It’s just been revealed that the High Court has prevented Chris Bowen from deporting asylum seekers to Malaysia.
NB: Previous discussion of the legal action on LP is here.
Update: The full decision of the Court is in this post at Crikey.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Another policy triumph for the ALP.
A happy day.
Thats awesome.
Awesome.
But take the 4000 refugees in Malaysia anyway.
It also rules out Nauru, so the Libs are just as doomed.
Sit back, crack a preferred beverage, and watch the ALP spinmeisters sink their teeth into this one.
Another pointless comment from OBR.
Outside the prism of party politics it’s good news, and it’s hard to see how the HC was going to decide otherwise, given the Migration Act.
“It also rules out Nauru …”
From paragraph 128 of the joint judgment (i.e., the majority): “[E]ven assuming them to be in some way relevant, the arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue. Not least is that so because Australia, not Nauru as the receiving country, was to provide or secure the provision of the assessment and other steps that had to be taken, as well as the maintenance in the meantime of those who claimed to be seeking protection. Thus it was Australia, not the receiving country, that was to provide the access and protections in question. Further, although the arrangement between Australia and Nauru was recorded in a very short document, the better view of that document may be that it created obligations between the signatory states.”
Many sage comments being made by those who have not read the decision, e.g., Sarah Hanson-Young.
… and what OBL said.
We’ll have to wait until the full decision of the court to see whether it would also rule out Nauru or PNG.
Of course, there’s nothing stopping the government trying to do a deal with the Opposition to amend the Migration Act. Labor, at the moment, strikes me as bloody-minded enough to try it.
Who runs the country, the Government or judges?
@9 – if the ALP did go down that path I would hope that the Coalition would demand the reinstatement of TPVs as part of the deal.
@8 – OBL – isn’t he cactus?
* sorry @8, OBR.
@6 – pointless? The only entity that is pointless in this debacle is the ALP – everyone else are scoring points all over the shop.
Hooray! A victory for law and common decency.
How about saving tax payers money and settling these refugees in cities on mainland Australia. It costs $1600 per day to imprison a refugee on Christmas Island, $400 per day on the mainland and if they are released into the community refugee groups look after them or we pay the refugees a Centrelink payment – currently approx $250 per week.
Pity that Labor wrecked their supporter base with this wretched Malaysia solution. The offshore refugee solution appealed to “Howard’s battlers” who probably never voted Labor anyway.
Robert Merkel @9
shepherdmarilyn said at Crikey at 3.09 pm
besides being acerbic she does seem to know her refugee stuff
I dare you to take your happiness over to Pollbludger where the extreme right wing of Labor supporters hang out.
“This means that all people sent to Nauru and Manus Island were sent illegally and must now demand compensation.”
This does not follow (and there is no evidence that she does know here refugee stuff). See the extract from the judgment @7.
I agree with Adrian @6. Unless you were the most miserable party-liner you couldn’t fail to see this as a victory for all of us.
Yes Marilyn Shepherd has a long history of fighting for refugees, I remember reading her stuff posted on discussion boards (few blogs around then) in 2001-2.
@14 – Billie – Marylin Sheperd is either uninformed of the decision including the comment re Nauru being different (see above) or wilfully ignoring what the decision actually says.
@15 – Thomas Paine – I admire your pluck continually engaging with the Poll Bludger crew.
Rules out Nauru, unless they meet those standards. (IANAL)
Can someone find out who the Lawyers are who gave the ALP the advice that this was a sound policy – so I don’t hire them in the future.
Can they get our money back?
To follow up, the selective quoting from P128 doesn’t make Nauru legal, as that is not the actual judgement, but a paragraph indicating why the court rejected the Minister’s arguments.
So, the ALP has managed to have the following countries ruled out:
Nauru
East Timor
Malaysia
PNG (?)
I off to Singapore in October – would the PM like me to make enquiries while I am there?
Why would they care for your useless enquiries? They can process asylum seekers in Australia perfectly legally.
Nauru is now a signatory of the Refugee Conventions.
However, as Dexitroboper noted above, this High Court finding may disqualify Nauru:
“Appropriately” is to be defined by reference to natural justice.
Warehousing on an isolated tropical hell-hole without decent amenities might well be regarded as inappropriate treatment. So, goodbye Nauru.
And when will someone challenge in the High Court Howard’s right to excise parts of Australia from judicial oversight?
There is nothing in Section 51 which allows Parliament to make laws excising parts of the states and and parts of territories of Australia from general judicial purview.
Section 75 of the Constitution might provide a remedy against Howard:
A complaint against an officer of the Commonwealth exercising the pretended powers enacted in the MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1) 2001 can apply directly to the High Court to have the complaint heard.
Re: Shepard Marilyn’s comments quoted above, I can’t see how any of this effects the people sent to Nauru etc as part of the “Pacific Solution”. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but none of those people entered Australia’s migration zone and so the Minister never had to exercise his or her s198 power to remove people from Australia.
I suggest there’s zero chance of the opposition agreeing to any ALP amendments to the Migration Act. They’re only interested in beating up the ALP.
d
@19 and 24, Nauru is not ruled out unless you have some expert view on Nauruan municipal law and are prepared to privilege the general remarks on the Migration Act over the specific remarks on relevant distinguishing features between the Malaysian and Nauruan agreements, which would not be very lawyerly (IAAL). Also, I’m quoting from the judgment and you’re quoting from a summary.
me@25
I’ll correct myself. Nauru was an exercise of s198A.
d
I’m an ALP member but i don’t support the Malaysian Solution. Good on the High Court. I bet the Coalition’s not surprised as most of the judges are Howard appointees.
This is great news!
Katz – the Nauru people might object to their country being called a tropical hell hole
This is good news. I don’t care if Abbott and News Ltd rub this into the ALP’s face. In fact we should all be rubbing this in the ALP’s face. The hypocrisy of it was breathtaking.
I suggest there’s zero chance of the opposition agreeing to any ALP amendments to the Migration Act.
I think if the ALP proposed sensible changes including the reintroduction of TPVs, the opposition would agree.
They’re only interested in beating up the ALP.
I think the opposition would welcome the problem being on the way towards a solution when they take power.
I bet the people smugglers will be celebrating tonight. The ALP has just confirmed it has brought an open border policy to Australia which basically says – Get here by boat and you are in. What it means is that those with money who can pay for a boat will continue to receive placement over those refugees such as the Chin and Karen from Burma and the Hmong from Laos who wait and go through official channels in Thailand. Congolese and Somalis sitting in camps in Africa without a penny to their name have no chance. And yes, you can register with the UN in Indonesia, the same place these boats leave from.
I work with refugees and support a larger intake but do not believe encouraging children onto boats with the lure of family reunion refugee visas is ethical. The smuggling business is linked to the corrupt Indonesian military and has links with sex slavery. It is a disgusting industry which the Greens are basically propping up.
Except there’s neither a problem nor a solution on the opposition’s terms.
There were two things wrong with Temporary Protection Visas.
1. They weren’t temporary
2. They didn’t protect
3. And they weren’t really visas
Re 31 – really? The Opposition are showing know signs of thinking rationally, no make that thinking about policy. I’ll bet they would say no to almost anything the government might propose, regardless of any long term advantage that might accrue to the Opposition.
there’s neither a problem nor a solution
The problem is to empower Australia rather than the people smugglers to select the highest priority refugees. The solution was called Pacific, until the current mob of buffoons broke it.
When are they going to apologise?
I’ll bet they would say no to almost anything the government might propose
We won’t know about that until the government proposes something (anything?) sensible.
Listened to the Presser on News Radio while doing the school run.
Bowen has more front than Boans.
A moment to celebrate the separation of powers and send congratulations to the Black Letter High Court. Human decency, at last.
The Pacific ‘solution’ didn’t work, unless you take working to mean locking up innocent men, women and children as an ineffective and misguided deterrent.
There is no problem because we are perfectly capable of ‘processing’ the relatively tiny number of refugees onshore and humanely.
Good riddance : this means they’ll have to change the Migration Act – and that won’t wash with this parliament
Keep the 4000 though: that in itself will prevent many taking boats, and is a genuine start to a regional solution.
The HCA just rescued the ALP from itself.
The Pacific ‘solution’ didn’t work
It stopped the boats. It stopped people drowning in Indonesian and International waters. How do you define success?
the relatively tiny
Nearly 50% of our annual refugee intake is tiny now?
Bullshit, it didn’t stop the friggin’ boats, and even if it did, how is that a solution to the global problem? I guess that’s out of sight out of mind to you.
Yes it’s tiny compared with other countries in, you know that thing we are all part of, the world.
Policy analysis is being driven off the rails and in the wrong direction by the obsession with people “smugglers” – a misnomer if ever I heard one. They are not trying to smuggle people in secretly – the idea is to get refugees to the attention of the authorities not hide them from the authorities.
Policy thinking needs to return to the issue of refugees – and think about how to handle the situation in a way that is economically sensible, rigorous in assessment while remaining compassionate. Effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness are the key tests.
On the evidence of the past decade, neither the current Government or the current Opposition have met those tests in their policy efforts in this area.
The obsession with fishermen from a lesser developed country trying to earn a quid and help out some people on the way verges on the bizarre. International airlines bring in in any given year to australia around four times the number of people who go on to seek asylum here than are coming on boats. Are they being demonised? Quite rightly no,
Lefty E, whether the government keeps taking the 4000 or not will not impact on boats. Most of the 4000 are reported to be from the Chin minority in Burma. These people are poor and do not take boats. They simply can’t afford it. Those coming by boat have tended to be wealthier Afghans, Iraqis and Sri Lankans who can afford it more than Chin (or Karen for that matter). You don’t get Somalis coming by boat because they have nothing. Those on the boats may (or may not) be genuine refugees, money does not determine persecution status, but it would be naive to ignore the economics at play in the current boat people/non boat people refugee debate. By the way, I work with refugees so don’t paint me as unsympathetic. I just maintain the people smuggling business is corrupt and brutal and the system does get abused by some.
@44 – people flying in on planes are not risking their lives and the lives of others.
I wish I could view this as a crucial point at which to put an end to the whole debate about refugees, but I won’t hold my breath.
If the Labor Government has any backbone left at all, it will now state that all refugees will be processed on the mainland. As noted above, they have already alienated a great many Labor voters and the loudmouth protesterss about a decision like that most likely already are committed to the Liberal Party. They don’t have much to lose as I see it .
I think there is also a moral question to be answered urgently by the Government regarding the 4000 refugees currently in Malaysia who have had their hopes raised by the Government. The interview on television with a Burmese family who have been selected to come to Australia is now hearbreaking in retrospect, their hopes of achieving their dreams in Australia smashed to pieces today.
Unless the public start pushing the Government even more loudly for them to abandon “offshore solutions” and stand up for Australia we will sink even further into the abyss.
Very good news.
Thomas Paine, are some of the Labor cheerleader Pollbludger types still trying to defame those who defend asylum seekers such as Julian Burnside with that “they’re only criticising the Malaysian Solution because it will mean an end to their AS industry” crap?
I’d take a look myself but would lead to needing to take another shower.
That’s just not going to happen. Both the government and the opposition are poll driven on this. The voters, who are the public after all, have a hot-button on this one. They want the boats carrrying asylum seekers who can get here in no other way stopped. For no sensible reason, but that’s the way it is.
Now it will be a race for the bottom in earnest.
The good thing about this is that we’ll still be getting four thousand fine people languishing in Malaysia to join us in our place of refuge who otherwise would not have.
One of interesting side issues is whether this ruling also sinks Nauru as an option. They’re signatories to the convention – but that may not be enough after today. And the coalition wont get amendments through parilament either (presuming they dont get a senate majorty)
So there’s a more than fair chance Abbott’s policy has been killed today too.
Occam’s Blunt Razor@1/11/13/19/21/23/38/46.Your Joy is overwhelming what a shame it’s politically based rather than humanitarian based your glee is very Boltesque in fervour,what a person!
the Nauru people might object to their country being called a tropical hell hole
I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions about the fairly bad state Nauru is in, dude.
The Pacific Solution appealed to ignorant savages, like it was sposed too.
I’m glad the High Court shot its latest iteration down in flames.
Brian62: you’d have to have a heart of stone not to let ORB have his own little schadenfreudengasm at this time. After all, the Malaysia Solution was a particularly stupid and morally egregious policy.
It looks like the High Court’s just ripped the hand grenade from Gillard’s teeth and chucked it in the bin.
“Now it will be a race for the bottom in earnest.”
I fear you’re correct GregM.
“The good thing about this is that we’ll still be getting four thousand fine people languishing in Malaysia to join us in our place of refuge who otherwise would not have.”
And now you definitely are.
patrickg @ 51 – I know the Nauru economy is stuffed, but its not an inherently bad place to live is it (eg tropical climate, sandy beaches etc)?
@53 Down and out at Sai Gon -
I think the term initially used which omitted the “schaden” and started with the “freud” is probably a better reference for what kind of mind that particular poster has.
I like your addition of “gasam” to describe exactly the position of many on this and other sites as it captures pretty much of what is actually happening as a result of the decision. We now will also be subject to a avalanche of “auditory masturbation” with those voicing their obnoxious opinions all over the airwaves.
FDB @ 54 – will the government still honour their part of the deal if they can’t send anyone to Malaysia? They could get narky and just reduce the refugee intake from other sources in response.
That’s an interestingly constructed post there Anthony. I think you are right.
My reading of the decision is captured in the Chief Justice’s words at paragraph 2;
Then, after that , at paragraphs 68 and 69 of the decision, he summarises his judgment. He says”The Minister has exercised his powers but not according to law. Therefore his actions are unlawful and cannot stand.’
Do you think the Malaysian government will let Australia crawl out of its part of the agreement to accept 4000 refugees? I doubt it.
Qantas will not be able to start its Asian base in Malaysia, and maybe not Singapore either.
Legal Eagle has written an analysis at our place here:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/08/31/breaking-news-high-court-declares-malaysian-solution-illegal/
Re @58 I should have said of the Chief Justice that is what i interpreted him as saying.
What he actually said in paragraphs 68 and 69 was this
@45
Ah, faux concern. The last refuge of the disingenuous.
Woooott! The current High Court is a bunch of surprises. Memo to both parties, just process the people here, save the Australian taxpayer a bunch of $ and stop whipping up racial hatred and prejudice for political purposes.
OBR @38:
It’s a pity they knocked down the old Boans building on Murray St and replaced it with the “Forrest Chase” atrocity. I still remember the Christmas decorations from when I was a young kid. /OT
The other reason for not proposing amendments to the migration act, is irrespective of whether the opposition supports them or not, they’d probably vote with the Greens to set up an inquiry into the amendments with all the grandstanding that goes along with that. the ALP would be on a hiding to nothing from both sides.
Mind you, I’m not sure what they can do at this point that doesn’t return that result.
d
This has given the govt a perfect excuse to do the right thing, while blaming the High Court for being forced to. I hope they aren’t too stupid to take it.
@50 – interesting how you can judge my morality. Yes, there is a politica dimension to my views because the ALP is wrong and their policies suck. However, my concern is for the innocents who put themselves at risk.
I doubt that you were in any way happy for the any of the SIEV sinkings to have occurred – neither am I. Only firm policy can reduce and hopefully stop people risking their lives.
While many of the individual stories are heart wrenching, I see firm measures to reduce attmeoted boat trips in much the same way as the psychology of parental discipline – as the saying goes – spare the rod and spoil the child except in this case spoilt children die.
@63 – used to love catching the ferry across from South Perth with my Nanna (in her hat and gloves) and going to the cafeteria there.
Never have understood why there isn’t more innovative heritage solutions utilised – not that I am a heritage nut or anything.
The concern out there in the parts of the country that are driving this policy has nothing to do with “sinkings” or “deaths at sea”. I doubt anyone venting their angst about “boats” in Lindsay could give numerical, geographical or demographic detail about any of the lives lost at sea in this matter over the last decade. It is clearly about keeping out foreigners (especially NESB foreigners who are the wrong skin shade) and angst over the fact that in some way, they may obtain a benefit that your average Lindsay voter might miss out on, even if it is delivered in a prison.
In this fantasy, Australia is seen as an unstable vessel, likely to be upset by “waves” of “asylum seekers” seeking to “sponge off the government” and change the character of the country into some part of the “Jihadi Caliphate” aided and abetted by “rent-seekers” in the “asylum seeker industry”.
The government, by declaring egregiously its intention to “break the people smugglers’ business model”* winks at and encourages this existential fantasy, without factoring in that it’s not the “people smugglers” that are on the minds of our ignorant outer-urban fringe-dwellers but the vulnerable people themselves, as that Go Back doco on SBS showed plainly.
It’s astonishing, or at least it ought to be, that the mass media by and large allows this dissembling to go unchallenged. Whereas in every other field of policy, the rightwing populists insist that ordinary folk know best what their interests are, and pleade against the nanny state, here alone, they insist that robust measures are needed “to discourage people from getting onto boats”. Plainly, the people getting onto boats think the risk is worth it, which can only mean that not getting onto a boat would be a fate worse than death — the precise fate they would enjoy if the government were successful in “stopping the boats”. So really, what the voters of Lindsay really want is for these vulnerable people to go suffer some place else. Tony Abbot and Julia Gillard merely afford them a moral-sounding piece of misdirection.
* I wonder how many others hate the phrase breaking the people smugglers’ business model as much as I do. It is surely the most appalling phrase to regularly pass the lips of this government ‘s officials. On every occasion I hear this, my reaction is immediate and visceral. I would struggle, confronted by Bowen or Gillard to endure this phrase without loudly remarking how appalled I was to have to share the air with such as them. I’m not sure how many more times they can say it before I really do regard the outcome of the next election, or its timing, with indifference. I’m forced to the conclusion that at an ethical and intellectual level, there is little to choose between Abbott and Gillard. At the moment, all that separates the tow regimes is the influence of The Greens, and the possibility that the regime may be dragged kicking and screaming away from being utterly repulsive in all things.
I’d love to know which malevolent spiv first contrived it, so that I could send him or her a suitably worded note of appreciation.
ugh:
all that separates the
tow{two} regimes …Until now I wasn’t convinced but that has changed – Gough Whitlam can now rest easy knowing his legacy has been exceeded. Well done ALP – I didn’t think you could do it but you have.
Setting low standards and failing to achieve them.
2 more years . . .2 more years . . . 2 more years
The concern out there in the parts of the country that are driving this policy has nothing to do with “sinkings” or “deaths at sea”.
You’re wrong on this one Fran. The majority of Australians are genuinely concerned that this useless embarassment of a Government took a solution that allowed us to choose the most deserving refugees – and trashed it. You do not have a monopoly on caring for people who are less well off.
As for Patrickb’s comment @66 – he can stick it where the sun don’t shine
Spana, the ABC had interviews with Iraqis in Indonesia and Malaysia yesterday – stating categorically they wont be taking a boat now this 4000 deal is a goer – even if it taks 2-3 years.
“You don’t get Somalis coming by boat because they have nothing”
You dont get Somalis coming because Australia takes refugees from African UNHCR camps in our offshore quota.
Its high time we did the same in regional UNHCR camps. Then there’ll bea queue, and everyone can finally use that term without talking nonsense.
PeterTB @ 76 – there’s an inherent assumption which I believe to be incorrect that staying where they are for asylum seekers is risk-free. Taking a boat journey may in the long term be no risky than staying in a place where they are unable to earn any money, have no right to healthcare or education for their children and are likely to be persecuted by the local police authorities. What sort of future is that?
The concern about deaths at sea is that its pushed right into our face and we can’t avoid looking at it, rather than the slow death and misery that the asylum seekers face if they stay where they are. If we as a country genuinely cared about the risk at sea we could pick up the refugees a lot earlier in their journey.
dear Thomas Paine
hail good fellow! saw you over at poll bludger too a few times talking your brand of left-field sense & taking cudgels in return. a close clique or a closed shop – either way, not a congenial place for contrarians, but kudos to you for sticking in & ruffling their feathers from time to time. i don’t go any more – uncongenial.
i agree the only way around this decision for the gov’t (and poll bludgers) is to amend the legislation, but the crossbenchers hold the whip hand. they could possibly make this the present parliament’s finest moment. i’m quietly optimistic.
and from Jacques de Molay, word, gratefully received, that “over there” they defame the likes of burnside with that kind of scurrilous crap about his pecuniary self-interest driving his advocacy. cheap & lazy arguments be damned!
yours sincerely
alfred vension
@45
the relatively tiny
Nearly 50% of our annual refugee intake is tiny now?
It’s 50% of our “intake” because the majority of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees whereas only a fraction of the much larger number of refugee applicants who arrive first by plane with temporary visas (tourist/student etc) are.
Note nearly all of the boat arrivals would not have had any opportunity to even apply for temporary visitor visas, and never mind that DIAC officers are required to knock back anybody they think might overstay. That the applicant’s country of origin is a producer of bona fide refugees is one of the criteria that would lead to such a refusal.
@76
a solution that allowed us to choose the most deserving refugees
Deserving refugees are those who satisfy the definition of a refugee in the UN Convention on Refugees, Australia’s signing of which is what obligates Australia to give protection to onshore asylum seekers who satisfy that definition. This is the only criterion. It amuses me greatly that the same people who bitch about “economic refugees” will turn around and suggest that those who can pay for people smugglers are less deserving refugees, even though their supposed wealth would be evidence that they are fleeing persecution – as required by the definition – rather than economic hardship.
Like Alfred, I’m quietly optimistic. What have they got to lose? It’s not like the opinion polls can get any worse. I’d rather they died in a ditch over this than the resources tax.
LeftyE @ 77 – there are almost 100,000 refugees in Malaysia at the moment. Australia taking 4000 over a few years is a drop in the ocean. Many will end up waiting decades if they get resettled at all, not 2-3 years.
Soooooo, who will be held to account for this policy failure? Chris Bowen? Or will we see the “Craig Thomson Solution” applied?
Hmmm, as a temporary solution I suggest we make a declaration under S198A and declare a pox on both their houses and despatch the Gillard government to Malaysia and send Abbott and his crew to Nauru.
Great idea Wantok. And while we’re at it, ban the phrase “People smugglers business model”.
Interesting comment from Julian Burnside on the Drum this morning.
Maybe the Malaysian solution wouldn’t be as effective at BTPSBM as Gillard and Bowen hoped.
Sorry to interrupt with a different subject, but this is important: according to the Herald Sun, Janet Albrechtson and Michael Kroger have become an item! (Birds of a feather, etc.)
The hypocritical crocodile tears of Abbott’s sock puppets are nauseating.
For these disgusting individuals, the only thing worse than refugees drowning in a smuggler’s leaky boat is a successful Australian landfall.
The Rudd government could have clung to Howard’s “Pacific Solution”. But eventually this program would have been shot down as well.
The Rudd government deserves much blame for failing to devise a workable solution before dumping the PS. This failure at the level of delivery is the hallmark of the Rudd government.
When Gillard assassinated Rudd she decided to continue many of his programs. The result was stagnation without stability, a most unsatisfactory result.
@76
“You’re wrong on this one Fran”
No she isn’t. Remember the woman from the SBS doco who, when she saw the footage of the asylum seekers floundering on the rocks, thought that they had got what they deserved? Small children drowning and this person thought that was justice. Petertb, you are either a fool or a disingenuous spiv if you don’t accept Fran’s analysis.
If you were so concerned for the risks posed to people making the journey by boat you would be advocating a broadening of the definition of a refugee and a large increase in the number we accept not to mention allocating greater resources to processing and resettlement. Is this what you want?
a solution that allowed us to choose the most deserving refugees
Factually wrong, and morally really distasteful.
Putting aside the question of whether s198a of the Migration act would be satisfied by transfers to Nauru and Manus or whether an amendment could in fact be written to make it (or “Malaysia”) so …
It’s worth keeping in mind that the maximum capacity of Nauru to accommodate transfers is probably not much more than the 800 specvified in the so called Malaysia Solution. This is where numbers peaked in the dark days of the Howard years. This represents an augmentation to the population of this poor Pacific state of about 8% — which in per capita terms would be like Australia accepting about 1.8 million refugee applicants, and even more if you adjust for per capita GDP … or relate the number to fully trained doctors/psychologists, teachers, land mass etc …
‘When Gillard assassinated Rudd she decided to continue many of his programs. The result was stagnation without stability, a most unsatisfactory result.’
So the necessity of denigrating Rudd to justify the abysmal performance of the current PM raises its head on LP.
Rudd stated was against Gillard on going to the right on the AS issue, and the permanent shelving of the ETS. One of Gillard’s first acts was to issue a xenophobic dog-whistle on AS and concoct the do nothing for as long as possible Citizens Assembly on climate change.
And this statement…
‘This failure at the level of delivery is the hallmark of the Rudd government.’
Is fairly much a blatant lie feeding into the meme created after the knifing of Rudd. On the contrary the Rudd government delivered a fair bit, and for a first term government after a decade in opposition, and having to deal with the GFC, they were better than the average.
The failures we now have are due to the nature of Gillard and her abandonment of Rudd’s approach and ideological standing. Gillard became Howardesque in some of her thinking and policy. Not a pretty sight. No wonder then she is floundering. The people not long ago voted to get rid of Howard.
Those sort of odds pertain for refugees all around the works Chris. Welcome to the so-called queue.
If we keep the 4000, our region will finally have one
Works = ‘world’
Stupid iPhone!
LeftyE – my point was that the deal was actually very little incentive to delay getting on a boat. Nothing much would have changed in terms of having a chance on getting to Australia via the standard refugee program. And now the government has decided (according to the smh) that although they will keep the 4000, they will count as part of the original refugee intake. So nothing will have changed at all, we’ll just take fewer refugees from elsewhere.
Lefty E @44: “The HCA just rescued the ALP from itself.” Yes, that’s it in a nutshell.
1. Call it a mistake if you like but please refrain from impugning my sincerity.
2. The chaos of the Rudd ministry and Rudd’s appalling lack of people skills were major issues long before any plots to remove him.
3. Rudd ended the Pacific Solution without thinking clearly enough about its replacement.
4. Yes, Rudd did make some good decisions. The Captain of the Titanic hit only one iceberg.
“So nothing will have changed at all, we’ll just take fewer refugees from elsewhere”
Agree on the numbers. But I thought folks were concerned about boats arriving? The ABC interviewed several Iraqis in Malaysia/ Indonesia who sated openly they were reconsidering boat journeys now there an annual quota.
As I say: once there’s a better funded UNHCR registration process (we can help there) and then a queue (even if our own contribution is modest) other refugee receiving countries will take from it – as they (and we ) do elsewhere.
Then the annual numbers taken from it are higher – even if ours is modest.
This is what an *actual* regional solution would look like.
Lefty E – the stick side (we’ll send you back to Malaysia) probably had something to do with it as well. The 4000 is a once-off thing too, not an annual commitment isn’t it?
One interesting thing that may come of it is that with such sudden changes in effective policy over a fairly short period of time researchers may well be able to work out just how much of an effect pull factors have on the number of people willing to take the boat journey.
The government is spinning that the judgment rules out Nauru, according to advice they’ve got. Even if that’s true (who really knows?), it won’t help them politically, because no one is holding the opposition to account for a credible alternative policy (on this or any other question).
But it is interesting to think about what PM Abbott would/will do to deter new refugees if they can’t be sent offshore. Torpedo their boats? Set up camps in the middle of the Gibson Desert? Make them spend 24 consecutive hours with Brownyn Bishop?
If the judgement rules out the Howard solution then why wasn’t it thrown out when Howard was in power?
Because there was no challenge Tssk – thats how the law works. Partly that was because most of the the inmates of HMAS Nauru never landed, and had no access to courts while there. If tehy had, this may have taken place years ago.
In practice too – there’d have been no point between 2004-7: as the govt had the numbers in both houses and would simply have amended the Migration Act.
Not the case now – unlikely to be for an Abbottt govt either.
I think even Tony Abbott would baulk before blatantly committing Crimes Against Humanity, Sam.
Abbott is quick to leap into the cesspit and contribute some of his own filth.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/government-dying-of-shame-abbott-20110901-1jn4h.html
@99
“The chaos of the Rudd ministry and Rudd’s appalling lack of people skills”
Deficits (real or imagined) that he shared with many PMs before him. Not a sound reason for the coup. And look at the pathetically limp excuse for a govt. that has resulted. We can talk all day about how much legislation has been passed but at it’s core this govt. is neurotic and unable to deal with a manic bully like Abbott. Image if there was some swagger to the ALP, some Esprit de corps. Abbott would have been out on his arse (perhaps selling it) long ago.
What no-one seems to have raised so far – in a somewhat myopic, in my view, preoccupation in the thread with various aspects of domestic political partisanship – is what is arguably the worst impact in the longer term on the national interest of the sorry farce of the Malaysian “solution” – that which Greg Sheridan points out in no uncertain terms in the Oz today.
This decision represents the culmination of this stupid Government’s trashing of Australia’s relations with virtually the whole of South East Asia, probably our most important global foreign policy relationships outside the US. The Malaysians were not exactly happy with much of the way Gillard went about negotiating the agreement in the first place. Now the High Court of Australia has heaped scorn on them in spades, in public, and by implication other Asian countries that have similar human rights/refugee policies.
Add in the damage done to relations with Indonesia by the kneejerk cattle shipment decision and its scarcely less kneejerk aftermath. And, perhaps less serious but still significant, the xenophobia of Wayne Swan’s rejection of the ASX/Singapore deal (coming on top of frequent similar outbursts of xenophobia and scare stories from the unions over Qantas offshore maintenance there).
All this in under 6 months. It will take years of diplomacy for a more competent government to clean up the mess. This one has ruled itself out by its previous actions from having the slightest qualification even to try.
I think that all of these que jumpers who are clearly privileged people as they can afford to travel better than first class $5000 deposit on a 300klm trip leg (Indonesia to Christams Island) then those a end up staying here should be bonded to repay the full cost of their accommodation, internal travel, processing, and legal costs. And those who dispose of their documents should have to pay all of the foreign research that is required to determine their alleged identity. This can be in the form of a Hex like system.
Yawn…how can you jump a friggin’ ‘que’ when there isn’t one?
Some people clearly don’t have a clue, but unfortunately boneheaded ignorance never prevented anyone from having an opinion.
@42 Sam -
Abbott will do exactly what he and Howard did last time around (remember Siev X).
Wozza has forgotten how popular JWH was with SE Asia 12 years ago obviously.
108 Adrian, You recon that there is no que? Explain.
If you are genuinely interested, have a look at this link from the Immigration Rights and Advice Centre: http://www.iarc.asn.au/_blog/Immigration_News/post/Queue_Jumpers_%E2%80%93_an_unfortunate_and_misconceived_argument/
OBR – I worked in Boans in the school holidays from when I was 14 years old – the hard life of the working class!
Refugees: as someone asked earlier – shouldn’t Bowen resign?
We should just process them all and accept all the refugees while the numbers are so small. If it ever happens that this ‘attracts’ too many we should work out an arrangement to pay neighbouring countries (India for Sri Lankan Tamils etc) to take some of them.
I read that paragraph from the judgment that GregM quotes at 65, here again in full:
and though I’m not a lawyer, I can’t help thinking that this seems like an awesomely obvious piece of law. Surely someone who was drafting this law thought about this for a moment? Did they run it past anything resembling a lawyer?
This seems staggeringly incompetent.
Who do you think is feeling better today – Kevin Rudd or Craig Thompson?
OBR, the answer is simple. Abbott.
Not necessarily – while there is some short term political gain, if Nauru really is now ruled out it stuffs things up for him long-term.
There is an article todays Age by an SC saying withdrawal from the Refugee Convention must be an option now. Where do I get my silks?
Jules – That’s awesome.
DexiBooper – It also rules out Nauru, so the Libs are just as doomed.
But the Libs’ constituency will support something even more draconian measures. On the other side this perpetuates a wedge. I’m not sure this ruling does invalidate Nauru are they in some way a party to the 1951 Convention? Or does their government somehow meet those standards.
I haven’t read the ruling but the more intelligent articles refer to the fact that Malaysia is not a party to the convention and does not comply with it. This is the reason for the ‘Malaysia solution’ which is the ALP stealing the Libs’ policy and making it worse.
My fear is that the Coalition will simply declare it no longer in our interests and withdraw from the convention. This could be an electoral winner.
I’ve just read the relevant bit from the Act, the clause that matters is 3(iv) “meets relevant human rights standards in providing that protection”
Nauru doesn’t have to be a party to the convention just meet its standards.
Apologies to all the true believers but this is a brilliant demonstration of just how bad this govt gets. They say they’re going to terminate the Nauru solution and then when the inevitable flood comes they try and cover their arse by picking an alternative as if we’ll be fooled by that. Moreover the alternative is Malaysia! This is Machiavellian.
They pinch Howard’s deterrent and go even further in violating the refugees’ claim to human rights. And they think they can get it past litigation when any reasonably literate person with a little bit of knowledge of the Malaysian government’s stand on human rights can foresee such a problem.
There is a dearth of quality in the Labor Party. They only know how to bullshit.
Well, I *am* a lawyer (admittedly not one who works as a lawyer) and I have to agree: it was a seriously crap effort from the govt.
The only mildly mitigating factor is that the HCA has had a pretty strong recent tradition of not bucking the govt of the day on asylum seeker matters (though this specific terrain had not been tested)
The real siginficance is that theyve decided the Minister cannot ‘declare a fact’ – without, like, reference to the actual realities on the ground.
Again, all easily reversed by Migration Act amendments if, say, you had a govt with a working majority on these issues.
In the past the ALP used to vote with Howard on many of those. So, suck it up!
@106
Greg Sheridan is one of the most inept foreign policy commentators in the region, in my opinion. Besides, I think Howard’s “deputy sheriff” and “preemptive action” comments, although treated with scorn by our neighbours, did far more damage.
19- well spoken!
To think the best they could come up subsequently was a peevish bitch about an “Activist” High Court, along with curmudgeonly Howardist righties here, is beneath pitiful.
@119
“then when the inevitable flood comes”
Ah mindless hyperbole, the last refuge of the … hopelessly mislead.
Was the PM’s swipe at the Chied Justice of the High Court for inconsistency an attempt at self-depreciating humour?