I am a
member of the ALP, a resident of the ACT, a former academic in philosophy and
politics.
Like
many other Australians, I am concerned at the treatment of refugees and
asylum-seekers. In a well-conducted public opinion survey before the recent
federal election, 70%
of the sample said that they were dissatisfied with the
Australian government’s treatment of refugees. You may have listened to the
debate (3August 2022) led by “voices of” MPs on a matter or importance, “the
need for the government to urgently end the practice of indefinite detention of refugees – both offshore and onshore”.
I am
particularly concerned at the so-far nine-year hiatus in the lives of former
detainees resulting from Kevin Rudd’s 2013 decision
that no one arriving by boat would ever be settled in Australia. So many years
of uncertainty must have a serious impact on the mental health of these
people.
I am
writing to ask you to use your influence to persuade the Government to give
high priority to resettling former detainees. I would like you to speak
about this to the Prime Minister.
Former
Offshore detainees.
They
are “former” detainees because in October
2015 and April 2016 the governments of Nauru and
PNG abolished detention, meaning that detainees were free to move around Nauru
and PNG. As we know, there are still about 200 people in PNG and Nauru unable
to leave, but they are officially not detainees. Many people formerly detained
on Manus and Nauru are now in Australia or in other countries; some of them
were held in hotel detention; I hope none are any longer detained. All these
are covered by my term “former detainees” – every asylum-seeker who was ever at
any time detained offshore on behalf of the Australian government. The position
of both the former Coalition and the current Labor government is that none of
these people will ever get permanent settlement in Australia.
(1)
FORMER DETAINEES STILL IN PNG AND NAURU
The
government should bring them immediately to Australia. I have heard that the
Nauru government is obstructing medical examinations: if necessary
they should be brought here without prior medical examination. I have heard
that the Australian government claims that it cannot now take responsibility
for former detainees still in PNG; I have also heard that some of them do not
want to come to Australia because they may be held in hotel detention. The
Australian government can, surely, invite anyone it pleases to travel to
Australia, offering them travel documents and whatever assurances of decent
treatment may be necessary. Despite whatever obstacles there are, the former
detainees still in PNG and Nauru should be brought to Australia now.
(2)
FORMER DETAINEES WHO HAVE COME TO AUSTRALIA
The
Refugee Council of Australia wrote to
the Prime Minister soon after the election. They mentioned the resettlement
arrangements with the United States and New Zealand, and added: “We remain
concerned that more than 500 people will be left behind when all
resettlement options currently available are exhausted.”
The NZ
arrangement will take place over three years. Those still left will have
experienced an interruption to their lives of about twelve years.
The
2021 ALP Platform
p.127, §14, says of these people that “Labor will: Work to negotiate on, and
agree to, regional resettlement arrangements and resettle eligible refugees as
a priority”.
The
government should immediately start to work on this priority, making every
effort to find as soon as possible resettlement options in safe and welcoming
countries.
It
should also publicly announce, as soon as possible, an end-date for this
search, since otherwise the search may drag on for years: the Government should
tell the people concerned that they will know their settlement country by the
end of this year. This is important for the mental health of people whose lives
have been seriously interrupted.
If
suitable settlement cannot be found by by the end of
the year, the remaining former detainees should be given permanent settlement
in Australia. Settlement in Australia would be a departure from the platform,
but it would be a minor departure—especially if, as Richard Marles in 2018 claimed,
“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”. If there are such opportunities, then only a few former detainees
will need to be settled in Australia; but, few or many, it should be done.
To sum
up, three points:
(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 asap that all former detainees will know their settlement
country by the end of this year.
The
heavy workload of the immigration department is not a good enough reason for
delaying these actions. Bringing former detainees to Australia will need administrative
work, but not necessarily by immigration department officials. Similarly,
negotiating third country resettlement will take work, but it would presumably
be done by DFAT. Moving former detainees to other countries will take time and
effort, but publicly announcing that former detainees will know their country
of settlement by the end of the year is just a press release.
John
Kilcullen
0417 041 549
Johnkilcullen756@gmail.com
9
September 2022