rescue%20at%20sea.pdf), which state: “The government responsible for the SAR region in which survivors were recovered is responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided,” where a ‘place of safety’ is defined as “… a location where rescue operations are considered to terminate, and where: the survivors’ safety or life is no longer threatened; basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met; and transportation arrangements can be made for the survivors’ next or final destination.” But Australian defence personnel are not arranging disembarkation of asylum seekers, nor providing or ensuring a place of safety, they’re leaving them to fend for themselves, hours offshore of Indonesia. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- According to Julian Burnside QC (CCd here) – https://www.facebook.com/events/183807971827352/, by “using arbitrary detention for asylum seekers, and subjecting people (including children) to conditions which put their physical and mental health at risk in order to persuade them to return to their homelands, and deter further people from seeking asylum in Australia”, we’re breaching the following international conventions: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and the UN agrees – they reported the breach in 2013, and at the date of writing, the Australian government still hasn’t responded nor rectified the breach – p.293); The Convention on the Rights of the Child; and The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- We may also be committing a crime against humanity contrary to section 268.12 of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth). https://www.facebook.com/events/183807971827352/. Please explain how you believe we are not in breach.
- Only about half of unlawful entries into Australia are by boat. Please explain how, given this statistic at the fact that boat people are not illegal, you feel boat people deserve our special attention. (According to the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection, in 2012-13, 25,091 asylum seekers arrived by boat, more than 8,308 arrived by plane, 2,813 visa overstayers were detected, 2,328 immigration clearances were refused at air and seaports, and 15,077 other ‘unlawful non-citizens were discovered in the community.)
- Only about 42% of asylum seekers since 2003 have arrived by boat (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/asylum-trends-aus-2012-13.pdf). Please explain how, given this statistic at the fact that boat people are not illegal, you feel boat people deserve our special attention.
- Asylum seekers who arrive by plane aren’t detained, despite the fact that the only difference is that they have a visa. Please explain why the mere absence of a visa justifies detention. Please bear in mind that not all refugees are able to get a visa to fly to Australia. The application process and requirements for an Australian visa are quite rigorous and time-consuming. They require interaction with government departments (which is a risk if you’re being persecuted by that government, and persecuting governments tend not to let persecuted people leave). What’s more, it takes time, and refugees often don’t have much time. They’re fleeing, not going on a holiday.
- Since 2008, 92% of all ‘boat people’ have been found to be genuine refugees (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/asylum-trends-aus-2012-13.pdf). Please explain how you think it’s right to deny protection to people who are nearly all genuine refugees.
- There’s no evidence to suggest our harsh policies on ‘border protection’ reduce the number of boat people trying to get to Australia (http://www.glennmurray.com.au/australia-boat-people-illegal-policy/). There’s only correlation. There are many variables at play, and correlation doesn’t prove anything. Please explain how you justify persisting with harsh policies without proof that they act as a deterrent.
- For the 2012-13 period, Australia makes available 190,000 places for immigrants. During the same period, 4,949 ‘boat people’ were granted refugees status in Australia. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm#e. So refugees who arrive by boat make up just 2.5% of all immigration. Clearly there is no threat to our borders. So why is Liberal spouting rhetoric about protecting our borders? And why has it changed the name of the department to include Border Protection?
- Please explain how you think it’s in Australia’s (and your electorate’s) best interests to ignore repeated warnings by the UN (http://www.smh.com.au/world/united-nations-warns-australia-about-asylum-seeker-boat-pushbacks-20140111-hv83u.html), Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/34001/) and Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf).
If you want to enforce a course of action that commits thousands of genuine refugees to indefinite imprisonment in unsafe condition, then I believe you must first be able to refute the above facts.
When answering the above questions, please bear in mind that I’m well aware that the ‘queue jumping’ claim is rhetoric. There’s no such thing as a queue. Anyone who wants to claim asylum must leave their home country first. So all asylum seekers flee to other countries. Some overland, some by plane, some by boat. Some come to Australia, some go to other countries. This is the standard way to seek asylum. Our ‘offshore’ application process is something Australia voluntarily does to supplement the standard ‘onshore’ process, in order to share the refugee load with other countries. Accepting asylum seekers who come directly to Australia is our legal obligation. Unfortunately, Australia’s policy is that when we accept an onshore refugee, a place is deducted from the offshore program. No other country in the world does this. In other words, it’s policy that takes places from camp refugees, not ‘boat people’.
I’m also well aware that you don’t have to be poor to be a refugee. Take the jews in WWII, for instance. To be considered a refugee, you must simply have a well-founded fear of persecution at home. And although the poor are often the victims of persecution, middle-class and wealthy people are persecuted too. In fact, because these people tend to be well educated, they are often persecuted for speaking out against oppressive government regimes.
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations
Re the TPP, again you have not addressed my concerns at all. The ‘opinion piece’ you cited is, indeed, mere opinion. Andrew Robb’s opinion is:
“Anti -traders also like to fan conspiracy theories about how the TPP will open the floodgates for big foreign multinationals to sue member governments for introducing laws and regulations that they simply don’t like despite any demonstrable public good. This is nonsense.”
I’m sure you’ll agree, the mere assertion that these concerns are “nonsense” does not make them so, nor is it a rebuttal of all (or any) of my points. Nor do appreciate the accusation that I’m a conspiracy theorist. Is that what informed, concerned voters are called these days?
So, let me reiterate my concerns, in the hope that you’ll address them this time. I’ve tried to explain them a little more clearly this time:
- The Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade website (https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/) says, “Australia’s decision to participate in the TPP in 2008 followed an extensive public consultation process.” Can you please provide a list of the parties that have been consulted throughout this process, and their feedback?
- In 2008, the then Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, said (http://trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2008/tpp_priorities.html): “Overall, there is widespread interest in and support for Australia’s participation in the TPP. Most participants in the consultation process believe there to be strategic benefits and potential for longer term commercial gains.” Can you please provide verifiable evidence which backs this claim?
- Based on the public submissions received and published by the Government (https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/), it is definitely not accurate to suggest that there is widespread interest in and support for Australia’s participation in the TPP. Having examined each of the submissions, I found that only 35% of them were explicitly in favour of Australia’s involvement in the TPP. The rest were either explicitly opposed or expressed significant concerns with the content of the negotiations and/or the manner in which they are being conducted. Furthermore, all but one of the in-favour submissions were from commercial interests, or bodies that represent commercial interests. Please explain how these submissions can be interpreted as support for the TPP or our involvement in it.
- This Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: State of Play document (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/18/response/348/attach/html/5/img%20415171934.pdf.html) states that “Once the text is agreed between parties, it will be made public and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny through a review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.” Will the government be willing and able to change the texts, after signing, based on feedback from the public and bodies which represent the public?
- The State of Play document also says that the public consultation process will last “twenty joint sitting days”. This is definitely not long enough for the public to become aware of, read, understand, reflect on, and provide official feedback on the full texts of the TPP. I request that you extend this period to a full six (6) months.
- Please provide details of how the Government will seek public feedback on the released texts.
- Please explain why journalists and the Pirate Party have been excluded from the so-called ‘public consultation’.
- Please explain why CHOICE and other public interest groups are not permitted to review drafts of the agreement, but industry lobbyists are.
- The 2010 inquiry by the Productivity Commission (http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/104203/trade-agreements-report.pdf) found few benefits and “considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions”. Please explain why the Australian Government feels it is appropriate to ignore this finding and to persist with negotiations that include ISDS provisions.
- In 2011, the Australian government declared it would not agree to ISDS provisions under any circumstances. The wording of a statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unequivocal. It said, in part: “… the Government does not support provisions that would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses. Nor will the Government support provisions that would constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters in circumstances where those laws do not discriminate between domestic and foreign businesses… The Government has not and will not accept provisions that limit its capacity to put health warnings or plain packaging requirements on tobacco products or its ability to continue the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme …” Please explain why you believe this position to be inaccurate, making sure to address each point in detail.
- In 2013, former Trade Minister, Craig Emerson, said of the above position that, “No one in the business community thought that [it was] an odious position”. Can you please explain why your Government believes it should pursue ISDS clauses, regardless?
- The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has raised many serious concerns about ISDS provisions (http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d4_en.pdf). “In many cases foreign investors have used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by States in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health). Questions have been raised whether three individuals, appointed on an ad hoc basis, can be seen by the public at large as having sufficient legitimacy to assess the validity of States’ acts, particularly if the dispute involves sensitive public policy issues. Host countries have faced ISDS claims of up to $114 billion and awards of up to $1.77 billion. Although in most cases the amounts claimed and awarded are lower than that, they can still exert significant pressures on public finances and create potential disincentives for public-interest regulation, posing obstacles to countries’ sustainable economic development.” By way of example, Ecuador was required to pay $1.77 billion to a foreign oil company that sued it for terminating a contract the government thought wasn’t in the country’s interests. Similarly, Canada was sued. Twice. Once for investigating the impact of fracking (the gas company thought they were delaying anticipated profits, so it sued them for $250m) and once for a Canadian-court-ordered invalidation of the patents of two drugs, Strattera and Zyprexa (the drug company sued for $500m). Please explain why you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to be exposed to these problems.
- Australia is already being sued under just such an ISDS clause. Tobacco giant, Philip Morris, is currently suing Australia because it enforced plain cigarette packaging. It tried a High Court case first, and that failed, so now it’s pursuing the matter via a bilateral trade agreement signed between Australia and Hong Kong in the early 1990s. Please explain how you believe this is in Australia’s best interests.
- Please explain why you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to agree to these lawsuits being heard in opaque international forums with arbitrators who judge cases in a business framework, not with regard to the public good.
- Please explain why you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to allow foreign corporations to side-step our High Court.
- Please explain why you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to commit us to a system in which lawsuits are brought but in some cases, the applicable arbitration rules/venues are unknown, and some are so confidential that often even the existence of a claim is kept secret from the people of the country being sued.
- Currently 70% of these sorts of cases are decided in favour of the suing corporation (http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d3_en.pdf). Please explain why you think it’s in Australia’s best interests to commit us to a system that so clearly favours foreign corporations over the state.
I’m sure you can understand my desire that you address my concerns individually, as I’ve taken great care to present them individually, with supporting evidence.
Kind regards, Glenn Murray
Still no reply, 10 days later…
So I sent her this friendly reminder:
Hi Karen,
I note it’s been 10 days since I emailed you requesting answers to some very important questions. Your auto-reply said, “If your email requires a further response, we hope to provide you one within 4 working days.”
I understand you’re busy, but so am I. In fact, as this isn’t my job (I’m a small business owner), I’ve LOST money by taking the time to express my concerns and request answers. I’m losing money right now, by following up. You, on the other hand, are PAID to represent me, and to respond to my concerns.
So here’s the situation, as it appears to me. I’m doing my civic duty, despite it costing me a lot of money. And you’re not doing your job, despite the fact that you’re being paid to do it. Is this how you want voters to perceive you?
Please reply to my email, as I’m rapidly becoming very disillusioned with your representation.
Kind regards. Glenn Murray
She finally replied again, but just to tell me we have different opinions!
Here’s her latest fob-off…
Dear Glenn Thank you for your latest email. I appreciate local residents taking the time to share their concerns with me, so that I am able to properly consider all opinions of the people of Dobell.
It does appear in this case that we have very different opinions on these specific matters. Beside the previous information provided in my email of Tuesday 25th February 2014, for further information on the Government’s border security please follow this publicly accessible link http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/about/.
More information on the Trans Pacific Partnership can be found at https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/ I appreciate your specific & individual comments.
The most appropriate source of detailed information for you will be the above reference links.
Yours sincerely
Karen McNamara
MP Federal Member for Dobell
So I replied with this…
Hi Karen,
Thanks for your reply. Sadly, however, once again, you have completely and utterly ignored my request. I didn’t ask for a summation of our opinion differences. I asked very specific question. As my member of parliament, I believe it’s your duty to answer my questions.
I understand that my last email was very long. I included a lot of information in there so you could consider the facts before answering. However, this time, I’ll make it easier for you, and simply ask the questions. Please don’t fob me off for a third time. It reflects very poorly on your commitment to your constituency and to the democratic process, in general.
Here are my questions:
- Why does the Australian government calls boat people ‘illegal’ when they’ve broken no laws?
- Do you agree that we are detaining asylum seekers longer than is necessary to process their claims?
- Do you agree that detention restricts their movements?
- If so, how does this not breach the Refugee Convention?
- Do you believe that, if we force asylum seekers from Australian waters back to Indonesian waters, and leave them stranded hours offshore, Australia is helping asylum seekers disembark or reach safety, or that we’re cooperating with Indonesia to ensure their safety?
- If not, how do these actions not breach the SOLAS, UNCLOS and SAR conventions?
- How was the UN was wrong in its 2013 assessment of our detention centres, which asserted that we are breaching the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
- How are we not committing a crime against humanity contrary to section 268.12 of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) by detaining asylum seekers as we do?
- Since 92% of boat people are genuine refugees, do you think it’s fair to them that we deny them protection?
- Can you please provide a list of the parties that have been consulted throughout the TPP public consultation process?
- Where their feedback is not confidential, can you please also provide their feedback?
- Can you provide verifiable evidence which shows the majority of Australians are in favour of the TPP?
- If not, why is the government persisting with the TPP negotiations?
- Will the government be willing and able to change the TPP texts, after signing, based on public feedback?
- Do you think that 20 joint sitting days is sufficient time for the public to become aware of, read, understand, reflect on, and provide official feedback on the full texts of the TPP?
- Will the government commit to extending the post-signing public consultation period on the TPP to a full 6 months?
- After signing the TPP, how will the Government seek public feedback on the released texts?
- Why have journalists and the Pirate Party been excluded from public consultation on the TPP?
- Why are CHOICE and other public interest groups not permitted to review drafts of the TPP agreement, but industry lobbyists are?
- How was the 2010 inquiry by the Productivity Commission wrong when it found few benefits and “considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions”?
- How was UNCTAD wrong when it concluded that ISDS provisions “exert significant pressures on public finances and create potential disincentives for public-interest regulation, posing obstacles to countries’ sustainable economic development”?
- Do you think it’s good for Australia to be sued by foreign corporations for conducting safety research and environmental impact studies?
- Do you think it’s good for Australia to be sued by foreign corporations for labelling food with actual ingredients?
- Do you think it’s good for Australia to be sued by foreign corporations for denying patents that would drive up the prices of life-saving medicines?
- Do you think it’s good that Australia is currently being be sued through an ISDS provision by Philip Morris over plain cigarette packaging?
- Do you think foreign corporations should be allowed to side-step our High Court?
- When a country is being sued by a foreign corporation, do you think its people should be allowed to know why?
I look forward to your answers to these 27 straightforward questions.
Kind regards, Glenn Murray
Surprise, surprise, she still didn’t answer my questions
Karen’s next reply completely ignored everything I wrote and said just this:
Dear Glenn
As referenced in my previous email the best sources of information for you are these websites http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/about https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp
Yours sincerely
Karen McNamara
MP Federal Member for Dobell
I asked why she’s refusing to answer
Hi Karen,
Why are you not answering my questions?
Regards, Glenn
I’ll keep you posted…
Given Karen’s initial reply, I’m not holding out much hope she’ll come back with anything useful. But I’ll keep you posted, in any event.
Glenn – WOW, That is a brilliantly written, clear, well researched and articulated piece – and all she had the temerity to respond with was more pilicianese and anti Labor rhetoric – precisely what you asked her not to do.
It’s time to start thinking about who’s going to go up against her in 2 years time.
Thanks mate. Very nice of you. And yeah, very frustrating.
Sorry Glen. You are way off track. Your views are highly emotive but lack reality. Let me present you with some realities.
I am a 90yr. old World War2 refugee. We were bombed out and just with a bundle of belongings, sought asylum in any neighbouring country that would have us. We did not have the luxury of demanding to be taken to the country of our choice nor did we have money on us to pay people smugglers. Also, most of us carried some form of identification.
Glen, are you aware of any of the wartime refuges ever turning on their host country and seeking to butcher its citizens?
Can you guarantee that there are no terrorists among asylum seekers considering that they have deliberately destroyed their identification?
My advice as one who has lived a long time and travelled extensively all over the world:- before you attack anyone, please analyse yourself to ensure that your comments are based on realities and not “feel-good” emotion.
S. Moss
Hi S. Thanks for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time. And I’m very sorry to hear of your WWII experiences.
I appreciate there are some differences between WWII refugees and today’s. But did you know that most of those differences are *because* of the Refugee Convention that was written in response to the problems faced by refugees of WWII? http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html
I’m sure you *do* know that many of the refugees from WWII were Jew who were no more financially strapped than the refugees of today. Here’s a photo of some arriving in Sydney: http://www.glennmurray.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Jewish-refugees.jpg
The manner of an asylum seeker’s arrival isn’t what makes them a genuine refugee (or not). They’re judged to be a genuine refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution at home.
And although the poor are often the victims of persecution, middle-class and wealthy people are persecuted too. In fact, because these people tend to be well educated, they are often persecuted for speaking out against oppressive government regimes. So just because someone can afford (or scrape together the funds) to make it to Australia, that doesn’t mean they’re not a refugee.
Can I guarantee there are no terrorists among asylum seekers? No. But can you guarantee there are no terrorists among the 97.5% of the rest of our immigrants? No.
When you think about it, why would a terrorist choose to subject him/herself to the additional security checks and scrutiny that come with seeking asylum? Or the risk of personal harm or the chance of not making it there at all, or not being accepted?
You have to remember, most Muslim boat people who come to Australia are *fleeing* the oppressive regimes that spawn terrorists.
I know it’s hard not to feel threatened when our government and media are so intent on making you feel exactly that with *their* emotive and divisive language, but it’s important to look at things rationally.
And to look at the facts. No boat refugee EVER committed a terrorist act in Australia. Nor found guilty of planning one. And the maniac from the Sydney siege? He came in on a business visa. Should we ban all business people too?
I agree with your advice. It’s important to base your view on reality. That’s why I urge to you consider the facts of this situation and not be fooled by government/media rhetoric.
Cheers.
Glenn
Hi Glen,
Regards the small number of Jews who had enough money to choose their country of asylum, society has never been blessed with impartial reporting and unfortunately, the U.N and Human Rights can be blatantly biased even in action.
Just reflect for a moment on the long time house arrest of the woman in Burma who had won the election. Apart from lip service, what significant action did the U.N take?
However, mindset through religion or other forms of indoctrination is a powerful means of control. It can even overcome our most powerful instincts for self preservation-something we see everyday.
I was an eye witness to the great massacre when India was given independence but discussing with anyone born after the late 40’s would be futile as I am sure that their acquired knowledge would be presented as more factual that an eye-witness account.
I am sure that it must now be apparent to both of us that any further discussion would be futile.
Regards,
S. Moss
Hi S. I didn’t say there were massive numbers of wealthy Jewish asylum seekers. I don’t know how many there were, but there were SOME, and that’s the point.
And I agree the UN seems to rarely take action. I’m frustrated about that right now, given the appalling human rights abuses being carried out by our own government. But their unwillingness/inability to police international human rights law doesn’t make that law any less worthy.
I’m not sure what your point is re India, so I can’t really comment on that.
Further discussion futile? Only if you continue to fail to address my points. I’ve addressed all of yours, I believe.
Cheers.
Glenn
BAM! Amazing work, Glenn. I hope they don’t assign another office junior to respond this time, if they do at all. Keep up the excellent work!
Thanks Alan. Fingers crossed… ;-\
Excellent work!!!
It’s curios that the LNP can only define their position to asylum seekers by criticism of the ALP. The fascistic sloganeering of ‘Stop the Boats’ with accompanying militarism demonstrates such a limited understanding of global affairs that it will undoubtedly come back to cause them considerable political fall out. But sadly it won’t be until something awful happens.
What’s even more curios is that somebody like Karen McNamara can willingly participate in a political party that functions in likely breach of international law. I doubt you’ll get a response from her, but it would be interesting to hear her address those points that you made. I really don’t understand how Australia’s politicians could be contemptuous of international law established in the wake of the atrocity of World War II. I don’t get it…
I also don’t understand how Australia’s politicians could be so contemptuous of Australians & not be more accountable and transparent with regards to the TPP
Thanks Jason. Yeah, all very baffling to me. And frustrating. Karen and the rest of these politicians have obviously forgotten that they serve US. They’re not our masters.
Well done, Glenn! This is my experience, too. The points raised are never addressed. Government policy is just regurgitated back over and over. If they are not going to respond to our concerns, then we will just have to keep writing!
I just shot off this email to my local MP’s staffer (and copied the MP and Morrison into it):
“I am of course disappointed that Ms Henderson’s letter doesn’t address any of my concerns. It is really just a regurgitating of government policy. However, I do understand that she is obligated to give a response which is consistent with, and supports, the Coalition’s policies.
I would challenge Ms Henderson’s claim that Australia has one of the most generous resettlement programs, per capita, in the world. Most countries do not separate their hosting and resettlement statistics the way Australia does. People are simply hosted and then resettled. As previously pointed out, the Refugee Council of Australia reports that Australia gave refugee protection to 8367 asylum seekers, and resettled 5937 refugees from other countries, in 2012. That made Australia 24th in the world for asylum seeker hosting, on a per capita basis. In 2012, Pakistan hosted 1.6 million asylum seekers and refugees, Iran hosted 868,200, and Germany hosted 589,700. Australia received 29,610 asylum applications in 2012, Turkey received 325,301, Jordan 135,946, Lebanon 134,896, South Sudan 101,480 and France received 97,643.
I have further concerns about Manus Island and the brutal killing of Reza Berati, which I have raised in my most recent email to Ms Henderson. I also have concerns about the Coalition government’s claim that it is working closely with the UNHCR and “taking its international human rights obligations seriously and will continue to these obligations” (as stated in my most recent letter from Mr Morrison). This does not align at all with what the UNHCR has said in this statement:
“We stress the obligation of Australia, PNG and Nauru to ensure that the human rights of
asylum seekers are protected in accordance with international standards. The practice of
detaining migrants and asylum seekers arriving by boat on a
mandatory, prolonged and potentially indefinite basis, without individual assessment, is
inherently arbitrary. Moreover, alternatives to immigration detention should always be
considered. We encourage Australia, PNG and Nauru to review their
Regional Resettlement Arrangements urgently to find principled solutions that are fully
consistent with international human rights standards, including the right to seek asylum, the
right to freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
(http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14271&LangID=E)
Neither does it fit with the fact that while the UN has ordered the release, compensation and rehabilitation of the refugees held by ASIO, by the deadline of this week, the government has made no moves to do so.
I would value an opportunity to meet with Ms Henderson, along with some other members of the Combined Refugee Action Group, to discuss some of these issues face to face.”
I have begun an open letter to Mr Morrison, which I will post on my own blog page, which will raise some of these issues.
Keep up the great work, Glenn!
Thanks Linda. Great letter there too. Looking forward to seeing their response. Kind of… 🙁
Well done Glenn, Typical contemptuous response from your MP, party rhetoric, blame the ALP, copy an article citing Andrew Robb (champion of the privileged) as evidence of why we need the TPP. I despair.
I do not know how these people sleep at night, especially in terms of dehumanizing, demonising and detaining asylum seekers for their own good.
This is the same LNP that accused refugees of throwing their children overboard, refused to accept refugees rescued by the Norwegian ship Tampa, ignored the plight of the refugees on SIEV X and allowed most passengers to drown. At the time, the Howard govt. claimed they didn’t know about the existence of the boat. Subsequent investigations proved that they did and ordered the navy to stay away. I very much doubt that they are suddenly interested in asylum seeker well-being – smoke-screen only.
Thanks for commenting, Kezza. Nice to have you here. Yeah, as a party, the Libs sure have some damage to undo. And they’re certainly going the wrong way about it… 🙁
Hi Glenn,
I’ve just stumbled across your site today via a March in March comment on Facebook. First let me say – thank you and love your work!!
I wrote to Karen also in the lead up to the election and the only response i received was “thanks for your feed back” followed by some junk mail telling me how dreadful the Labor government was, all while completely ignoring my specific concerns let alone addressing them.
I wouldn’t expect much more from her.
cheers
Jennie
Hi Jennie. Thanks for your kind words. 🙂 The lack of response from these ‘elected representatives’ shows you how they really view the relationship. They definitely don’t think they’re there to serve us. 🙁
well written Glenn it is very sad response from your elected representatives they are paid too much for elected representation
they are suppose to be humane but are misunderstanding over controlling greedy unfair agreements .they want their elected payday at any cost.
we must keep them honest and fair and humane and thankyou for your efforts Glenn Murray I will sharing your thoughts with the world
Thanks Michael. Yes, it definitely seems to me that Karen has forgotten who she serves.
Great work!! but sadly it won’t probably be her replying but her Electorate Officer. When I held that position at a State level we received pro forma replies that the Party sent setting out exactly how to answer constituents letters in relation to different issues. It appears her EO may have used copy and paste in the reply.
I truly wish a politician would answer properly but they tow the party line on both sides. Even if they did agree they aren’t able to admit that.Your letter probably also showed that you have more knowledge than they do in these matters. I’m sorry you went to all that effort with no reciprocal effort. Love your blog and keep at it.
Caroline
Thanks Caroline. Yeah, that wouldn’t surprise me at all. And yes, I realised a long time ago the people governing us are far less capable and knowledgeable than I am. And the scariest part is I’m not that capabale and knowledgeable!
This is brilliant Glenn (well on your part anyway!) what a shameful lack of response, not even a hint at an attempt to answer your very well researched questions. It’s a sad day when you realise that politicians are either corrupt, ignorant or at best completely impotent.
This sickens me but of course it is no surprise.
Thanks Serena. It’s a sad state of affairs when your local member of parliament flat-out refuses to answer your questions. Says a lot about our government (and our country’s style of governance).
She must have good patience to put up with you ! get a life ! guess I’m the only one not to suck up to you here, I am probably the wrong one no doubt.
Hi Alex. Thanks for your comment. Which of the issues highlighted here are unimportant to the future of our country? And why?
Glen, you are a complete tosser
Hi Peter. Thanks for your comment. I’d be interested to hear your answer to the questions I asked Alex above: Which of the issues highlighted here do you think are unimportant to the future of our country? And why?
Congratulations on exposing the expediency of politicians. With few exceptions, they are self-serving careeerists, whose real interest is in getting a large salary that they wouldn’t get elsewhere (because they’re not talented enough) and feeding their own egos – particularly MP’s.
It’s the same in UK where I live. MP’s here are in the main bullshitters who’ll tell you anything that suits them.
I predict that the structure of governments in westernised countries will be radically changed in next 50 years, as citizens take matters into their own hands, having had enough crap from politicians.
Thanks for your comment, Bill. Couldn’t agree more. I believe we need, as a first step, Swiss-style direct democracy…
And Swiss style army knives!
TL;DR
She’s obviously not answering because she is busy doing her job, and you are clearly nuts!
Julian Burnside is also clearly nuts – why do sheeple keep listening to, and quoting, him? He’s all brains, but no commonsense! lol Who knows.. maybe you are too; People who have spent their whole lives in educational institutions and/or cushy govt jobs need to stop pontificating and get out into the real world!
Instead of whingeing & complaining about everything in the name of being right, how about you come up with some solutions? What good is your confuse-and-amuse approach to anyone? Is it getting any results? No… So why are you wasting your time?
The govt is not against refugees, or foreign aid, etc . Period. It simply is a matter of getting the people here in the best way possible – and that is not by boat, with a 2% kill rate! Do you even care about these people that you supposedly represent? Do you care that these morons are putting their kids in extreme danger like this? Putting your family on a boat, when they can’t swim, and gambling with their lives is abuse!
Why do you support them giving what little money they have to illegal people smugglers? Some of whom end up killing them! Under Labor, people smuggling was becoming an absolute booming trade in Indonesia.. To the tune of millions of dollars!
Yes, the system is not perfect.. and if it was up to Libs these people would be out of detention already. But, as much as you don’t like it, it IS another Labor disaster and, until at least July 2014, Labor & The Greens will continue blocking Temporary Protection Visas, thereby keeping these people locked up! Traumatising them with their stupidity, childish thinking and need to be ‘right’. How about some negotiation, instead of causing more heartache for people you supposedly care about, with your all-or-nothing thinking (not how the real world works btw).
Another thing.. It is highly doubtful that most of these people are genuine refugees anyway.. Who says they are.. Labor? Look at every program Labor has touched and turn to sh*t.. If they were anywhere near as incompetent with their refugee approval process, then who knows – maybe only 50% are genuine refugees. Either way, coming here by boat is inefficient and dangerous – thank god the Libs have stopped it.
Thanks for your comment Max. It’s a shame you didn’t read it. Not just because you might have learned something, but also because it kinda undermines every assertion you make in your comment. If you didn’t read what I wrote, how could you know what I’m saying or not saying?
Liberal battleaxe Karen doesn’t have to respond in detail to all your tiresome questions, Glenn. She’s a bit dim, and carries a couple of big question marks. These idiots have already ruined the country. They were the political loons who imported the Muslims, and a quarter of a million Africans. So many people who share absolutely nothing with us. What kind of country will result? They’re all getting a better life at our expense. I would like a better life too.
Glenn, you are a typical Aussie Softie with a big heart and no brain. You have no idea how many of your boat people are already on the dole. We are becoming a diaspora of foreign peasants. What a horrible, weird mess.
Do you have any evidence to suggest there is an overabundance of boat people on the dole in Australia?
Hi Glen,
A very well written document and I commend you on it. I am a Volunteer Community Advocate and also a researcher into Commonwealth Constitution 1900-1901 and the Westminster system of laws. This involves regular contact with the UK Archives and Hansard. Originally I was naïve and astounded at the level of corruption and sedition or treason our politicians have been happy to undertake, so I fully understand how frustrated you must feel. I won’t take too much of your time but will make these points.
1. The Commonwealth Constitution is still our lawful Constitution and under it the people are the supreme authority, i.e. the government and the parliament is its servant; something the politicians seem unable or unwilling to understand. If you read the Preamble it says something like this……Whereas we the people……. Not that. Not the government; not the parliament or political parties but the people………. Come together to enact an indissolvable constitution……… etc. Note indissolvable. It means can be dissolved or done away with. It can be amended but only via a referendum. The decision must be a majority of the states and territories and also a majority of the people within those states and territories. There is no provision for political parties in the constitution, yet these have high jacked government. The government is a corporation registered in Washington Columbia USA; accountable to USA law and its Revenue department, hence a foreign power. Elections are corrupt. Why? Because the candidates are mostly preselected by the factions of the parties, not necessarily your choice and are further biased in favour of the factions with the preferential voting system that enables the faction to further manipulate the voting. There are many other areas where the rights of the people are taken away. The King James version of the bible is used for swearing in or making an affirmation. “oh it is a religious thing they reply”. It is not. The protestant bible is used because it traces our common law rights from the 10 Commandments through the Molmutine laws of Britain (tribal laws based on common laws and where we get the right to be tested before a judge and jury of our peers. The Molmutine laws were practiced as far back as 3,500 years before Christ was born. King David of Cornwall and later King David of Britain codified those laws that became part of the Magna Carta and the UK Bill of Rights, which we inherited. there are many many acts passed without due process; royal assent and outside of the authority of the government. I believe I have at least around 89 in my hands. Once elected the MP’s toe the party line and the vested interests of those and not yours. One case brought to my attention was a My Will letter presented to a local MP who told the person it was their My Will not to deliver it to parliament. Indeed. It is the MP’s obligation to deliver the document as it is the people’s will that it be so and they are the MP’s employer as it were. Also, the MP need to understand that when election time comes around it will be the people who will exercise their will by not voting and so it goes on. Local government. Local government has no standing under the Commonwealth Constitution except as a department of the state, i.e. Department of local government. Two referendum (1974 and 1988) agreed. Yet Victoria chose the next year to enact a 1989 local government act and give recognition of local government as a third tier of government. It cannot do this as it is outside of its authority as it is based on (a) the power of a false Victorian 1975 Victorian Constitution, as this has not gone through due process of royal assent; referendum and an application to the UK asking it to repeal the lawful Victorian constitution 1855. (b) a state Act that is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, hence even if the Victorian Constitution 1975 was lawful it would still be inconsistent with the Commonwealth s 109. There is so much more I could say but suffice to say we need to regain our rights under the Constitution and parliament needs to act as the servant of the people. I have watched comments on the net such as we need a new constitution and we need to get away from the UK. We don’t. Our Constitution is our toll properly used. While indissolvable it can be amended to meet the needs of the people. We are autonomous as the UK handed us that right. The problem is the vested interests and the power factions that have usurped those rights and the people have been kept ignorant and misinformed. 1974 resulted in the teaching of the Constitution as part of the school curriculum. This led to generations plus migrants not knowing we even had a Constitution. Later this was replaced by a citizenship course. what is the difference between a subject and a citizen. Under our constitution a subject’s rights are protected. A citizen is an asset of a corporation administered under roman law, admiralty; ICC’ call it what you like but it means that the state owns everything and you have no rights. Well good luck and please continue to ask questions and demand answers and don’t be side tracked. this is a clever ploy to tire you and make you give up. I am 82.5 and still fighting:)
Any update from your Member for Dobell Glenn? Especially now in light of the terrible events going on in Europe; one wonders if Abbott, Dutton and Co can muster up enough humanity to offer to take in some of these desperate refugees.
‘fraid not… 🙁
Poor Karen was far too busy to answer your questions Glenn. After all her main priority was to look good sitting behind Abbott during question time. I wonder if she will still feature as a poster girl with Turncoat as PM ? Looked like she backed the wrong horse…or Donkey !
Karen Dobell is just another Liberal member who was born in the United Kingdom, so we know where her true allegiance, like her former master Tony Abbott’s, lies…
Karen McNamara of Dobell, should I say…
I’ll give you evidence of wretched boat people on the dole Glenn, I see it every day – I hand out the job start payments, it blatantly exists!
All very good to be idealistic about illegal immigrants or boat people, but where will you house these 12,000 new ones coming in for example Glenn?
Liverpool and Fairfield have been earmarked to take 6,000 of them and my counterparts in those areas are saying that the locals are most unhappy about it, furious in fact and that the areas are already over populated by illegal immigrants and it is and simply not sustainable anymore.
Of course, you will always find some loonie left, pixilated Green types who want to re visit the reprehensible Gillard days and allow the illegal immigrants to pour in at will.
No, Operation Sovereign Borders has worked a treat whether people like it or not. No more deaths at sea and no more illegal immigrants getting in via the back door.
Hi Sean. Thanks for your comment. It’s interesting that you started by saying you’ll give me evidence of something, then you gave me only a personal anecdote. But that aside:
1) No-one has denied there are some boat people on the dole.
2) It’s a fact that housing refugees in the community would cost only a fraction of what it costs to lock them up in detention centres. It cost us $826.1 million in the 2014-15 to process and detain 2500 asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island. That’s over $330,000 per asylum seeker per year. In fact, the Commission of Audit said it costs more than $400k per asylum seeker per year (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/12/comment-penny-wise-pound-foolish-how-really-save-money-refugees). Excluding the cost of all the government’s PR/spinning teams, the cost to our international reputation, etc. It’s laughable to suggest we can’t afford to house them.
3) “areas are already over populated by illegal immigrants and it is and simply not sustainable anymore” – Do you have any evidence of either of these claims?
4) Operation Sovereign Borders hasn’t stopped deaths at sea. 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).
5) There is no back door. Anyone who wants to claim asylum must leave their home country first. So all asylum seekers flee to other countries. Some overland, some by plane, some by boat. Some come to Australia, the vast majority go to other countries. This is the standard way to seek asylum. These people are called ‘onshore applicants’. Sadly, a lot of refugees are very, very poor, so their only option is to travel overland to a neighbouring country. That’s why countries like Kenya and Ethiopia have huge refugee camps (because of trouble in neighbouring Somalia). Sometimes refugees are resettled in a country other than the one they fled to. E.g. Someone might be resettled from a refugee camp to Australia. These people are called ‘offshore applicants’. This is something we voluntarily do to supplement the standard ‘onshore’ process. Again, resettling refugees from refugee camps is a voluntary act. Australia does it to share the refugee load with other countries. Accepting asylum seekers who come directly to Australia is our legal obligation. Unfortunately, Australia’s policy is that when we accept an onshore refugee (i.e. an asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by plane or boat), a place is deducted from the offshore program (i.e. there’s one less place for people being moved from refugee camps). No other country in the world does this. In other words, it’s policy that takes places from camp refugees, not ‘boat people’.
6) Asylum seekers are not illegal. They’ve broken no laws at all. Under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14): “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The terms, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘illegals’, etc., are completely incorrect. The 2012 UNHCR Guidelines on Detention (http://www.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html) explain it in plain English: “Every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, serious human rights violations and other serious harm. Seeking asylum is not, therefore, an unlawful act… In exercising the right to seek asylum, asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive at, or enter, a territory without prior authorisation. The position of asylum-seekers may thus differ fundamentally from that of ordinary migrants in that they may not be in a position to comply with the legal formalities for entry. They may, for example, be unable to obtain the necessary documentation in advance of their flight because of their fear of persecution and/or the urgency of their departure. These factors, as well as the fact that asylum-seekers have often experienced traumatic events, need to be taken into account in determining any restrictions on freedom of movement based on irregular entry or presence.” (p.12)
7) It’s also laughable to suggest that asylum seekers have ever “poured in”. In 2012 – the year when we had the most arrivals ever – 51 countries had more arrivals relative to GDP (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-int.php). Also in 2012, approximately a third of our people did NOT come by boat (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/asylum-trends-aus-2012-13.pdf).
8) No-one is suggesting we let anyone arrive “at will”. Certainly not me, and certainly not the Greens. We’re simply saying that Australia has a legal obligation (and we also believe an ethical one) to accept asylum seekers, properly process their claims, and deal with them in a humane manner while doing so.
Greetings Glenn,
No anecdote at all, just a first handed factual understanding of how the system works with these illegal immigrants, it’s my job. You do learn very quickly about the one’s willing to work and the one’s who don’t. It may horrify you to learn just how many are in the latter, seriously, think about it.
It is more laughable to suggest illegal immigrants have not poured into Australia. Using the fact that other countries had more illegal immigrants pour into their land in 2012 is totally irrelevant when we view with concern with what is going on in our own back yard.
That belief just simply does not condone that we should allow open slather and adopt a loopie loonie Green like approach and let everyone in willy nilly.
I think you also missed the paramount issue that when a boat deliberately by passes the first safe haven country it encounters, I believe their refugee status changes, is that still the case ?
In any event, I support Operation Sovereign Borders wholeheartedly and the restriction of unwanted illegal immigrants.
1) Of course it was an anecdote. By definition. It was you recounting a personal experience. While I don’t question the experience, it’s not verifiable evidence of anything.
2) I find it bizarre that you think our refusal to contribute to a solution to a global problem is irrelevant, but if you need local context to find it relevant, try this one. For the 2012-13 period (our peak), Australia made available 190,000 places for immigrants. During the same period, 4,949 ‘boat people’ were granted refugees status in Australia. So refugees who arrived by boat made up just 2.5% of all immigration (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm#e). And I reiterate, that was during our peak arrival period. So they’re not ‘pouring in’ by international standards, and they’re not ‘pouring in’ by Australian immigration standards.
3) Once again, no-one is suggesting we let everyone in willy nilly.
4) Re asylum seekers passing through or by other countries: Although the Refugee Convention says they must come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened (as opposed to ‘skipping through’ a country like Indonesia), the 2001 Geneva Expert Round Table organised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concluded that: “Refugees are not required to have come directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened… Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection in the first country or countries to which they flee.” (http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/roundtable-summaries.pdf p.2, 10b, 10c)
5) Not only have you not provided any evidence, you have conveniently ignored all of the evidence I provided. I’ve paid you the respect of addressing every one of your points, even those you’ve reiterated after ignoring mine, and despite your juvenile and unhelpful name-calling. But I won’t continue to waste time if you keep evading. If you can’t provide verifiable evidence to support your claims or refute mine, I won’t be replying again.
1) It was certainly was not anecdotal, there was no amusement or fakeness about my claim. I am in the industry, I get to look at the illegal immigrants and their claims. That alone puts me in a stronger position than yourself in weighing up the validity of immigrant dole bludgers!
2) &3) So 2.5% is a mere drop in the ocean, I see. What percentage would you like to see that increased to? For me, I’d like to see it decreased, for that would ultimately mean that the countries that these illegal immigrants are fleeing, are actually getting their act together and these evacuees if you like, have no further desires to jump on a rickety boat.
4) In terms of by passing what we will consider a safe haven country, surely apart from what the 2001 Geneva Expert Round Table states, common sense automatically dictates that if you’re going through malnutrition, sickness, starvation all within the confines of a leaky rickety boat, you take the available option presented to you? That is, you might well prefer Australia as a settlement, but your hardships and related family hardships based on apparent refugee asylum, must logically call for you to preserve your life to the best of your ability and indeed take that first opportunity of a safe haven.
5) I don’t recall any name calling at you what so ever. I did take a brandishing tone with the vile Greens and to many that is justified. If you’re a Green, you didn’t say so and if you are a Green and hurt, so be it. Perhaps the juvenility rests with you, or at least, you’re a little hyper sensitive.
All in all, I’m with Karen McNamara. Operation Sovereign Borders has been a howling success.
1) An anecdote need not be amusing or fake. It’s “a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote), which is exactly what you provided. Semantics aside, your personal experience does not constitute verifiable evidence.
2 & 3) We were talking about your claim that asylum seekers are ‘pouring into’ Australia. You’ve now shifted the goal posts. My statistics speak to the veracity of that claim. If you feel they do not, then please explain how. The question of what % increase (if any) I’d like to see is another issue entirely, and I’d rather not broach it until I have your clear, non-evasive responses to each of my points, as it will simply muddy the waters. You’ve yet to respond with anything other than evasion to ANY of the points from either of my comments.
4) Again, you’re evading. You said I “missed the paramount issue that when a boat deliberately by passes the first safe haven country it encounters, I believe their refugee status changes”. I proved to you this wasn’t the case, but instead of acknowledging your mistake, you’ve changed the subject to ‘common sense’. Again, this is an entirely different issue, which we can come back to once you’ve actually address my points.
EDIT: Sorry. Overlooked point 5. You said, “you will always find some loonie left, pixilated Green types who want to re visit the reprehensible Gillard days and allow the illegal immigrants to pour in at will” and “That belief just simply does not condone that we should allow open slather and adopt a loopie loonie Green like approach and let everyone in willy nilly.” If you’re acknowledging that I’m not proposing we let everyone in willy-nilly and also that you’re not actually implying (as it appears you are) that I’m a “loopie loonie”, then I withdraw my accusation of name-calling.
1) Disagree, my experiences give me every right to make a judgement call on the legitimacy of immigrant dole bludgers, it’s in my profession. That is not anecdotal by any stretch.
2) &3) Approximately 5,000 people arriving by boat in 2012-13 in my view is a concerning number. The fact that the Aust Govt sets aside 190,000 places for immigrants does not ordain for one instance that any proportion of this target can or should be taken up by illegal immigrants or boat people if you like. Legitimate immigrants apply and are scrutinized for suitability. They are not entering via the back door and they have legitimate documentation for verification. In most cases, boat people/illegal immigrants, do not provide this documentation and often they have been instructed to do so by the smuggler rackets.
But again, how many would you like to see arrive by boat?
4) Can’t see the evasion, just like I couldn’t see the ‘name calling’ accusation.
But yes, I call 5,000 illegal immigrants too many and I believe in the preventitive measures we are taking as a country.
More evasion. Goodbye.
Wrong. But no worries.
Let me tell you a story about how you’re wrong. I read a story about a guy who was telling an anecdote and didn’t link his story to any verifiable facts whatsoever, but he was a nice guy with a cool sounding name…so I believed his story. Just after that the Japanese tsunami happened. I don’t know, I’m no science head, you do the maths, it’s not rocket surgery! Anyway, you can’t argue with hard science.
LOL. Uncanny! 😉
Hi Glen,
I come to this conversation late but after scrutinising your points I found this and I quote: “Only about half of unlawful entries into Australia are by boat”
There you go , contradicting yourself. If they’re unlawful, they’re illegal. They are illegal according to our immigration laws. They may conflict with being signatories to the UN conventions of refugees but if the two laws clash it should be rectified. One way to rectify it to resign from the Convention. Furthermore you said that the refugees weren’t safe in Indonesia because they were Shia. No evidence of that, they’re not absorbed into their society but they’re not being killed or anything. They’re just used to profit from by people smugglers in cahoots with officials. The deaths at sea is directly their responsibility yet you don’t rail against that. Why would these people fly into Indonesia, a Muslim country which lets them in, if they were in fear of their life? They simply use it as a transit point. They didn’t arrive there by boats,did they?
You completely ignore the big picture,that is the transmigration of people by stealth.You only got to look at Europe now. I guess you started your barrage at Karen before the calamity occurred in Europe.
You should sit back and reflect . Orderly migration is the only way for us as a sovereign country to prosper. What that level of migration should be, where we want our population to be in the future,what is the composition of our population in 30-40 years time is the question. That needs immigration planning. People trying to come here without controls is not acceptable. You’re lucky Karen gave you the replies she did. You’ve already taken up too much of her time. There are other people in her electorate who need listening too as well, you’re trying to monopolise her time. Btw, if you want someone to be symphatatic to your requests don’t give them tasks to do. Demanding is not conducive to assistance. At least that is something illegal arrivals and you have in common.
Hi Tom. Thanks for your comment. I understand your confusion. It’s an easy mistake to make. But there’s a distinct and important difference between ‘unlawful’ and ‘illegal’. Something is illegal if it’s expressly forbidden by the law, whereas something is unlawful if it’s not expressly authorised by the law.
In Australia, asylum seekers who arrive by boat have traditionally been referred to as ‘Irregular Maritime Arrivals’ in respect of this difference. But our government recently changed this term to ‘Illegal Maritime Arrivals’, even though this is completely false.
Let me reiterate: to be illegal, asylum seekers must be breaking a law. They’re not. (If you disagree, please tell us which law they’re breaking. Not just something vague, like ‘immigration law’; I mean the actual act.)
Obviously this means there’s no conflict or clash between two laws (Australian vs international). because there’s no law in Australia stating that arriving by boat to seek asylum is illegal.
Indeed, according to the UN, seeking asylum (by boat or any other means of arrival) is neither illegal nor unlawful. Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
And the 2012 UNHCR Guidelines on Detention says:
Re Indonesia, do you have any evidence to back your claim that Shia Muslims are not persecuted in Indonesia? There’s certainly plenty of evidence to suggest they are (a cursory Google search would have led you to this, for example: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-17/an-indonshias_1701/4469144).
What’s more Indonesia hasn’t signed the Refugee Convention, so they’re not obliged to protect asylum seekers. As a result, asylum seekers who arrive in Indonesia live in constant fear of refoulement.
Why do they go to Indonesia? Because they’re trying to get to Australia. If you think they see it as a safe zone just because it’s a “Muslim country”, then I’d advise you to do a little research on the persecution of Shia Muslims by Sunni Muslims throughout history.
You say “orderly migration is the only way for us as a sovereign country to prosper”. Are you aware that there are 60 million displaced people in the world? http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid/refugees-and-internally-displaced-persons_en That only about 1% of them are resettled each year through ‘orderly migration’? https://www.alws.org.au/media/wysiwyg/discover-more/schools/awareness_week_2015/Australia_-_Refugees_and_asylum_seekers_-_the_myths_and_facts.pdf Do you really think that Australia is completely free of responsibility for those 60 million people? We all live in the same world, and we’re directly and indirectly responsible for many of those displacements, in any case. If nothing else, do you really think we can realistically continue to merrily pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist? The refugee crisis is a global problem. It’s everyone’s problem, including Australia’s. Denying that is just sticking your head in the sand.
And if you’re suggesting the tiny number of asylum seekers who come by boat would make any noticeable impact on our population or the makeup of our population, you’re again wrong. In 2012-13, the year we had our peak number of boat arrivals, they accounted for just 2.5% of all immigration. That’s one person per 4,718 Australians. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm#e and http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/asylum-trends-aus-2012-13.pdf.
Your suggestion that people can come here without controls is also factually incorrect and disingenuous. They can’t, they never could, and no-one is suggesting they should be able to.
Nice sharing information sharing. I have read all information.
Thanks for share this blog with us.
I like your blog.