Lateline last night featured the best and worst of public debate. On one hand, Melbourne lawyer and refugee advocate Jessie Taylor was interviewed about her own footage of the conditions under which asylum seekers in Indonesia are attained. In a way, Taylor was acting as a citizen journalist with the emphasis on citizenship in the best sense of the word. Conversely, viewers must have been scratching their head at the alarming spectacle of Tony Abbott taking a pseudo-humanitarian line in criticising the Rudd government over the detention of children… following on from news vision of a visibly angry Philip Ruddock defending his honour over the Howard government’s treatment of refugees in Parliament.
The disjunction between the facts presented passionately and the dispassionate observation of the mad contradictions of the political debate between Labor and the Liberals over asylum seekers was telling.
What was interesting as well was a clue to why the debate is playing itself out differently this time around, despite the Liberals’ apparent belief that boat people were some sort of eternal return to the land of Howardia (“we determine…” etc). The fact that Abbott was batting on the government’s pitch should have enlightened the dullest observer to the truth that the issue is now framed differently – because both the government and public sentiment have shifted.
As Guy Rundle observed last week, the way in which the media, after lurching madly in search of an angle, has begun to apply what is objectively pressure from the left on immigration policy, is testament to that shift, even if its recognition has been both belated and (I suspect) unconscious. The context for highlighting humanitarian concerns is now quite different, and Andrew Bartlett is right to discern a tipping point in the policy debate.
We live in more interesting times than some people seem to think.
Elsewhere: Rundle on Abbott.
How would you tell? I’d actually pay good money to see the Undead display any emotion.
I have been having an interesting debate on another forum around 457 Visas, education facilities that are a front for permanent residency tickets, over consumption and over population and how they all relate to this issue in one way or another.
It is a fascinating debate and the legacy of boat travel to this country (Aboriginal, British, Greek & Italian etc) and the hypocrisy of those who demonize asylum seekers would be a fascinating PHD study if anyone had the time.
The elephant in the room is over population and over consumption and if and when the world is going to deal with this. In some cases Asylum seekers and in most cases economic refugees looking for something better through shifting to Australia are a by-product of these greater issues. Australia is going to push towards 35 million people according to Ken Henry and we are going to have to change our attitude and find ways to incorporate more people without undermining our labour standards and quality of life. Interesting times ahead folks.
This is a very clever wedge by the government in exile.
Ruddock reassures the bolted on Libs that the Libs are tough on immigrants, were always tough, will always be tough and that this is the solutiuon.
Abbott makes the case to swingers and some rusted on left that RUDD has no compassion and is causing suffering and death. Thus at least causing Rudd to loose some support. (And honestly…can anyone here support Rudd’s current policies?)
It’s not a clever wedge and it’s not working. See above.
There is nothing, repeat nothing even remotely clever about the rabble known as the opposition.
Few here I’d imagine, but most here will swallow their annoyance and vote for him anyway, so the annoyance is moot. Out there in wider voter land, this won’t change any votes because the people voting ALP who like “tough” policies will think Rudd has tough policies and won’t care if it is cruel. One or two people I know think that Rudd is onto something if the camps really are that bad. “We’d never have got away with that here under Howard”. Some think we can send the Navy out to sink the ships “providing nobody finds out”. What point is the Navy if it can’t tidy up this mess?” asked one chap from my son’s baseball team, and he was of Indian descent.
It is very interesting to see the shift in press coverage, especially the Tabloids like the Daily Telegraph, especially compared to the horrific stuff they printed 8 years ago. And since Journalists, particularly editors and the press gallery, are the only people that rival politicians for out of touchness, I wonder what is behind this.
Did the shift in the public opinion happen 4 years ago, so the journos just stumbled on to it?
Is the fact that the issue isn’t appearing a vote changer meaning that editors aren’t tempted to be players and try to effect the result, and are merely, you know, being journalists?
Is it the result of leaks coming from a government where there is far more asylum seeker sympathisers, even if they aren’t being presented as leaks?
Was it just David Penberthy?
There’s also been a meme in the press gallery, and like all such memes is on poor foundation. It is that the government needs to put forward a consistent and straightforward position. This makes little sense in terms of the feelings of voters. There’s a vocal block of bigots and nativists to be sure, and an equally vocal block or symnpathisers, but the rest have neither a consistent nor a straightforward view. They like toughness because it implies control, and they worry about losing control, but they don’t want to be, you know, mean about it. That’s a pretty weak soundbite, and certainly not rhetorically satisfying. But if voters have confused feelings, why would they necessarily be put off by a confused message?
And signs are that they haven’t been.
I think you are way off the main story in this one.
Being processed on Australian shore means about a 90% success rate. Being processed solely by the UNHCR and you are looking at a much lower rate of success. I also think the hyperbole about conditions in Australian detention might be biting a few people on the bum as well. Indonesia will have sever problems with its centers soon, which will make it even harder for Rudd politically.
The sight of Abbot running that line shouldnt be any more revolting than the sight of the party that brought in mandatory detention playing the same game for 8 or so years when they werent in power. Its easy to be moral on someone elses back.
The Libs are not looking good! I liked the bit about the dirt e-mail: what a curious timing for such an e-mail I must say! Tony looked uncomfortable and he seemed to give away with his body language that the Libs were bleeding very very badly! It seemed to read thus: that they know the boom was wasted and they won’t be forgiven and can only expect serious punishment with the mealy mouthed performances they’ve given in their two years in opposition so far. [cackles, oh give me more of that coopers stout!] !&$#%@$! That’s what you get for promoting our great land of sweeping plains as the worlds Nuclear Waste paddock! !&^%#%$!
tssk @ 3, The Libs don’t know how to attack by stratagem: they are the very personification of a tactic without one, i.e. “Just Noise!” For example, if they have a go at Garret then he tells all of them, in front of the nation, that they don’t have a plan but only a series of stunts! They don’t attack him anymore because they know he bites and they have lost a dangerous amount of blood! They don’t know who to go for and Julie Bishop asked Julia Gillard via the speaker to sit down the othwr day because she had already answered the question: I’ll give you a house (promise) if you can tell me the comments Gillard made after that! ThEy’re dEad mEaT: the lot of ‘em! Gillard and Rudd make them choke on their own interjections that is how much momentum they can’t gather! Lol lololol! ***…it IS tHAt FunNy! ***
I’m beginning to wonder if K.rudd and company are starting to lie about the Oceanic Viking or whatever its called. No surprise, really. If you start sprouting liberal Party filth similar to that sprouted by the late JWH, some of its going to stick to your fingers and your’re going to find yourself morally and ethically compromised in a very big way.
I’m beginning to wonder if K.rudd and company are starting to lie….
About the sick little girl who needed immediate medical treament?
About who caused the various explosions on various recent SIEVs?
About the detention centre on Christmas Island being a white elephant?
or going back a few years
About the Australian Government having a program of sabotage to discourage asylum seekers?
Mark, I think it goes something like this…
Jack the Insider said …the Government, for the most part, and the Prime Minister in particular, has been paralysed by fear….
…the primary responsibility for this failure of leadership rests squarely at the feet of Kevin Rudd..
Pegasus (@ Dudd’s Army Lament)
He seems comfortable ignoring a humanitarian crisis in order to ensure the votes of racists and xenophobes.
but we remain concerned about the mandatory detention and offshore processing of asylum seekers on Christmas Island,” Commission president Cathy Branson, QC, said.
“This policy should be abandoned and all unauthorised arrivals making claims for asylum should have those claims assessed under the refugee status determination system that applies under the Migration Act,” Ms Branson said.
& Chris Uhlmann
So the Prime Minister was faced with a choice.
The narrow gate was to make a complex argument, to explain what he was doing, and to try to change the tone of Australia’s debate about asylum-seekers. The wide path was to play the hard man and tub thump.
His life was not at risk. The state he had to speak boldly to was run by him. All he was risking was an approval rating of 71 per cent.
And Rudd chose the wide path.
In the modern, relativistic, world of politics the only way of measuring a man or woman is against their own words. This was not a large test of character. But it is a telling one.
& Peter Hartcher
Rudd is emerging as a prime minister who defines himself by the fights he avoids. He is uncomfortable advocating an opinion that might be electorally risky. He would prefer to shut down an Opposition attack with narrow political tactics than to overwhelm the Opposition by mobilising broad public opinion.
& Leslie Cannold
…the Government has allocated $654 million to what it loftily describes as a “comprehensive, whole-of-government” approach to “combat[ing] people smugglers”. We need to stop kidding ourselves. Even if we eliminate people smugglers, the people needing smuggling won’t disappear…
And anyone who thinks our Indonesian “friends” are not exploiting this Government’s determination to do whatever it takes to deny less than 300 people on-shore processing of their asylum claims needs to consult the dictionary definition of realpolitik…
• … Australia’s policies on refugees will remain just as Alfred E. Neuman said: “Like steer horns. A point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.”
& Michelle Grattan
What seemed a minor triumph – having Jakarta agree to accept the asylum seekers an Australian vessel picked up in Indonesia’s search and rescue area – has turned into an embarrassing fiasco…
Rudd was distinctly unconvincing under Opposition questioning in Parliament yesterday. He wouldn’t detail what he knew and when he knew it, or the role of his officials. He invoked the cloak of diplomacy. Anyway, he couldn’t remember.
& Messrs Howse & Olivier ’sad & pathetic’…
I let s;ip the blonde rodent re fearless leader oh Jan 09 on one of your boards Mark; tell me I was wrong.
PS plus a couple of Petro infected ALP trash etc…
Oh and Leslie’s friends exploiting the rrrogue element etc aside our dear bleeeder is on very thin ice re SOLA etc. but hey.
I agree Mark, that Rudd is playing the politics on this issue with the aim of shifting the ground rules permanently.
The Australian and the rest of the tired old hacks in the press do not seem capable of sensing that headlines like “all at sea” are not working any more to scare the government reflexively. Rudd and Smith have full control of this debate and they are not for turning.
Notice also how the union leaders (and retiring MPs with nothing to lose) are now stepping forward from the left in a pro-refugee stance (amazing transition from the Bully days last century) and are now positioned in direct opposition to the right wing talkback noise machine. This is another interesting shift in political dynamics that the press is missing. Union leaders in opposition to the Labor Government…
The union leadership noise is in itself a reflection of a sea-change happening in the electorate, which I suspect began the day that little girl made her plea from the boat, a marvelous example of the refugees themselves using the media, and mobile phones etc, to play the politics to their advantage.
Rudd is standing firm and waiting for the electorate to “catch up” with his firm policy parameters, a form of leadership that the press gallery cannot recognise any more. Remember how he played the last refugee disaster, the burning boat, refusing to allow the press to turn it into a political pie-throwing exercise and holding firm on waiting for the coroner etc.
The Opposition is beginning to look seriously weird, apparently supporting the Indonesian government over our government. Bishop is a complete disaster as foreign minister in this respect, apparently unable to understand the basic rule that an opposition cannot favour a foreign government over our own (she made this same elementary mistake in the Hu case).
And Turnbull, who is apparently taking his daily cues from headlines in The Australian is looking really silly, calling the situation a “complete catastrophe” etc. Its nothing of the kind and he should have a bex and a good lie down, or go looking for that giant brain we all keep hearing about.
…the way in which the media, after lurching madly in search of an angle, has begun to apply what is objectively pressure from the left on immigration policy…
The media applying pressure from the left? Surely not the unbiased media we are always told about, Mark?
The media would be doing its job only of it held this government to the same standards of governance as it did the previous one – and that has never even looked likely.
PeterTB @14, yes, this issue is great fun, isn’t it? I love watching posters here twist and turn, trying to find any reasoning however convoluted to explain that a Rudd policy identical to a Howard one is fine, humanitarian, showing leadership, in line with public opinion, etc whereas when deployed by Howard it was evil full stop. And shooting themselves regularly in the foot in the process, as in your exaple.
I particularly like Richard Green @6 too – it would be wrong to expect the Rudd Government to have a consistent policy. I suppose, come to think of it, the record shows very few issues on which it has had such to date.
Thanks for that perspective, Grace at #13.
I was starting to wonder where the Government was going with this issue, and fearing that it was taking the line of least resistance.
What you said makes sense. It is a matter of holding nerve until the media and the balance of politicians have caught up. And as you point out, in the meantime the opposition is digging itself into an even bigger hole.
The bigger picture item is that the Government has to be perceived as firm but fair on border protection, even while change is occurring. The noise from right and left will eventually make that change easier.
Exactly wozza @15. Rudd continues Howard’s refugee policies. Some shift.
Rudd is standing firm and waiting for the electorate to “catch up” with his firm policy parameters, a form of leadership that the press gallery cannot recognise any more.
I’m sorry Grace I’m trying very hard to believe what you’ve written in your post, but I’m really struggling, the nub of which is contained in the above quote.
What’s he standing firm on exactly? A policy by which Australia gets Convention non-signatory Indonesia (and Malaysia, and Thailand) to house for years on end in sub-standard conditions asylum seekers who would otherwise have reached our shores, or having been rescued by an Australian vessel in international waters could reasonably expect to be taken at least to Christmas Island upon declaring their wish to seek asylum from Australia?
The spending of $680 million to ’secure’ our borders from asylum seekers, via that funding being provided in large part to non-signatory countries to build detention centres plus a few bob to the UNHCR & IOM for them to do their best to process ‘faster’ a ‘queue’ of hundreds of thousands in those countries?
I remember the unions making noise last time against Howard. I’m afraid I don’t see their speaking out now as some sort of organised campaign to shift public sentiment, hand in hand with the Rudd Government, I see it as union leaders speaking out about what looks awfully like a near-replication of Howard policies.
If this is what he’s ‘firm
ignore last sentence – forgot to delete.
Yes Don Wigan@16, Rudd’s essential political calculus is “holding nerve”, thanks for that.
The Rudd machine knows well that the daily media cycle is a stupid fickle thing, and what looks like a “catastrophe” today, looks like a sensible strategy within an ever-changing landscape the next day.
myriad@74, see “holding nerve”, and “firm but fair”, and note that I am making no comment on the moral dimensions of this issue, only the political dynamic, which has completely confused both the MSM and the Opposition.
Its a fact of life I think we are all going to have to get used to, that the Rudd machine will “play” politics with all these big moral issues, like climate change and refugees etc, as well as trying to make some progress in “fixing” them, because they are playing it right down the red line to the endgame, to the death.
This is a political machine that’s totally determined to make it through to a second term, killing off the antediluvians in the Senate along the way, so that real change can then be accomplished.
At least, that’s what I am hoping!
Thanks very much for your reply, Grace. I agree with your second last para, except for being at this point -sadly – compellingly unconvinced that at some point the Rudd Government is going to stop mucking in the politics and actually rise above and tackle the issues with real leadership. Rudd & Wong’s handling of climate change is so bad as to defy all but the most cycnical of expectations I think. And I’m afraid ever since he said ‘me too’ to the massive tax cuts right before the 07 election I’ve been increasingly convinced that Rudd’s vision on domestic matters doesn’t include the ability to think beyond just securing incumbency.
But I must say, I very much hope I’m wrong and you’re right. But I fundamentally disagree with playing with a) human lives (the asylum stuff) and b) the future of the planet for the sake of a second parliamentary term. Just imagine the alternative narratives to the grandkids –
“what did you achieve grandpa kevin?”
A1 – “well I doomed hundreds of aspiring and potentially worthy new Australian citizens to eternal limbo without human rights & helped kill the great barrier reef and the rest of the planet – but I *did* get a second term!”
or …
myriad74 @21, second those thoughts, myriad.
Perhaps Grace is letting her rosy filter on Kevin reinterpret his actual actions?
Is this a hidden agenda, or is it policy on the run?
Occam’s Razor suggests that Rudd and Smith are “holding nerve” with sending the refugees to Indonesia because they don’t have an open strategy about settling them all in Australia.
Similarly, Rudd is giving massive handouts to the coal industry for CCS, which the industry should be funding itself out of their massive profits. That is not brilliant strategy – it is a pile of political dog mess.
Next we will have the oil and gas industry asking for similar $billions to help them use CCS as part of oil recovery processes.
These coal companies are extremely profitable for goodness sake, and if they were sincere about the technique being successful, then they would fund it themselves.
Occam’s Razor suggests that Rudd doesn’t have a clear agenda on climate change, or he would soon see that the CCS money is wasted $billions in opportunity cost for other more promising technologies.
Again, is this a hidden agenda or policy on the run?
Somewhere on another thread, Katz quoted a variation on the old saw, “politics is the art of the possible”, and its worth repeating here.
Politics is a complex art, a moving chessboard, a moral minefield, and we all ask much more of politicians than we are prepared to give ourselves.
Not “rosy filters” Elise@22, I hold no candle for Kevin, but he is better than the previous alternative.
Agree with comment 23: an ugly stalemate does not a win for Turnbull make! hE IS STAGNATING in the bigger game inFacT! This can easily make for a rotten disaster for them at the election!
That Kevin is better than Howard is certainly true, Grace, but I think we may differ when it comes to what is / was actually possible for Rudd to achieve on this issue & CC.
On the issue at hand, ie the ‘Indonesian solution’ I am concerned that rather than steering us towards more morally righteous waters, Rudd is in fact losing his moral compass because he’s getting mired in the politics (and the polls more specifically) on this. I hope I’m wrong.
I still think what K.rudd should’ve done when this whole thing blew up was go on the ABC and make a plea for Australians to do the decent thing and just take these poor bloody people. I think he might have been pleasantly surprised at the alacrity with which the vast majority of us would have said, “yes, mate! Of course, you’re right!” Its too late now. The fools keep backing themselves into corners. I hope the Indonesians tell them to get stuffed and insist the Oceanic Viking returns to Australia with thr refugees on board, which seems more and more likely. (Though I have to admit I’ve only glanced at the headlines today.)
Elise asks …”is this a hidden agenda or policy on the run?” Neither, it seems to me. Rather, it’s all bloggers speculation and media “overblown commentary” to quote Lindsay Tanner on Radio National this morning. The government’s message is as clear as a bell. It intends to act humanely and within international law. At the same time it intends to retain control of our national borders while seeking to cooperate with our neighbours to find solutions, or at least arrangements to ameliorate, what is a huge and almost intractable problem.
I’m prepared to buy Stephen Smith”s consistent message about the Tamils on our ship in Indonesian waters repeated again by Lindsay Tanner this morning following numerous similar statements by Labour ministers and not gainsaid by any significant Caucus dissent to date, unless Julia Irwin represents an as yet unidentified groundswell of Labour MPs outraqe. Nor is there significant “unease” on Labour’s union left apart from Paul Howes who seems to be determined to get some sort of media profile established here. Sharan Burrows has said nothing since querying what might happen to children in Indonesian camps. Where are the other usually strident union voices attacking Rudd on this?
Even Malcolm Fraser hasn’t criticised the government directly which he knows has definitely developed a more humanitarian and as just an approach to asylum seekers as is currently practical, notwithstanding Rudd’s one slip in referring to “illegals”. Instead he has attacked his own party, the Opposition, for their disgraceful over-inflation and exploitation of the issue.
Watching Leigh Sales on Lateline and listening to Fran Kelly on RN this morning it was refreshing to have both soundly trounced as they tried in their usual manipulative style to get a soundbite to ratch up the drama on this story even higher. The Indonesian Foreign Minister was brilliant last night in refusing to be drawn into controversy or criticism of the Australian government and entirely supported Smith’s claim that both governments were of the same mind that asylum seekers are a regional problem needing a regional solution. He was appropriately critical of the patronising suggestion from Sales that Indonesia could be bought off by Australia.
By the way Grace Pettigrew I would agree with most of your comment on this with two minor reservations. I haven’t sensed any disagreement between Jakarta and Canberra on this in which the Opposition can take sides rather only the natural local resistance fuelled further by our media hype and our Opposition’s confected outrage about “palming off our problems” on another country.
Nor do I find it “marvellous” that the people on that boat are themselves using the media, mobile phones etc to promote their story. It smacks of a resolution and capacity for group organisation way beyond the resources your average refugee has access to. Their use of the little girl moved me, your usual bleeding heart, not one bit. Living and working in third world countries for any length of time gives one a very good sense of a genuine plea. Her life has been saved after all and she should know nothing more than that, but the adults around her had made a huge financial investment in what they had been led to believe was a certain short cut to the Australian mainland and she was clearly speaking on their behalf.
And what’s wrong with that, you ask, as I do myself. I’m not frightened of an influx of moslems or hindus of whatever racial mix, but I can see that our national interest requires more than an open heart in dealing with migrant intake from wherever in the world. Even from the UK it takes years to get visas and jobs lined up, and that’s appropriate. I am prepared to trust our government’s judgement on this and suspend my own until Rudd’s other efforts to get more regional cooperation on asylum seekers and other crisis issues like climate and disaster management are further progressed.
And yes he does have to get re-elected, Grace, but I’m sure that’s not why he is pursuing this particular path. Does it make sense to you in today’s world for Australia to “throw down the red carpet” to all refugees whether seeking safety or prosperity by sailing here in leaky boats? Apart from stretching our own maritime and coastal resources what would that do to other so called transit countries in our region.
Well said Patricia WA. Confected outrage seems to be the flavour of the decade in most entertainment services masquerading as news, their ABC included.
Patricia @27, agree with what you are saying. Also agree with this comment:
“Does it make sense to you in today’s world for Australia to “throw down the red carpet” to all refugees whether seeking safety or prosperity by sailing here in leaky boats? Apart from stretching our own maritime and coastal resources what would that do to other so called transit countries in our region.”
This is an emotionally charged topic, but at the risk of being misunderstood I would like to widen the focus a bit, as you are suggesting.
We presently have a relatively small number of people seeking to enter Australia via the “leaky boat” route – about 5,000 I seem to recall. However, there are already many more that might prefer to come here, who are not genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution – in the order of millions I seem to recall. Correct me if I am wrong.
With climate change causing widespread disruption, the number who might like to relocate to a country that was coping better could rise into the tens or hundreds of millions. In a desperate world, they may not regard an Aussie argument, that we are also suffering from climate change effects on our lifestyle, as being relevant compared with their position.
Each country manages its affairs differently, and each is on a different point in the development trajectory. If we were to take any and all people who are the losers from their own countries affairs, then Australia would be transformed into a dysfunctional mass refugee centre.
To put it into a rather extreme analogy, say one local district in Northern Ireland managed their affairs peacefully and prosperously, but the others sunk their time and resources into a bloody feud. Is that one local district obliged to take in all the wreckage and financial ruin of many other districts as their responsibility? At what point do you say that the others are obliged to run their affairs better?
Wouldn’t it be preferable to cure the disease rather than treat the symptoms? It would make more sense to help the others run their affairs better, and firmly encourage them to do so, rather than offering to pick up the pieces. It is a longer process, admittedly, but the other way is not sustainable in the longer term, given where the world is heading.
For this immediate situation, shouldn’t the intense dialogue be with the Sri Lankan government, rather than with the Indonesian government? If those that are fleeing are genuine civilian refugees, then doesn’t Rudd need to talk to the Sri Lankan government about improving conditions for those people back home?
In any case, I totally agree with the proposition that there should be a regional solution &/or a UN solution to refugees, as a short term measure.
The longer term measure is working together to improve the governance and financial affairs of neighbouring countries.
PatriciaWA@27: “Does it make sense to you in today’s world for Australia to “throw down the red carpet” to all refugees whether seeking safety or prosperity by sailing here in leaky boats?”
I said nothing of the kind Patricia, and I am not sure why you are challenging me with that question.
I agree with you that the little girl was chubby and healthy, and I am sure, like you are, that she was under instruction. Despite that, she probably did “move” many other Australians, and perhaps contributed to a change in the atmospherics of the debate, towards compassion and away from snarling contempt. My only point in mentioning her.
We will see more of this, refugees and local Indonesians using reporters and mobiles to their advantage, where a climate of hysteria and confusion is fanned along by the MSM continuing to misread the facts and misrepresent reality. And our loyal Opposition should really take a deep breath, step back, and look at whether they are more a part of the problem than the solution.
Patricia,
It intends to act humanely and within international law.
but it’s not doing really either of those. If it was all the independent human rights / refugee advocate groups – who have been vocally approving and appropriately so of other reforms that the Rudd Govt has brought in – would not be criticising the current response to the Sri Lankan Tamils right now.
What we’re doing is farming asylum seekers who want to reach Australia to claim asylum out to non-signatory countries in the region. That’s not meeting our international obligations nor is it humane. Until Indonesia, Malaysia etc. sign on to the Refugee Convention and substantially change how they treat asylum seekers, the Australian Government is in no position to claim otherwise.
Does it make sense to you in today’s world for Australia to “throw down the red carpet” to all refugees whether seeking safety or prosperity by sailing here in leaky boats? Apart from stretching our own maritime and coastal resources what would that do to other so called transit countries in our region.
Again this false conflation of meeting our self-chosen international and domestic legal obligations with some notion of ‘going above and beyond’. Allowing people who arrive by boat to claim asylum and have those claims assessed is not a red carpet, it’s the law.
Letting that happen will have diddly squat effect on our regional neighbhours, who are already a stopping point for hundreds of thousands of refugees from the greater region. This is self-evident from the fact that only about a thousand refugees a year even attempt to journey here by boat.
I’m also really tired of the false implication of both your and Elise’s posts that somehow allowing more people to claim their legal right automatically means that Australia would suspend the rigorous and thorough investigations into refugee & asylum claims it already carries out.
If you want to get het up about an imigration issue, I’d love to know why people aren’t more indignant about the some 50,000 people who overstay or break their visa conditions or arrive without visas every year by plane into Australia, many of whom then feed the blackmarket cash economy undermning the job market, or the organised trafficking of people to Australia as cheap illegal labor, or sex slaves, both of which are far, far more common than the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, and represent actual criminal threats to Australia’s society and economy.
@26 – Paul, that’s more or less my view.
I think if KRudd just explained the actual horrors going on in Sri Lanka, and let the asylum seekers be processed on Australian territory, there’d be very little electoral backlash.
… and what myriad said @31.
There is an interesting contrast between looking at a situation from total numbers, or in terms of trends. Trends can tell you more about where a situation is going in the future.
According to Michelle Gratton, we had 7 boats and 161 boat-people last year.
This year to September alone, we had 28 boats and nearly 1500 people. Add another hundred or so in October, and we still have a few months to go.
In percentage terms, that is a really major increase.
The interesting question is what happens next?
Elise – 1500 people is an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the usual levels of permanent immigration in Australia, and indeed, the number of people entering or leaving Australia every year on various visas. If all the asylum seekers coming here were processed in the community, frankly, no one much would notice in the absence of media and political beatups.
I’d love to know why people aren’t more indignant about the some 50,000 people who overstay or break their visa conditions
Because we know who they are and what they are, and most of them subsequently leave anyway.
or arrive without visas every year by plane into Australia
Because we send them packing immediately – they don’t as a rule gain entry. It is because they don’t have visas that the boat people destroy their identity papers to make checking out their stories more difficult.
Mark @34, that was exactly my point. You are looking at numbers, not trends. You have implicitly assumed status quo for the future.
In system dynamics terms, you are looking at stocks not flows.
Flows are what tell you that a situation is changing. If the flows are changing fast, then there is a new situation developing. That is what needs examining.
I’d love to know why people aren’t more indignant about the some 50,000 people who overstay or break their visa conditions
not true; nor do we devote anywhere near the $680 milion devoted to deterring boat arrivals.
Because we send them packing immediately – they don’t as a rule gain entry.
again, not true. People arrive under essentially ‘false’ visa claims as a means to get here and then claim asylum – and just so we don’t have any confusion, obviously I’m not talking about 50,000 but the percentage of those who do subsequently make a protection claim (last year it was several thousand). Remember that well over 90% of asylum claims made in Australia are made by those arriving by plane.
Then there are the many people who arrive here on one visa or another and then go on to completely breach those visa conditions and are not caught, or it takes years.
Elise, the numbers we are receiving by boat now are a) miniscue compared to the many thousands that other countries routinely deal with arriving by boat – so what makes us so precious and special? and b) even looking at trends, are unlikely to even rise to the levels of those we received through the Vietnam crisis. Also, I’d love to know what it is about people arriving by boat rather than air, even in large numbers that so freaks people out. Sure, we should have and do have a robust and well-resourced naval border security system, but then the cost of bringing those here and processing them as per a normal asylum request such as those made by people from planes is inordinately less than the vast sums being spent on the various regional ’solutions’.
this list from crikey handily puts the dollars in perspective.
Apologies Grace Pettigrew @ 30. I was really challenging what Paul Howes said, and I also had a floating thought which I didn’t actually catch agreeing with you about politics and the art of the possible. So though I didn’t actually ascribe that statement to you it did look as if I were addressing you. Sloppy proof read of my comment before sending.
Even more sorry about that because I agree with almost everything you’ve said and particularly on the MSM and the Opposition who are wildly adding fuel to fire here. They clearly don’t expect to reap this particular whirlwind any time in the near future.
About 15 years ago I met this woman, an Israeli, who had come here on a tourist visa and never gone home. She’d had kids here and reckoned it was a better life than in Israel. But she had to work in the cash economy so as not to leave a paper trail, couldn’t get a Medicare card and was constantly in fear that she’d get caught.
Because we send them packing immediately – they don’t as a rule gain entry.
again, not true.
Are you seriously asserting that people without visas who arrive by plane are allowed entry? I suggest that they would be unlikely to embark on the plane in the first place, and that they would be on the next plane back if they did manage to get this far.
Also, I’d love to know what it is about people arriving by boat rather than air, even in large numbers that so freaks people out.
It’s not the boats per se. It’s the destroyed identity papers, the dubious claims of refugee status, and the willingness to risk lives to force authorities to pick them up that freaks people out.
There. Now you know.
Myriad74 @37: “…so what makes us so precious and special?”
Where did I suggest that? I was simply asking that we address a rapidly changing dynamic, since our existing systems cannot cope already, and if the trend keeps developing then we will have to totally change our approach.
“Also, I’d love to know what it is about people arriving by boat rather than air, even in large numbers that so freaks people out.”
To hazard a guess, it is the fact that they often do not have papers, often need a lot of looking after (due to being illiterate &/or unskilled), and arrive uninvited. Those arriving by plane have papers and visas, or they would not have been allowed to enter the country. They are also less in need of looking after, I would guess.
To take a dodgy analogy, in the one case, a long-lost cousin arrives on your doorstep unannounced with the clothes on his back, no money and no job, and wants to stay indefinately. Contrast that with a long-lost cousin who rings and makes an arrangement to come, arrives with a suitcase of clothes, money and a plan for what he wants to do. One of them is clearly going to be more work to look after, and may be a burden for quite some time. It would make most people a little uneasy, even if they were willing to take them in.
No worries Patricia…
Remember that well over 90% of asylum claims made in Australia are made by those arriving by plane.
That may have been true while the Pacific Solution was holding boat entries down to a mere handful – it will drop to something nearer 50% this year.
If the vessel is reasonably easy to replace we should just sell it to Indonesia and remove all australian staff from the ship. In future older vessels can be used in the same way with a constant buying and selling of vessels between the two govts. As these people are breaking the law and in full knowledge of doing so they should be able to be removed in the same manner as G20 protestors.
This thread has become no less amusing overnight. Particularly liked the earlier stuff, before the implications dawned on people, about how it was all political expediency on Rudd’s part, but, hey, that’s OK, because he’s got an election to win and after all he’s Kev our hero who will save the world after he’s won it.
Some people need to face up honestly to the fact that the Rudd government has adopted wholesale a policy of off-shore detention vitriolically and near universally condemned around here when the Howard government did it. Only it will be even less humane, since the detaining has been out-sourced to a non-signatory of the refugee convention rather than being directly under Australian control. Anyone who thinks an Indonesian detention centre will be up to the standards even of Nauru doesn’t know much about Indonesia.
And it will likely also be more expensive, by the time the Government has finished bribing the Indonesians to play their assigned part. The current “yes we will, no we won’t” Indonesian game seems cleverly designed to extract even more money than has been offered from an Austrlian Prime Minister who is both desperate and known to be more than willing to throw tax-payers’ money around like confetti.
Myriad74 @37. Some of those Crikey figures look pretty suss. A number, for example, though Crikey rather dishonestly attribute them to the SMH, come from Oxfam and A Just Australia, who do a have a particular well-known position which they are defending.
Oh, and what PeterTB said. Throwing around figures about visa overstayers is a complete red herring. It merely distracts attention – by design one might guess – from the disarray, cynicism and straightout adoption of Liberal policy of the Rudd government over the actual issue, in the thread title, which is boat-people and the Indonesian solution.
Are you seriously asserting that people without visas who arrive by plane are allowed entry? I suggest that they would be unlikely to embark on the plane in the first place, and that they would be on the next plane back if they did manage to get this far.
I’m not suggesting I’m pointing to well documented evidence (do some digging in the info DIAC releases amongst others) that people arrive by plane to Australia and
a) some have very poor documentation that was just enough to get them here & immediately claim asylum
b) some arrive on completely legitimate documentation and then later claim asylum
c) some arrive on sophisticated forged documents that make it past our systems and then go on to either i)rort our work / other systems and stay in this country illegally or ii) eventually get found out and/or or iii) are part of organised crime & their document fraud becomes part of larger investigations that may or may not succeed.
then of course there’s the bulk of overstayers who arrive with legitimate paperwork and then blithely completely break our laws either because they are very sophisticated criminals or just people who’s sense of entitlement include the ‘right’ to stay in a country living informally outside the system etc.
It’s not the boats per se. It’s the destroyed identity papers, the dubious claims of refugee status, and the willingness to risk lives to force authorities to pick them up that freaks people out.
There. Now you know.
Actually what I now know is how little you know about the facts. For starters destroyed identity papers is certainly not always the case; and nor do all intentionally destroy papers. The dubious claims is straight out myth, given that over 90% have been found to have legitimate claims. The main lives risked are their own, which of course leads us straight back to the heart of the matter, which is the complete inability of many to envisage the kind of situation that leads people to do this kind of thing.
And none of that explains why people are more ’scared’ of those who turn up without documentation vs people who have the wherewithal and determination to present false documentation.
That may have been true while the Pacific Solution was holding boat entries down to a mere handful – it will drop to something nearer 50% this year.
I doubt it – there were nearly 5,000 claims for asylum from people arriving by plane last year, so we’re looking at more like maybe 30%, but as a significant percentage of the plane-borne claims were from Sri Lankans it’s a fair bet these will increase too. Of course if you’re worried about the cost of processing people who come by boat, the way to control that is to process them onshore.
Wozza, you’ll have to do better than claim that reputable organisations like Oxfam use ’suss’ figures- particularly as I think you’ll find they base them on Departmental annual reports.
Myriad, even the SMH, hardly a nest of rabid Howard lovers, felt it necessary to note in quoting the figures on the Pacific solution that they came from a “report, prepared by Oxfam and A Just Australia, which oppose the offshore-processing scheme”. Both organisations have subsequently lauded Rudd’s asylum seeker policies. Yes, I would prefer to be able to research the figures to verify them (or not)before being critical, but I do not have the time, and unless and until I (or you) do, I think it is best to regard them with some suspicion given the clear agendas of their sources.
Tell you what, I’ll let you quote Oxfam on refugees without demur, if you’ll let me quote Exxon on energy policy. Deal?
Mark @ 32,
Of course, the Opposition and perhaps even remnants of One Nation, if it still exists, would have screamed blue murder, but nobody is really listening to them a lot, anyway. I’m by no means a gung-ho fan of K.rudd – the glow has worn off, and I’d have him over Ratty any day, but it seems to me, as Wozza has explained, ultimately this so-called Indonesian Solution might be even worse than the inhumane and disgusting Pacific Solution for the toll it could take on human lives.
This kind of garbage is nothing new in Oz politics. In 1946-7, wehen he was an Independent member of Federal Parliament, that rabid old anti-Semite railed against us taking Jewish refugees on the Strathmore. (And I am absolutely not a supporter of Israel because of the way they’ve treated the Palestinians. Just sayin’.)
What confuses me about all this garbage is that history has shown, that creep Kevin Anderson notwithstanding, that recent refugees/migrants assimilate very easily into Australian society, as have earlier nationalities from the Italians on, and are generally more law abiding than Anglo-Australians. So taking these Tamils isn’t going to ruin this country.
Somehow we have to cut out the cancer Howard has embedded in this country’s brain. Rudd had the perfect opportunity to do it here, and he goofed it, to reiterate.
“Remember that well over 90% of asylum claims made in Australia are made by those arriving by plane.”
Actually, Peter TB, that statement is on average true of the entire history of Australian refugee protection since 1979, with the main EXCEPTION is the post-Tampa Howard years, where boat numbers were at the highest ever.
Some people keep forgetting that practically everything Howard ever said on the issue was complete bullshit.
Howard’s TPV was so useless at border protection is actually made MORE people come by boat. Numbers INCREASED. We never recevied so many boats as we did under Ruddock and Howard.
Until the flows from Iraq and Afghanistan stopped. Which had nothing to do with their interception or TPV or Pacific Solution joke policies. The only thing that worked was cooperation with Indonesia ,and waiting for flows to stop. Which they did in 2003.
Until the Sri lanka crisis produced more refugees. It aint rocket science.
Rudd’s screwed up by nodding in the direction of this sort of pointless pandering to a domestic audience that doesnt vote for him anwyay – and its blown up in his face. He has no choice but to back down, and he will. Let that be a lesson to him.
Wozza, if you’re seriously suggesting that as an organisation Oxfam has similar credibility to Exxon there’s not much point in continuing to discuss things. The figures you seem to be objecting to are those referring to the cost of offshore processing – as this is established from looking at DIAC’s departmental annual reports on costs & budget allocations, it is information on the public record or easily reached by FOI. Oxfam to my knowledge has never been found to have wilfully exaggerated such calculations on such issues; unlike Exxon which has been found repeatedly to pay for lies basically from scientists and was the main proponent behind a multi-million dollar climate sceptic campaign. Not to mention its shameful behaviour over the Exxon-Valdez. You point me to even remotely comparable behaviour by Oxfam and your questioning of their report’s veracity might have some merit. That the SMH noted where they sourced those figures from is called good journalism; they clearly felt they had sufficient credibility to quote them though.
I also meant to say to you that I hope you’re not mistaking me for someone who thinks that Rudd’s asylum seeker policies aren’t beginning to look suspiciously like a variation on Howards – at least when it comes to offshore solutions & handling boat people. While I do unequivocally applaud Rudd’s changes to remove TPVs and process asylum claims quickly and in good faith, I think I made my views of his
pacificIndonesian solution pretty plain above.Myriad74, you’re an oasis of facts and sanity.
2 49,
The rabid old anti-Semite was Jack Lang. Sorry.
Thanks Helen – feel free to crowd in here!
Firstly this is a pretty balanced overview of current Refugee resettlement issues in Victoria by Vic Health here:
http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/multicultural/html/refugee_action.htm
Secondly, I am going to rush in where angels fear to tread, and give voice to one of the ‘hot button issues’ that is to speak about gendered/cutural violence. And I’m not going to underestimate this as a issue, but rather be encouraged that, just like the situation that our pre-feminist wave grandmothers faced, many of these women are starting from place of pretty serious disempowerment.
Its easy to get up on march 8 and speak out against the oppression women and children in ‘other’ places of the world experience, much harder to face the challenge amongst ourselves. A considered way forward can be found here, if anyone is interested.
Refugee settlement, safety and wellbeing : exploring domestic and family violence in refugee communities
Rees, Susan; Pease, Bob. (2006)
Online at:
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ProgramsandProjects/MentalHealthandWellBeing/DiscriminationandViolence/ViolenceAgainstWomen/CAS_Paper4_Refugee.ashx
Abstract
General overview: This study of domestic violence in refugee communities in Victoria, Australia, examines the relationship between culture, the settlement experience, and violence, and makes recommendations for violence prevention.
Objective: The first objective of the study was to investigate the relationships between domestic violence and gender, traumatic history, social and economic context, cultural difference and changed identities. The second objective was to identify contextual factors in domestic violence affecting refugee families, and the third was to identify the needs of refugee families and inform the training needs of health and welfare professionals.
Methods: Eight focus groups were held, with 78 participants from Ethiopia, South and North Sudan, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and Iraq. Storyboard group work was used in the focus groups. In addition, interviews were held with seventeen men and twenty-five women. Literature relating to domestic violence and immigrant communities was reviewed. The discussion of the results does not distinguish between ethnic groups, firstly because similarities were found between the groups and, secondly, to avoid any one group being stigmatised as more violent. The research assistants were originally refugee men and women.
Results: Domestic and family violence were reported as occurring in the communities studied, including hitting, kicking, controlling behaviour, financial abuse, and social isolation. Some reported that women were more at risk because they had no family to protect them, while others thought the risk was lower in Australia because of the legal protections available. Seeking assistance was inhibited by the belief that to do so is to betray one’s culture, the fear that they would not be believed, fear of poverty for oneself and one’s children and lack of English skills. Easy access to alcohol and gambling in Australia was thought by some women to precipitate violence, as was male unemployment. Men reported that in their culture paid work was very important to them in their role as head of the family. Women thought that more educational opportunities for women would help prevent violence.
Many participants reported mental health problems related to both negative settlement experiences and trauma and torture experienced before migrating. Some participants thought that traumatised men were more likely to use violence but this link was not evident among the women who experienced torture and trauma.
Many women spoke positively about the freedoms available in Australia, including the access to education and employment. However both men and women reported that these changes resulted in a loss of status for men, which sometimes caused relationship problems and divorce. Some men criticised the financial independence available to women in Australia, saying that it damages the family.
The paper contains detailed recommendations for violence prevention strategies. They include ensuring that men take responsibility for violence through criminal justice outcomes, counselling and perpetrator programs, encouraging women to disclose and access the justice system, community development projects around education, civic participation and empowerment and challenging patriarchy and racism.
Conclusions: Addressing violence in refugee communities requires an appreciation of patriarchy as it manifests through culture, rather than pathologising entire cultures. Refugees should have their traditional cultural lifestyles protected without maintaining gender oppression.
Lobi at 45:
“If the vessel is reasonably easy to replace we should just sell it to Indonesia and remove all australian staff from the ship. In future older vessels can be used in the same way with a constant buying and selling of vessels between the two govts. As these people are breaking the law and in full knowledge of doing so they should be able to be removed in the same manner as G20 protestors.”
These people are not breaking the law at all. It is our obligation under international law to accept these people into the country for assessment as asylum seekers. It is us who are breaking the law.
G20 protestors were not breaking the law either. Since when is it illegal in this country to voice your opinion publicly and hold rallies?
Elise at 42:
“To hazard a guess, it is the fact that they often do not have papers, often need a lot of looking after (due to being illiterate &/or unskilled), and arrive uninvited. Those arriving by plane have papers and visas, or they would not have been allowed to enter the country. They are also less in need of looking after, I would guess.”
If we wanted to accomodate them we would find a solution domestially to ensure that they can look after themselves. We do need unskilled workers in this country. Supposedly that would be great for the Australian people. We can fill more of the unskilled positions with refugees and Aussies could have more of the skilled jobs provided they are willing to train for them. These type of asylum seekers are usually hard working and gracious to be allowd in. Its attitudes like yours towards them that has resulted in the type of problems we have with the children migrants eg. the lebanese social problems.
To take a dodgy analogy, in the one case, a long-lost cousin arrives on your doorstep unannounced with the clothes on his back, no money and no job, and wants to stay indefinately. Contrast that with a long-lost cousin who rings and makes an arrangement to come, arrives with a suitcase of clothes, money and a plan for what he wants to do. One of them is clearly going to be more work to look after, and may be a burden for quite some time. It would make most people a little uneasy, even if they were willing to take them in.
This analogy is defnitely DODGY.
If your long lost cousin is in a situation where his/her life was on the line i dont thikn you would care how he/she arrived. Next, they are willing to work when they arrive.
This same kind of fear has existed in Australia since the East Europeans, Italians and greeks came in after world war 2. Amazingly no one seems ot care when there was a mass arrival of Kiwis or British. I feel there is a bit of racism underlying this kind of sentiment. One thats hard to admit.
oops – I omitted the part that i was encouraged about, that is, the opportunity improve the outcomes of families, to one that allows full expression of human rights and dignity. Idealistic, yet imperative i think.
Myriad, thanks, I agree – we’re arguing the same corner here on the hypocrisy of the current Government policy and I certainly wasn’t suggesting that you were supporting it,
The Exxon comparison was intended to be deliberate exaggeration for effect. Ignore the specific example if you like, but the point is that there are many times on this blog and elsewhere when facts put forward from particular sources are dismissed because that source is known to have a pre-determined agenda. I agree it isn’t desirable – facts, or alleged facts, should be argued on their own merits – but that often requires more research time than is available. I will have a gander at your suggested documents (for which thanks)if I get time, but until then, sorry, OxFam has an agenda just Exxon does, though they may use more ethical methods to pursue it, and I will remain dubious of their figures.
Sublime cowgirl – doesn’t your conclusion merely restate the problem? (“Refugees should have their traditional cultural lifestyles protected without maintaining gender oppression”.) The problem being that gender oppression is an integral part of the traditional culture. I am not of course arguing in favour of gender oppression. But I do think the line that you can keep your traditional culture, but not the bits that we don’t like is a very thin end of the wedge argument.
Lobi at 46:
“If the vessel is reasonably easy to replace we should just sell it to Indonesia and remove all australian staff from the ship. In future older vessels can be used in the same way with a constant buying and selling of vessels between the two govts. As these people are breaking the law and in full knowledge of doing so they should be able to be removed in the same manner as G20 protestors.”
These people have not broken the law. In fact we have an obligation under international law to assess these people as asylum seekers. so it is us who is breaking the law.
G20 protestors were not breaking the law either. since when is it illegal to express your opinion publicly and to hold public protests?
Elise:
“To hazard a guess, it is the fact that they often do not have papers, often need a lot of looking after (due to being illiterate &/or unskilled), and arrive uninvited. Those arriving by plane have papers and visas, or they would not have been allowed to enter the country. They are also less in need of looking after, I would guess.”
These people arriving by boats are willing to work hard and would gracious and thankfull for being allowed in. If we really wanted to accomodate them we would come up with a strategy. You say they are unskilled. We have plenty of unskilled jobs in this country that Australian would prefer not to do. So, we could use them to fill these positions while training more Australians in skiled labour. That is also going on the assumption that they are indeed unskilled, whihc we don’t know for sure.
“To take a dodgy analogy, in the one case, a long-lost cousin arrives on your doorstep unannounced with the clothes on his back, no money and no job, and wants to stay indefinately. Contrast that with a long-lost cousin who rings and makes an arrangement to come, arrives with a suitcase of clothes, money and a plan for what he wants to do. One of them is clearly going to be more work to look after, and may be a burden for quite some time. It would make most people a little uneasy, even if they were willing to take them in.”
That analogy is certainly dodgy. Firstly, if your cousin was in a life or death situation i dont think you would really care how he arrived, as long as he was safe. Secomdly, these people are coming here willing to work hard and not live for free.
this kind of fear based sentiment has existed since the arrival of East european, italian and greek migrants after world war 2.
Mark, interesting local take here
http://inside.org.au/liberalisms-asylum-dilemma/
‘…The government was, in short, on the right track, until it began to fear that the right track might lead it right back into opposition in 2010. The boat carrying seventy-eight asylum seekers (including five women and five children) that put out a distress call on 17 October 2009 was, in that sense, Kevin Rudd’s Tampa. The boat presented the government with a choice and the choice it made was the same one the Howard government made in relation to the Tampa, in essence if not in detail…
…arrangements were made to transfer its passengers onto the Australian Customs ship, the Oceanic Viking.
The moment of choice came in determining what to do next. To discharge its international obligation to ensure safety of life at sea, Australia had only to arrange for the rescuees to disembark at the nearest port, which would have been an Indonesian port. But, as the Australian government would have been well aware, the situation also engaged Australia’s treaty and customary international law obligations not to return a person directly or indirectly to a place where they face a real risk of serious human rights violations. Why? Because the rescuees, who happened to be asylum seekers, had come within the effective control of agents of the Australian state.’
Savitri Taylor is a Senior Lecturer and Brynna Rafferty-Brown a Research Officer in the School of Law at La Trobe University. Together with Sandra Gifford, Director of the La Trobe Refugee Research Centre, they are currently wrapping up a two-year ARC Linkage project entitled The Impact on the Human Rights of Asylum-Seekers and Host Communities of Australia’s Border Control Cooperation with Indonesia and PNG.
And an informed overseas take here
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C10%5C30%5Cstory_30-10-2009_pg3_5
A clear sign the ship is going to move is the addition of more life boats (they are short of 44 places with the current number of people). The ship is not going to move if it’s unsafe and is not going anyway until it is.
The asylum seekers have not. The people smugglers have. Our law makes that distinction.
When they assault police, among other offences. For which a number of them were convicted.
Ah Ms Crabb…goodness gracious me not our not grubby Howard, surely?
‘And when asked on Thursday about the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, and his criticism of the Government’s handling of the asylum seeker issue, the Prime Minister dismissed the unionist with a cold contempt: “It does not surprise me what the given individual might be saying in any public policy debate on any given day. He has a habit of expressing his views in his own way.”
Decoded: The fellow’s a windbag. I don’t care what he thinks.
Now, Mr Rudd is a politician.’
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gracious-rudd-turns-grubby-20091030-hppn.html
“Ah Ms Crabb…goodness gracious me not our not grubby Howard, surely?”
Just another barb from media star Annabel who, like her colleagues,
calls for bipartisanship and reason on the one hand and stokes the coals of asylum seeker fear on the other.
Our self indulgent media never, ever, look at their own part in beating up these issues or the failure to report the true facts of the situation. So bound up in being players, in the action, we no longer have journalists who are capable of doing the job as it was intended.
It is easy to see why Crabb has been chosen to join the developing stable of Aunty show ponies with added Rudd Loathing+ .
Well said joe2. Crabb seems to be totally obsessed with Rudd of late.
So they were fakes all along now that we know they have already been processed and living in Indonesia for up to five years. Meaning their little escapade of the sinking boat was a planned exercise.
Can’t say they are asylum seekers on the boat since they are not fleeing from mortal danger.
Thomas Paine@68
Even if true, this doesn’t follow. Indeed, it rather strengthens their claim. After all, if “about half” have been in Indonesia for five year then presumably they have been assessed and found to be genuine. It also refutes the idea of “asylum shopping”. Nobody “shopping” would choose Indonesia as Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention. There is no “queue” to apply for protection, but if there is one, about half have had five years of it. Yet even those in Indonesia who are recognised as refugees can’t stay there except in administrative detention.
If the UNHCR has assessed them to be gebuine refugees, Australia should take them. That should be expedited.
Of course we should take them, assess them and send them back if they’re not refugees.
That goes for the earlier boat in an Indonesian port whose leader is Alex, even more so. (They seem to have been forgotten in the drama of the Oceanic Viking.)
Prediction: The Tamils will be off the Oceanic viking one way or another before the next election. Probably by using the Howard chiulli solution used on HMS Maranoa,[?] where, to their eternal discredit, the RAN put so much really hot chilli in the refugees’ food they had no real alternative but to leave the boat. Though, to be fair, Customs have said they won’t do that.
I had the most curious experience driving in to work this morning. Malcolm Fraser was being interviewed by rightwing ABC journo Alison Carrabine on the asylum seeker imbroglio.
In the latter part of 1975, at the age of just 17, I was amongst those who bore Malcolm Fraser truly visceral animus. That persisted until he was ejected as PM in 1983 and I could move on. Few, if anyone, would have been keener to stick in the metaphorical boot than I.
And yet this morning on RN Breakfast I’d have been hard-pressed to improve on his responses to the vacuous conservative hack Carrabine. I found it kind of disturbing that he sounded as appealing on this issue as the Greens. It’s a funny old world, and it annoys the hell out of me to say anything nice about him.
“So they were fakes all along now that we know they have already been processed and living in Indonesia for up to five years”
No, the 37 who already have UNHCR status determination are officially refugees, not asylum seekers. AS such, those in that category are better described as the “definites” under the Convention.
Its the other 50 who have come recently from Sri Lanka who are the asylum seekers- and their status is yet to be determined. These are the “maybes”.
This is not unusual: many of the Iraqi refugees we received in the 90s and early 2000s had spent time in Iranian refugee camps first. Where they were treated very badly – by a non-signatory nation, which,m by defintion, does not provide effective Refugee Convention protection. Much like, say, Indonesia.
Newspoll, kevin! This is what happens when you try to out-Howard John Howard on refugees. The kids thought you were a hell of a lot better than this and they don’t like you for it. They want decency in our PM.
I’d also bet they’re pretty pissed off at your lukewarm response to global warming, too. An Marn Ferguson’s oil spill/fire in the Timor Sea.
really time to lift your game, mate.
And the other interesting thing in all this is the latest boat off Cocos …
It seems possible that this lot’s response to the so-called Indonesian Solution was to try avoiding Indonesia. So their safety was reduced by the fear of winding up in the kind of detention camp Turnbull would like to see.
Actually Fran, I agree with what you say about Fraser. Maybe with all these jobs Rudd is giving to ex Lib people he could do something useful and employ Malcolm Fraser to help him with immigration issues.
That would be an ex-Lib appointment I could respect.
tssk,
I second that. And my once negative feelings about The Easter Island Statue were at least as deep as Fran’s. Though to give him his due he’s almost always been good on race/immigration issues.
I agree Paul: the pll result is bad BECAUSE Rudd’s trying to feign toughness, and it nauseates younger voters, who automatically assume their govt is now lying, and involuntarily retch at the reminder of Howard.
If Rudd is smart he learn a lesson here: take it out of the news cycle, stupid!
Previous pattern: Processed on Xmas island, Libs rant for a day, media loses interest, punters dont care, polls roll in gold.
Current pattern: Rudd pisses off the left (who know its all BS); the centre (who suspect its all BS),; and the Right (who will favour Libs on any “get tough” front).
LOSE LOSE LOSE for RUDD.
Actually Lefty & Paul, I am far more concerned that the flip in poll numbers is because the Oppositions’s return to Howardia style language on asylum seekers combined with the MSM focus on the recent boats is stroking the country’s underbelly again.
When the Lowy poll finds that 70+% are ‘concerned’ at some level about asylum seekers and in the recent poll about 50% thought they might contain terrorists, I think it’s safe to say that unless we see definitive analysis otherwise, the drop in poll numbers is more likely due to Rudd et al being seen as ’soft’ on illegal queue jumping terrorist criminal boatpeople.
I think it best not to rush to hasty conclusions on that poll.
I suspect Dennis Shanahan has been taking lessons from Karzai and Ahmadinejad and slipping into the Newspoll office undetected.
agreed joe, don’t want to be hasty, just wanted to put the alternative perspective on it – grim as it is.
I might agree Myriad – except that a/c to the pollsters themselves, the over 50s arent swinging, its the young ones moving.
That says to me Rudd is provoking cynicism by trying to please everyone, rather than those reserves of reflex exclusionism.
myriad74,
There’s always going to be a percentage of people fearing terrorists are abroad on the seas, on the Sydney City Circle, or hiding in the toilets at Flinders Street Station. But when it comes to actually casting a vote, the vast majority of Aussies are just not that cretinous. a couple of days before election day or on the morning of election day they sit down and have a bit of a think about how they’re going to vote. 9/11s + Tampas aside, they don’t usually vote stupidly – yeah, I know Howard was in for eleven years, still -
If a pollster asked me what I thought of the current lot of refugees descending upon our mangrove swamps, I’d answer Concerned. And I am concerned about them being dumped in hell-hole refugee camps in Indonesia for 10 years. Not sure exactly what that ‘concerned’ actually means.
Lefty E . Nothing of this swing showed up in the Essential Research Poll. There is something very weird about Newspol this time round and folks are coming to all sorts of conclusions. Nearly all are contradictory.
To be fair myriad as Howard lost the popular vote in 1998 and with 4000 of those spread across a handful of seats would have lost to Beazley, and as Howard was able to get the votes of people who still hated Keating but thought the Dems would stop the sell-off of Telstra, the GST and other of Howard’s hardline policies allowing an impossible coalition to support him …
When the ALP went to water in 2001 over Tampa this also allowed him to recreate the same coalition. Had they shown some policy principle and run hard on Howard being a xenophobic wag the dog bigot he’d probably not have won that election either.
Gordon @61, mate you make a lot of assumptions, you generalise, and you take black and white positions.
If you had read what I wrote more carefully, you would see the word “often”, meaning “not always”.
“they often do not have papers, often need a lot of looking after (due to being illiterate &/or unskilled), and arrive uninvited.”
You generalised that to assume “always” in your reply.
As for your comment “That analogy is certainly dodgy. Firstly, if your cousin was in a life or death situation i dont think you would really care how he arrived, as long as he was safe. Secomdly, these people are coming here willing to work hard and not live for free.”
There are assumptions about what the boat people are thinking. Not all of them are particularly committed, as we saw on ABC/SBS (I forget which) recently about an Iraqi family. Lots of grizzling about the Aussie refugee and welfare systems, and he hadn’t even managed to learn english in 9 years. NINE YEARS, and still not learn the language of the country!! Some commitment that was…
Furthermore, you had a big fat IF on your amendment to the cousin analogy. Obviously if an extended family member is in a “life or death” situation then most people would take them in. That was IFFF.
However, there is no proof that this is the case, only your assumptions.
If they were just looking for an indefinate free ride and all expenses paid, then cousin or no cousin, I would not be letting them stay. I speak from past experience here, of a lazy bum of a cousin that is in the habit of being out of work and free-loading on his relatives.
The problem in Indonesia is that these people are not allowed to work, the children have no access to education — there is no future. There are Iraqi and Afghan teenagers in Indonesia who have missed 8-10 years of schooling.