I went along to an asylum seeker forum at Gosford Anglican Parish, last night. Hosted by the awesome Father Rod Bower, MCd by Labor’s Senator Deborah O’Neill, with special guest speaker, Labor’s Shadow Immigration Minister, Richard Marles.
I was nervous when I arrived. When I left, I was furious! Here’s why…
Marles made just 7 points
Despite talking a lot, and very well, Marles made just 7 points:
- Liberal is worse than Labor
- Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm
- Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia
- Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here
- Our detention centres need to be run better
- Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation
- Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea
Let’s take a look at each of these points individually…
Liberal is worse than Labor
No arguments here. They’re definitely worse. They reduced our total refugee intake quota from 20,000 under Labor to 13,750. They’re turning boats back (in breach of international law and Indonesia’s sovereignty). They haven’t processed a single claim for an asylum seeker in offshore detention since taking office (more than a year ago). They’re trying to change Australia’s law so it’s less bound by international law. And they’re trying to introduce temporary visas.
But let’s be clear. Labor are no angels. They introduced offshore detention, under Gillard. And they want it retained.
Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm
What’s compassionate about locking up people who are fleeing murder, torture, wrongful imprisonment and other forms of persecution? What’s fair about that (remember, it breaches international law)? Or generous?
And no harm? Seriously?! According to The Age, the organisation contracted to provide medical services in detention centres (International Health and Medical Services) reported that:
About half the asylum seekers in detention on Manus Island and Nauru are suffering from significant depression, stress or anxiety, according to clinical assessments… specialists blame the “detention environment” rather than the adequacy of services for the worsening mental health of detainees.”
Then of course there’s their physical health to consider. Detainees are imprisoned in squalid conditions, without adequate access to appropriate healthcare. And people are dying, for God’s sake!
Sure, Marles says he thinks the centres should be run better, but almost in the same breath he said we can’t guarantee the safety of asylum seekers kept in detention.
It’s clear that Labor doesn’t believe in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm. It’s just more hypocrisy.
Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia
Marles clearly said this last night. And I completely agree. But I don’t believe him at all. In fact, he said exactly the opposite back in April, when discussing the possibility that some refugees from Manus Island might have to be resettled in Australia:
Nothing would be more detrimental to Australia’s strategy to reducing the flow of boats from Indonesia than that.”
Not very convincing, Richard.
Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here
First things first. 7 million refugees are NOT trying to seek asylum in Australia. Yes, there are approximately 7 millions refugees seeking permanent asylum in another country, and yes, I’m sure many/most/all would love that country to be Australia. But only a very small handful of them have the means to get here or are trying to.
So to suggest that our asylum seeker responsibilities must be considered in the context of 7 million people who need our help is disingenuous. There are other countries who also resettle refugees. It’s a shared international load.
Now… “Cohort”… WTF?! According to Merriam-Webster, here’s the definition of ‘cohort’:
a: one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion
b: a group of warriors or soldiers
c: band, group
d: a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study <a cohort of premedical students>”
Notice that the first 2 definitions are military, implying aggression, military might, strategy and conquering tendencies? Even the third implies at least some of internal coordination and planning. Only the very last definition is that of a group of individuals sharing some arbitrary quality (and thus only the last is appropriate).
This use of language is disingenuous and deliberately inflammatory. Asylum seekers are not a military division attempting to conquer Australia. They’re scared, desperate people, fleeing persecution in their home countries.
EDIT: A few people on Google+ have questioned my criticism of the word ‘cohort’. They say it’s quite commonly used to describe groups of people (e.g. students by year or subject, or in science to mean a common group with similar characteristics). So my criticism may be more a reflection of me than of his meaning and agenda. Maybe. To me, it stood out like a sore thumb, so I’m not convinced enough to remove the discussion about it.
Our detention centres need to be run better
Yes! Yes they do. On this, Marles and I agree. But were they run better under Labor? (Remember it was Gillard who re-introduced offshore processing on Nauru and Manus.) Well, according to this Parliamentary paper from September 2012 (while Labor was in office), things were pretty grim back then too:
The main issues of concern expressed by many stakeholders regarding the ‘Pacific Solution’ revolved around the conditions of the offshore processing centres; the lack of independent scrutiny; the mental health impacts on those held in the centres; and the lengthy periods of time that many asylum seekers spent on Nauru and Manus Island while their claims were being processed.
The conditions on Nauru and Manus Island attracted a great deal of criticism at the time from refugee advocates and other stakeholders, including many parliamentarians.[19] The report of the inquiry into A Certain Maritime Incident outlined many of these concerns and noted that the Nauru site initially lacked water, sanitation and electricity with asylum seekers housed under harsh conditions. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested that the facilities on Manus were a slight improvement on those in Nauru; however, several asylum seekers contracted malaria.[20]
Several witnesses to the Committee also expressed concern about the lack of independent scrutiny, difficulty in obtaining access to the facilities and an apparent lack of access to legal advice for detainees. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights told the Committee that when they sought to send a team of lawyers to Nauru to provide legal advice to asylum seekers the Nauruan Government refused them visas.[21] In 2002, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC—formerly HREOC) also requested permission to inspect the facilities on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea as part of its National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, but the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) ‘reiterated its position that the HREOC Act did not have extra-territorial effect and declined to assist the Inquiry with these visits’.”
Maybe Marles means ‘better than both Liberal and Labor have done it’. But he certainly didn’t say that (indeed, in the context of his Liberal-slamming, it was clear that’s not what he meant).
Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation
Marles agreed with Father Rod Bower that mandatory detention is used as a deterrent. But he denied it was based on deprivation. So let’s look at the definition of deprivation:
1: the state of being deprived : privation; especially : removal from an office, dignity, or benefice
2: an act or instance of depriving : loss
Imprisoning asylum seekers for doing no more than exercising their fundamental human rights is depriving them of freedom and dignity. It’s laughable (although not funny) to argue detention centres are not about deprivation. By definition, that’s exactly what they’re about.
Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea
Many times during the night, Marles positioned mandatory detention as both a solution to deaths at sea and the only solution to deaths at sea. This argument is false and disingenuous on three fronts…
Firstly, there’s no verifiable evidence to support the argument that mandatory detention policies deter asylum seekers from trying to reach Australia. When Howard introduced it in 2001, the numbers were already dropping. Plus, the introduction of the Pacific Solution (Sept 2001) coincided with the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (Oct 2001). Leading up to this point, Afghanistan had been one of our major sources of asylum seekers (17% in 2001-01). Also, from 2001 to 2002 there was a 45% drop in refugee numbers worldwide. And when Gillard re-introduced it in 2012, it didn’t immediately slow the boats as Marles claimed last night. In fact, the number of boat more than doubled.
Secondly, even if (and it’s a big ‘if’) mandatory detention does deter would-be asylum seekers, is that something to be proud of? Sure, that might reduce the deaths at our doorstep, but do they just go somewhere else to die? Do they just attempt some other dangerous journey? Or a journey to some other dangerous country? Or do they just stay home and get murdered by their persecutors? Marles dismissed these claims last night as absolutely untrue, but he didn’t supply any verifiable evidence, nor has anyone else supplied any that I’m aware of.
Note that Marles also misleadingly positioned people who suggest our mandatory detention policy might simply cause asylum seekers to die elsewhere. He said people who argue this don’t believe deaths at sea are Australia’s responsibility. Again, disingenuous. Deaths at sea are our responsibility. But so too are deaths caused elsewhere by our policies.
And finally, to suggest that mandatory detention is the only solution to deaths at sea is patently absurd. The government spends billions on mandatory detention, with Labor’s blessing ($10b since 2007). If putting innocent people in jail is the only solution they could buy with $10b, they’re definitely the wrong people for the job. What about rescuing people at sea? What about processing people in Indonesia? And in the long term, what about diplomatic solutions to reduce the actual number of refugees (rather than military operations to increase them)?
On refugees, as on most things, Labor is just a watered-down version of Liberal
On my way home from the forum, I called my wife, and told her I shouldn’t have gone. But this morning, I’m glad I did. It reinforced for me how Labor is now just a watered-down version of Liberal. How their politicians are hypocritical, manipulative, disingenuous, evasive and dangerous. More importantly, it strengthened my resolve to campaign for better alternatives.
Liberal and Labor have passed their use-by date. Australia deserves better.
Here’s another way of preventing people from dying at sea – grant refugee visas. Let them get on a plane.
Oh look, deaths at sea solved!
The reason they won’t do this is that it was never about deaths at sea. It was always about bullying refugees into going away to die where we don’t have to hear about it.
Also – the detention centres are based on deprivation, and quite deliberately so. That’s the whole point: they have to crush the refugees’ spirits until they give up and decide life in danger at home is better. Check out how we’re treatin them on Nauru: http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2014/10/25/open-letter-living-the-hell-called-nauru/14141556001165#.VFHN2Ick6Nj
Thank you for this.
I have only one comment.
If someone gets on a boat, pays someone so they can board, makes the decision to give it a go, then attempts the journey ALL of those things are their own private decisions just like anyone who decides to ‘sail around the world’ or sail around Australia.
However if someone seeks asylum and is put on an island, in a detention centre, is held against their will and harmed psychologically, raped, murdered, made ill in any way and we are paying someone to keep them under those conditions then their lives are definitely in OUR hands.
One ( ‘deaths at sea’) is a choice, a chance, a personal decision and the other a failure of duty of care.
I can’t help but believe ‘deaths at sea’ is a furphy. It is a political catchphrase and an abuse of peoples desperation. I am disgusted with this attitude of our leadership and the cruelty of the populace. We are poorer for this stance and I am in despair with the change of the Australian persona as being a judgemental and easily lead peoples.
Babies, children, youths, families being abused like this is beyond the pale.
We should be taken to the Hague and sanctioned by the UN.
Couldn’t agree more. And it’s not just their choice to get on a boat, it’s their fundamental human right. We, on the other hand, have no right to try to stop them, and indeed, an obligation under international law to help them.
Yes, the lesser of two evils…thanks for your citizen reporting(and picture). I’d like to link this on my blog as I go through the mental acrobats of renewing membership of the ALP. Yes we are idealists but the raison d’etre of the UN convention was in the aftermath of turn backs of Jews from the Holocaust etc etc
Yes, it’s the human capacity to use any means for an end – turn-backs, Cambodia, shoot now save money later, anything is possible, yeah?
And only just the lesser. 🙁
I came to Australia by a boat without my Parents and I have spend nearly 3 years of my life in Nauru as a 10 year old child.
When I first came to Australia, I could not speak English. Everything was new for me. Coming from a third world country to a first word country made it hard for me survive and keep up on a daily basis. I have never done primary school in my life and started schooling from year eight. My first year of high school was challenging as I couldn’t speak English and it was difficult to fit in with the students. During my first year in school I went through a tough time where I was being made fun of, and I was really depressed due to my lack of communication skills. I did not give up hope and kept my head high and made learning English my main priority. In my final year of schooling in Shepparton I became one of the school captains. Currently I am in My second last year of completing a double degree in Law and Business. I have completed a Diploma of interpreting in Dari where I can help interpret and help people who can not speak English.
MY MAIN POINT HERE IS THAT WE ALL WORK HARD TO CONTRIBUTE AND ACHIEVE A POSITIVE OUTCOME BUT THESE SORTS OF STORIES ARE HARDLY TOLD BY THE MEDIA TO THE PEOPLE.
So where did you get the money to go to university?
Do you think refugees should be denied an education, Paul? If so, would you care to explain how that would benefit either them or our country?
“Saving lives at sea” is just cover for ignoring the lives being taken through persecution. In fact the Australian government not only refuses to criticize the Sri Lankan government that brutally persecutes the Tamil minority, they actually provide their navy with patrol boats. The Sri Lankan navy bombed hospitals in the Tamil areas during the civil war. Both Labor and the Liberals have returned hundreds of Tamil people fleeing persecution to their persecutors after a dodgy process. Where is Richard Myles’ tears for these people?
Hi Mark. I completely agree.
Marles is predictably disappointing but reflective of Labor Policy on Refugees. Australians with progressive views on Refugee Policy have a mountainous job ahead of us. The current dumbed down “stop da boats is good” refrain worked for Abbott while destroying the capacity for the Australian people to engage and advance more intelligent decent debate.
The current Labor policy bodes ill for the future. It is little better than LNP policy. Labor will not want refugee debate front and centre of its re-election platform. The current waffle of offshore, mandatory detention with vague promises that they will be “nicer” offers little for those of us with aspirations for decent compassionate intelligent policy.
Australia is in a depressing spiral downwards. How to lift the debate is our challenge. How to redefine the questions and arguments is essential to begin this journey. Looking beyond our shores and region to encompassing the discussion about the movement of people may be a start. After all this is a global problem created by our readiness to resort to weapons war and conflict to solve disputes. Australia shares responsibility not least because we involve ourselves in every fight going. The sale and manufacture of weapons escapes scrutiny but without them conflict is confined. Well nigh time that nations profiting from war are named and shamed. Also time that the right of innocent civilians to escape the fighting and terror of conflict acknowledged in a real sense. Australians need political leaders who will wake them up to the error of believing that becasue no one arrives by boat that the refugee problem is over. We need leaders to remind us that we are a nation of migrants, grown strong and rich because of migration as they encourage us to open our minds and hearts to new arrivals.
This issue is as important to our survival and peace as the Environment but so far all nations are in denial- not least OURS .
Nations that participate in or contribute to invasions should have to run asylum seekers processing centres on the ground in the invaded country, accepting ALL people found to be genuine refugees. No quotas. During the invasion and for a decade or two afterwards. (This is an off-the-cuff idea, so I haven’t thought it through. But I’m sure it has merit…)
I attended a forum in Brisbane earlier this year with Richard Marles the “star”. He spoke very similarly and the response from a large audience of (mostly) ex or dissatisfied ALP was resoundingly negative. I am an ex ALP member and was interested in the anger directed at Marles in many of the questions.
As far as ‘deaths at sea’ – I see that as another three word slogan and as pertinent as all the others uttered. I agree, what is the difference between death at sea, death staying where they come from and slow death at the hands of our detention regime. POLITICS HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION!
Yep, politics is the biggest evil in social affairs.
Sadly, Marles’ attitude is so indicative of the ‘Little Australia’ attitude and of an electorate that the ALP has been trying to court for so long. According to this mindset, boats just turn up on Australia’s door step from out of nowhere and we can just as quickly send the people on those boats away to some far flung land where out of sight is as good as out of mind.
Sadly, a recognition that asylum seekers who come by boat may come here through a longer and more ambiguous process than merely ‘jumping on a plane to Indonesia and jumping the queue’ and the thought of engaging with other nations in the region to settle people humanely and efficiently is to court a possibility that does not sit well with the Howard Battler constituency (a constituency that the ALP continues to battle for with varying levels of success). Until the ALP stops making policy on the run designed to please certain voters who have been massively let down by a lack of Labor leadership and when Labor actually look at this issue as an opportunity to genuinely save people’s lives not only at sea but from torture and murder in their home countries, they will forever be stuck in a race to the bottom with the Tories. Sadly, it is a race they will never win as no matter how cruel they can be, the Liberals will always find a way to be crueler.
Sadly, you’re correct. At the moment, the Greens are the only party not perpetuating and catering to the fear mongering. And a few independents. It’s gonna be a long road out of this mess. 🙁