John Kilcullen, May 2018; 2022
[I will no longer update this page, since it is clear that
Anthony Albanese, Richard Marles, Clair O'Neil, Andrew Giles
and other members of the ALP Government will not be moved.
They are destroying the lives of some people to deter others
from risking their lives by trying to come by boat -- ostensibly, but
really because they fear Peter Dutton and believe that on this
issue he speaks for the Australian people.]
Between Labor and the LNP there is 100% agreement on boat
people: asylum-seekers who arrive by boat will never obtain
permanent settlement in Australia, even if they are genuine
refugees.
Kevin Rudd first laid down the “no settlement in Australia” policy in 2013. In 2017 he claimed that he had intended it for a year only. (No one believed him.) In 2021 he wrote: “The fact that hundreds of human beings seeking asylum continue to be indefinitely detained at the behest of the Australian government is a tragedy. It is immoral. And it is illegal.” The Tories are to blame, not him. That seems to be his last word on the subject.
Rudd’s 2013 policy is still
the policy of the leaders of the Labor Party.
What is needed: The Manus-Nauru detainees and ex-detainees
who are still in PNG or Nauru should be brought immediately to
Australia. All the former Manus-Nauru detainees should be
given, as soon as possible, a definite date in the not too distant future by which
they will have permanent settlement in some country where they
can make a living and live safely with their human rights
respected (including the Right to Work, UNDHR
art.23). If third-country settlements cannot be found by
that date, they must be settled in Australia.
-------------------
See my speech to the
2014 ACT Labor Conference.
Richard Marles became
shadow immigration minister when the second Rudd government
was defeated in 2013. He framed Labor's refugee policy to be
"wedge-proof", and Labor has followed his policy ever since.
-------------------
Not long after Turnbull became Prime
Minister he said: “I have the same concerns about
the situation of people on Manus and Nauru ... as I think all
Australians do”.
This turned out not to be true. He acknowledged that Australia’s treatment
of the Manus and Nauru detainees is “harsh… some would say…
cruel”.
The
justification he offered is charity or love:
“As you know we have secured an
arrangement with the United States which would enable asylum
seekers from Manus and Nauru to be resettled in the United
States. So we make no apologies for
keeping Australia’s borders secure. That is stopping the people
smuggling, stopping the drownings at sea. Our policy is
compassionate, it respects the sovereignty of Australia, and as
far as the people at Manus and Nauru are concerned—the people
that Kevin Rudd put there, remember that—we have secured an
agreement with the United States to enable them to be resettled
in the United States and of course we will continue to work on
other options, because they can’t settle in Australia,
because that would simply start the boats again, start the
people smuggling again, start the drownings again, and I
tell you there is no charity, there is no love,
in families drowning at sea. That was the consequence of not
maintaining the security of our borders. Now on that note I wish
you a very happy Christmas and I’ll get back to serving out
lunch”, at the Wayside Chapel, December 2016.
(Transcription from a webpage no longer
available, http://www.msn.com/en-nz?refurl=%2fen-nz%2fnews%2fnational%2fmalcolm-turnbull-discusses-asylum-seeker-policies-during-wayside-visit%2fvp-BBxxt3w)
This is a travesty of Christian
reasoning. Imagine the Good Samaritan saying: “These risky
journeys from Jerusalem to Jericho must stop. Let us detain
survivors and make sure they never get to Jericho.
There is no charity, no love, in letting people fall into the
hands of robbers”.
Criticism of Turnbull’s argument
Harsh treatment of detainees is not the
only way to prevent drownings—asylum-seekers could be allowed
to come by plane (e.g. on an
asylum-seeker visa), their applications could be processed in
pathway countries, and there are other measures against people
smuggling.
And it is wrong to treat some people
cruelly to prevent other people from taking undue risks. The
only ethical theory I know of that would support this calculus
is Bentham’s version of
Utilitarianism, “the greatest good of the greatest number”
(Andrew Leigh invokes this slogan to justify the
Labor Party’s support of offshore detention). The Benthamite
adds up the benefits and harms to the various people
affected and does whatever produces the greatest net good.
People who study ethics generally agree that Bentham’s
version of Utilitarianism is not a tenable analysis of
morality. It has no place for principles, it ignores the distinction between persons, and consequently has no
place for individual rights and no concept of justice. François Crépeau, UN special rapporteur on the
rights of migrants: “It is a
fundamental principle of human rights law that one person
cannot be punished only for the reason of deterring
another.” See the whole article.
Turnbull's argument is obviously
inconsistent with the “arrangement with the United
States”—bringing detainees to Australia would not encourage
boat journeys any more strongly than sending some to America
will do. In many countries America is thought of as the golden
land of opportunity, the place poor people wish they were in.
Australia doesn’t have that mystique.
(The “arrangement with the United States” was initiated, not by Turnbull, but by the Obama administration, who were concerned about Australia's inhumane policies. Similarly New Zealand settlement was offered by the NZ government. It was rejected by PM Abbott.)
Turnbull’s political demise:
“Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says
he is concerned about asylum seekers languishing in
Australian-run detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island and
hinted the government may consider acting to relieve their
plight…. However Mr Turnbull said
cabinet must be consulted before the government changes its
policies on offshore processing…’ [Changes] will be made by
the minister [Dutton], myself [and] the cabinet’... Mr Turnbull has
repeatedly emphasised he will consult colleagues and maintain
the traditions of a true
cabinet government in his second stint as Liberal
leader, after the
party voted him out of the job in 2009 when the
Coalition was in opposition.”
Nicole Hasham (23
Sept. 2015, 8 days after Mr Turnbull became PM.)
I offered Mr Turnbull some gratuitous
advice, but he did not take it.
-------------------
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/bill-shorten-joins-insiders/8735534
CASSIDY: Kevin Rudd was back in the
news this week and he once said of asylum seekers on Manus
Island and Nauru that they would never, ever, be resettled in
Australia. Now he says that they should have been resettled in
Australia, or New Zealand three years ago. Which one is the
Labor policy?
SHORTEN: Well, we’ve made it clear
that we’re not going to see the people smugglers back in
business.
CASSIDY: Never, ever?
SHORTEN: We don’t want the people
smugglers. -
CASSIDY: Is your policy that they
would never, ever return to Australia?
SHORTEN: Let me explain our policy.
That is part of it, yes, just to go to the short
answer. But the longer explanation is this. 1,200 people that
we know of drowned at sea. I don’t ever want to see that
happen again. This is not a matter... and the Government would
love us to...
CASSIDY - And that was under Labor’s
watch?
SHORTEN: The Liberals could helped with the Malaysia Solution. That
would have I suspect, prevented some of the deaths. Let’s call
it as it is. But let’s be really straight. The Government want
to say that Labor wants to see the people smugglers back. We
absolutely don’t. I think it’s shameful that Dutton and the
rest of the crew are trying to encourage the people smugglers
by saying that Labor wants to see them back in business. We
don’t. But what I do respect is the legitimate concerns, not
just of former prime minister Rudd, but a lot of people, that
this Government has been so derelict that there’s still a lot
of people in these facilities in what is now seemingly
indefinite detention. I, for one, want to see this Government
succeed in its arrangement with the United States and I would
like to see them do more to tie up arrangements with other
nations. There’s got to be a way that we defeat the people
smugglers, avoid the terrible deaths at sea without keeping
people in indefinite detention.
CASSIDY: There are reports that
there are moves afoot within the Labor Party to tackle this at
the national conference and that they’ll want a softening of
the “never, ever” policy.
SHORTEN: Well
I know that the Labor Party as least as well as anyone else.
And I respect the concern that people have about indefinite
detention. But I also know that people never, ever want to see
people drown at sea in the manner which happened courtesy of
the criminal syndicates and people smugglers.
[Comment: The detainees were in
indefinite detention from the beginning. No one ever gave them
a date when their detention would end.]
-------------------
(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4708040.htm)
BILL SHORTEN There’s two competing
priorities, but they shouldn’t be competing. One is we don’t
want the people smugglers back in business. And despite the
Government saying that they’re the only ones who don’t want
them back in business, I don’t want them back in business,
Labor doesn’t want them back in business, and I think most
Australians don’t want them back in business. We don’t want to
see drownings. But that cannot be an excuse for maintaining
indefinite detention. I don’t accept that there’s a simple
equation – that the only way you deter people smugglers is by
having people in indefinite detention.
This may sound funny coming from the
Labor guy about the Liberal guy, but I hope the Liberals pull
off the deal with the United States and start resettling
people. But I also think there needs to be a lifting of the
veil of secrecy on the way that people are being treated, and
I think the Government needs to turbo-charge its efforts with
regional countries. I also think we need to re-engage
with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, because,
you know, we talk about the challenges we have here, but you
look at the nations surrounding, for example, Syria and Iraq,
they have millions of refugees, and I personally think it
would be sensible if we provided some more support for your
Jordans, for your Lebanons, for Turkey, who are dealing with a
whole lot of refugees on a scale we can’t even begin to
imagine.
TONY JONES OK, can I just interrupt
there? It goes really to the question on what the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees was saying. You’ve talked about 100
days to do this, 100 days to do that. Would you commit to
having everyone out of offshore detention within 100 days of
being in government?
BILL SHORTEN I’d like to, but I don’t
know if we can negotiate those regional arrangements
within 100 days. And what I don’t want to do is make a promise
we can’t keep. But what I’m making very clear here, and indeed
a lot of other people are maybe watching this show, the
Government is going to say a lot of things about Labor at the
next election. We’re determined not to see the people
smugglers back in business, and some people might say we don’t
care about that, and maybe some people will say we don’t want
to hear that. Well, that’s our view. We are determined to stop
them. But having said that, I don’t accept that the necessary
consequence of deterring the people smugglers is people in
indefinite detention. I think a lot of Australians across the
board are deeply uncomfortable where the status quo...
TONY JONES But you’ll make no
commitments to doing something about that with any kind of
time limit?
BILL SHORTEN Well, wait a second. You
asked me about the first 100 days. I said we’d give it our
best endeavours. But I don’t think you can simply negotiate regional
arrangements within 100 days. We’re going to give it our
best shot.
-------------------
(http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2016/s4724816.htm)
UHLMANN: You’re in Papua New Guinea
at the moment. Manus Island is actually a Labor Party
creation, currently in its own form. Kevin Rudd did it in the
2013 election to end a problem that he had. By October 31,
that centre will shut down. Where should those 700 people go?
MARLES: Well, those people need to
be found resettlement options outside of Australia. It
was the centrepiece of the arrangement that Kevin Rudd
negotiated back in 2013, and I was indeed in this country at
that time when those negotiations took place, that we took
Australia off the table. It was a very critical part of
defeating the business model of people smugglers around the
world, but particularly in Jakarta and in Indonesia. It was
absolutely essential that we ended that journey between Java
and Christmas Island, which saw such a tragic loss of life.
And indeed, it was the regional resettlement arrangement
and what was done here that has been the single most important
decision of any kind.....
UHLMANN: But there was no long-term
plan, was there? Kevin Rudd is trying to say at the moment
that after 12 months, things were supposed to be sorted. He
was trying to solve a problem that was to the next election,
and in fact, what happened next really wasn’t thought about
very much.
MARLES: I disagree with that. I
mean, You’re right in saying...
UHLMANN:.....So
everyone
would have been settled by now under Labor?
MARLES: Well, indeed everyone should
have been settled by now, that’s absolutely the case. Look,
the agreement was originally for 12 months. Having said that,
it was absolutely imagined that it would be reviewed and if it
needed to continue, it would. But the importance of that time
frame is, as articulated back then, was that that was how long
we thought it would take to get the bulk of those on Manus and
Nauru resettled elsewhere in the world, or potentially here in
PNG. Now, this Government, the
Coalition Government, have patently failed to pursue third
country resettlement options from the day they were
elected.
UHLMANN: But sorry, the Labor Party
commentates on this. This whole centre was the patent failure
of the Labor Party to control the borders.
MARLES: Well, if we’re about to go
into a historic discussion of why the journey happened between
Java and Christmas Island, I think it’s unreasonable to sheet
all of the blame home to one side. Am I willing to say that
Labor at that point in time made some mistakes? Yes, I think
we did and I’ve articulated that previously. But I also know
this - we negotiated an arrangement with Malaysia that would
have materially changed circumstances, by the Government’s own
logic would have gone a long way to bringing an end to that
journey yet the Coalition at the time opposed it. Something
like 670 people perished at sea after the Coalition opposed
the Malaysian arrangement in the Parliament. So if we want to an historic argument
about where the blame lies for that period of time, we can do
that. But what matters now is that we ultimately go forward
and resolve this issue. Third country resettlement is
a critical part of the solution. This is not an easy problem
to resolve. And yes, turning back boats is a critical
element of it and it’s to the Government’s credit that they
have done that. But it alone is not enough. And in some
respects, they’ve been something of a one trick pony. In those
first couple of years, they were only focused on that and did
not see the significance of finding third country resettlement
options. They’ve negotiated the arrangement with the United
States. That’s good. But all their eggs are in that basket and
it’s not enough and they need to do more.
UHLMANN: But just briefly, it’s the
Labor Party’s view that the people on Manus Island, who are
now spread out through the PNG community. will never come to
Australia?
MARLES: Look, it’s very important
that Australia remains off the table. It is very
important that those on Manus and Nauru not be resettled in
Australia. It’s a difficult and hard decision to make, but the
logic of it is critically important because it is what, more
than anything else, has brought an end to the people smuggling
model in Indonesia and we cannot allow that trade to start
again. Because if it does, people will die. And knowing what
we now know about how that trade proceeds, to be a party to
seeing it restart, in my view, would be deeply immoral. So, it
is very important that those on Manus and Nauru are not
resettled in Australia. That does not mean that we don’t have
an obligation to these people - we do. We need to find third
country resettlement options and that’s what this Government
has failed to do and that’s what it needs to continue to do
beyond the arrangement with the United States, albeit, that is
a start.
UHLMANN: Richard Marles, one last
thing. The Government is now saying that people who came to
Australia from the detention centres offshore will have their
services removed from them in the community. About 100 people
will be affected. What’s your view on that? These people are
now living in Australia.
MARLES: Look, I’ve seen those
reports this morning, Chris. I don’t know the details of their
circumstances beyond what’s in those reports and one thing
I’ve learnt in this area of policy is that the detail matters.
The only observation I would make is this: people, be it in
Australia or indeed on Manus and Nauru, Australia has an
obligation to provide care. There is a duty of care which
needs to be fulfilled in respect of those people and I think
the Government needs to be very mindful in respect of how that
duty of care is being fulfilled in respect of those who are
referred to in the reports this morning.
-------------------
“That the Senate agrees that
Australia’s detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru are
not safe and that every person who has sought asylum in
Australia, and is currently in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, must
be evacuated to Australia immediately.” Followed by chaotic
debate, Hansard.
Labor Senators either left the chamber or voted No. See Hansard, p.1664. ACT Senator Gallagher
voted No.
-------------------
Andrew Giles MP and Senators Murray
Watt, Jenny McAllister and Sue Lines. No ACT members.
Walking both sides of the street:
supporting the leader’s position in public, but letting it be
known that they don’t actually support it.
-------------------
In a Morgan Poll on 17-19 Feb. 2017 the
sample was asked: “Do you think asylum-seekers on Manus
Island and Nauru should be brought here to Australia or
not?” Sixty-eight percent of Labor voters answered Yes.
Twenty-three percent of LNP voters answered Yes. [This poll
may not be available now. Here is an SMH report: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/most-agree-keeping-refugees-on-manus-and-nauru-is-cruel-pollster-20170221-guhz3z.html
]
There were similar results in public
opinion samplings at the time of the 2016 federal election: here, here.
On 3 May 2018 a Sky News ReachTel poll found that “Half of all
Australian voters support a 90-day limit on holding asylum
seekers in offshore detention on Manus Island and Nauru. Just
30 per cent of people were against the idea.... Support and
disapproval levels for the 90-day limit were the same across
Coalition and Labor voters”.
All Richard Marles can offer is
imaginary history--"if we had been in charge, the detainees
would have been settled long ago”. Who will believe that?
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/richard-marles-joins-insiders/9708352
CASSIDY: Labor in the next couple or
month -- of months or so will look at asylum seeker policy.
There is a move on to commit an incoming Labor government to
set a deadline to get people off Manus and Nauru, perhaps as
tight as three months. Where do you stand?
MARLES [evades the question]: It is important
we get people off Manus and Nauru. I have no doubt had we
been elected in 2013 or 2016 you wouldn’t see people there
now.
CASSIDY [follows the diversion]: Where would
they be?
MARLES: They would be in third countries.
CASSIDY: How would you have done that? It’s
not as if this government has not tried.
MARLES: It’s absolutely that this government
took an age to do anything about it. I mean, literally for
years they did not try. The American deal is an important
deal, but it came at very late in the piece. That needed to
be aggressively pursued around the world.
CASSIDY: What third countries would you have
managed to persuade?
MARLES: [no answer, just a claim that some
could have been found easily] In the context of an
increasing humanitarian program, which is part of our policy
to double it to the middle of the 2020s, in the context of
increasing our equipment to the UNHCR which forms part of
our policy, there are enormous opportunities to
find arrangements with third countries to deal with the
issue of people on Manus and Nauru. It wouldn’t require
much wit to do that. What we’ve seen here is a
government that is essentially a one-trick pony. They did
turn-backs, stop the boats was their mantra. That’s all
they’ve been about the process they have let people languish
on Manus and Nauru, which is a disgrace.
CASSIDY [returns to his question]: Does it
need a deadline?
MARLES: We need to get people off as quickly
as possible.
CASSIDY: A deadline commits you to it, forces
your hand.
MARLES: What you need is intent here. And we
would demonstrate that intent and we would...
CASSIDY: So many things go by the wayside
because of best intentions.
MARLES: But,
there’s been no intent on the part of the Government since
the time they were elected in 2013.
CASSIDY: This is about what Labor will do in
office. Are you for or against the deadline?
MARLES: I mean, I’m happy for a deadline in
terms of the beginning of action [not what a
deadline means]. I think we need to be out and about seeking
third country resettlements from the first week of being
elected. The difficulty about establishing a deadline
Barrie is this requires negotiations and you’re not
completely in control of them. You need a posture, you need action immediately.
This is not what the Government has demonstrated. It took
them an age to come up with their American deal. All their
eggs are in that one basket. What we also know about that
arrangement, while it has the potential to solve have many
of the cases on Manus and Nauru, it will not resolve all of
them. Yet all of them need resolution.
--------
Peter Dutton’s reply: “We continue to talk to third
countries, but let me tell you, there are very few prospects,
if any, on the horizon”
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4840242.htm
ASHTON TARBARD
Mr Shorten, my question is simple, and that is, can you now, on national television, promise to put an end to the indefinite detention of asylum seekers in Australia?
(CHEERING, APPLAUSE)
BILL SHORTEN
I’ll tell you two things. One - and, you know, Ashton, you may or may not want to hear this, but I’m going to say it - what we’re not going to do is have the boats start again and see hundreds of people drown at sea. I think it is a...I think it is legitimate for people to want to come to this country. I support a refugee intake. I don’t think - and you’ve never seen me, and can trawl through, if you can be bothered, the last 20 years - I don’t think it’s bad of a person to want to come to this country. And I think it’s a very brave thing for someone to up sticks and leave their own country and where they come from. But what I can’t ignore is that when we have a policy which sees the people smugglers come across from Indonesia and 1,200 people drown, I’m not going to be...wash my hands of that and say, “I don’t care, it’s just what happens to you here.”
But the second thing I’m going to say to you is I don’t believe the corollary of not having the people smugglers back in business is that you keep people in indefinite detention. [Without an end-date detention is indefinite] I do not believe that we should be using people on Manus and Nauru as political scoring points for a debate in Australia. I do think that a lot more should be done to regionally resettle people. [See Marles, above.] I do think there should be independent oversight. I don’t believe that people’s medical treatment should be used as some sort of political plaything, and that if the doctors say that the medical treatment requires you come to Australia, well, that’s where you should go.
TONY JONES
So, just to come back to his question, a very simple one... In fact, would you like to just ask it again? ‘Cause we still didn’t get an answer.
(LAUGHTER)
BILL SHORTEN
No, no, we heard it. You know that. Come on, let’s go.
ASHTON TARBARD
Is that a yes?
TONY JONES
Well, “Is that a yes?” is what he’s saying. Is that a promise to end indefinite detention?
BILL SHORTEN
I do not believe we need to have indefinite detention. I do not believe that is necessary to deter the people smugglers.
TONY JONES
So do you promise to end it? That’s the question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER
Answer the question!
BILL SHORTEN
Well... Hang on a second. The issue here, Tony, is this - I don’t have the regional resettlement agreements resolved. I do think the government should take a deal with New Zealand. I mean, I thought it was really cheap of the government to attack Labor for saying there should be a deal with New Zealand - they say that puts sugar back on the table for the people smugglers. Well, they’re doing a deal with the US - which, by the way, I support. So, yes, I do not believe that indefinite detention should be the case. I believe a Labor government can actually make sure that we don’t have to have people in Manus and Nauru because we will prioritise resettling people.
(SCATTERED APPLAUSE)
My comment:
“Indefinite” detention means detention without an end date.
Someone sentenced for a crime to ten years in jail knows when
at the latest their detention will end. Australia’s offshore
detainees—who have never been accused or convicted of any
crime and are not a danger to anyone—did not know when their
detention would end. Detention is “indefinite” if the
person detained does not know when it will end. Politicians
whose position clearly implies indefinite detention can’t
deplore indefinite detention. “Never, ever will they come
here”, plus “We can’t say when they will go elsewhere”, equals
indefinite detention.
Extract: Asked about human
services spokeswoman Linda Burney’s call for a time
limit on offshore detention, Albanese said
he did not support a timeframe but he believed Australia
could end “long-term indefinite detention” that has led to
refugees taking their own lives and mental anguish.
He
suggested making the program more humanitarian by increasing
the refugee intake, working with the UNHCR, achieving faster
third-party resettlement of refugees and offering permanent
rather than temporary protection visas.
-------------------
KIM LANDERS: Let’s turn to another
policy issue: asylum seekers. You’ve said that you don’t
believe in indefinite detention of asylum seekers, so what
time limit would a Labor government be prepared to put on it?
BILL
SHORTEN: Well, what we would do is, in a positive sense, put
more effort into renegotiating, to negotiating regional
resettlement. And I can’t give an absolute time limit,
obviously, from Opposition, but what I would say—
KIM
LANDERS: So you can’t commit three months, six months a year?
BILL
SHORTEN: Well, first of all, this is going to be a bigger issue
than just one-word answers. We will stop the boats, and we share
the view of the Government that this policy has been effective
in deterring people-smugglers. But I also believe that we
shouldn’t have what is emerging to be indefinite detention for
people in these facilities. So our
plan is to negotiate regional resettlement options with the
countries in our region. Now, if you’re asking—
KIM LANDERS: So
have you got some specific countries in mind?
BILL
SHORTEN: I think there’s a range of countries within Asia, in
the Asia-Pacific, who we could talk to, yes.
KIM LANDERS: Such as?
BILL SHORTEN: Well, I think there’s
big economies right through the Asian continent, who would be,
I think, worthwhile for us to talk to.
KIM
LANDERS: Specifically, which countries?
BILL SHORTEN: [closes his eyes
and imagines the map] Well, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,
Canada, New Zealand.
KIM LANDERS: Have you reached out to
any of those countries?
BILL
SHORTEN: We’re the Opposition. We’re the Opposition — you know,
really, what I would like to do is actually see the problem
resolved, and I’ll say something this morning which might
surprise some people listening: I’m pleased that the Turnbull
Government’s been able to keep the negotiations with America on
track. This issue should be above party politics, but what we’re
seeing is a whole lot of debate, and I think that Australians
actually expect their Government to deter the people-smugglers,
but not keep people in indefinite detention.
Interviewed by
Hamish MacDonald about the Biloela Murugappan family.
“You have
ministerial discretion in the system, so that there can be a
rule of common sense…. Millions of dollars of taxpayers’
funds have been spent on needlessly keeping this family on
Christmas Island…”
MacDonald: You
have also said that they should have been allowed to settle
here years ago.
Marles [evades]: The point we were making is that
ministerial discretion should have been applied a long time
ago, and they should never have been put in a position of
being placed on Christmas Island. I mean, it’s an enormous
amount of expenditure of taxpayers’ money… and given the
decision that has now been made, it begs the question as to
why this didn’t happen a long time ago.
MacDonald
[persists]: … is it Labor’s position that this family should
be allowed to settle here permanently?
Marles: Ultimately
no, it is important that legal processes take
their course, but there is a role in the system for
ministerial discretion….
MacDonald: So to what end should that discretion
now be used, to resettle them permanently or not?
Marles: [evades]
Well, to have them go back to Biloela, is the answer
to that question. Ultimately
it’s a matter for the government as to the precise basis
upon which that occurs, but the outcome here really should
be clear, in terms of what is a common sense approach, given
their circumstances. And look, we’d be the first to make it
clear, that there –this – the situation in terms of those
seeking asylum in Australia is complex. We understand the
need for a very strict policy in relation to our border, and
that has been put in place by successive governments, under
Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd and under the Coalition.
Dealing with this family would not undermine any of the
regime that has been put in place there, in terms of
offshore processing, in terms of turning back boats at sea,
all of that still stands, and you can still deal with
the circumstances of this family notwithstanding all of
that, and that’s why we’ve been saying for some time that
that’s what should have occurred.
[In short, the
Coalition government policy is right, but if there is enough
public agitation about certain detainees, some “common sense”
discretion should be exercised in favour of those detainees,
but without changing the policy in general -- in this case not
settling the Murugappan family permanently, but allowing them
back to Biloela until the legal requirements have been met for
their deportation. As it turned out, after some hesitation,
the newly-elected Labor Government gave the Biloela family
permanent residence, but have so far done nothing for the many other people
who were in the same situation
but did not have anyone campaigning for them.]
https://soundcloud.com/subjectact/aliciapayne-mp-for-canberra-on-refugees-alp-policies
Begins
with an explanation of Labor’s position on the Coalition
Government’s Migration Amendment (Clarifying International
Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021. See speech by Senator Keneally.
After 14:10: “My
personal view, is that if you are offering people asylum, as
we should be under international law, you can’t say that
they can’t ever be settled here.”
Listen also
from 19:24, where Ms Payne explains that concern over
treatment of refugees first got her involved in politics.
-------------------
14. Labor recognises that successive Coalition Governments have
failed to negotiate viable and timely regional
resettlement arrangements, which has left refugees and
asylum seekers including children languishing in indefinite
detention. Labor believes that whilst these arrangements
are negotiated, the Australian Government is not absolved of
its obligation to provide appropriate health, security, and
welfare services to asylum seekers. Labor will:
• Work to negotiate on, and agree to, regional
resettlement arrangements and resettle [i.e. in other
countries, under regional resettlement arrangements] eligible
refugees as a priority;
• Continue to support the United States Refugee Resettlement
Agreement and accept New Zealand’s generous offer to resettle
refugees by negotiating an agreement on similar terms as the
United States Agreement; and
• Ensure appropriate health, security, and welfare services
for asylum seekers; and
• Improve the medical transfer process, establish an
Independent Health Advice Panel to provide medical advice and
maintain ministerial discretion in all decision making.
This corresponds to the remarks of Richard Marles, above.
-------------------
“While we strongly disagree with Labor's offshore processing policy,
we will work as hard as possible - as we have done with the
previous government - to support practical solutions for the
1,380 people still suffering under this policy after nine
years. While we applaud the Morrison Government's long-delayed
signing of the resettlement deal with New Zealand and the
resettlement arrangement with the United States, we remain
concerned that more than 500 people will be left behind when
all resettlement options currently available are exhausted.”
-------------------
Treatment
of refugees is one of four issues on which 70% of voters say
they are dissatisfied with the Morrison government. See
Australia Talks, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/annabel-crabb-analysis-australia-talks-polticians-accountability/100214236: “The
issues on which the majority feel the Morrison Government
is doing a ‘bad job’ are led by climate change (74 per
cent) and followed by ‘helping people out of poverty’ (71
per cent), protecting the environment (70 per cent) and
handling refugees and asylum seekers (70 per cent).”
My comment: 70% must
include Coalition voters. This could have been a vote-getting
issue if Labor had campaigned on it.
Andrew Wilkie, Ending Indefinite and
Arbitrary Immigration Detention bill, 1 August; also here
"Voices of" independents 3 August on "a matter of importance" [Their motion was about indefinite detention: the other issue is the indefinite interruption of lives due to LNP-ALP policy that boat people can never be settled in Australia.]
Andrew Giles evading question from Monique Ryan
Andrew Giles evading question from Andrew Wilkie
Murray Watt evading questions
from David Pocock
Why is it taking
so long?
Office of
Minister for Home Affairs on Manus-Nauru refugees
BJ’s
answer on the minister’s behalf to
a message from me. My comment on that answer.
My message
to Labor parliamentarians urged three actions: (1) Immediately
bring former detainees still in PNG and Nauru to Australia;
(2) begin a serious effort to find third-country
resettlement options in safe and welcoming countries; (3)
announce publicly as soon as possible that all former
detainees will know their settlement country by the end of
this year.
BJ’s answer does not directly address any of
these points. It suggests that all is well with the former
detainees still on Nauru – their health needs are all well
served, they are not detained, they can work in the community
– implying that there is no need to bring them to Australia.
As for the former detainees in PNG, they are there by choice
(they could have gone to Nauru) and Australia has no
responsibility for them. It is up to the refugees to find
their own settlement: “Individuals are strongly encouraged to
engage with available migration options. Third country
resettlement provices the best available opportunity” [indeed,
the only available opportunity].
No mention of several matters in my email:
the Refugee Council of Australia’s concern that “more than 500
people will be left behind when all resettlement options
currently available are exhausted”; the mental health impact
of all these years of hiatus in their lives, with continued
uncertainty for years ahead for many of them; the ALP Platform
statement that they will be resettled “as a priority”. No
response to my suggestion that the former detainees should be
assured that they will know their destination by the end of
this year. No response to the suggestion that some of them
should be settled in Australia.
Criticism of Australia Refugee
policies by UN Committee on Torture.
Submission
to the UN Committee by the Human Rights Law Centre, the Kaldor
Centre and the Refugee Council of Australia.
UN Committee report.
The Albanese Government’s announcement on
TPVs and SHEVs
The announcement actually makes no difference to the
legal status of the people it pretends to help. It does not in
fact implement the promise Labor made before the 2021
election.
Return to Home Page