people seeking asylum – a threat to Australia?

Feb 27, 2007

people seeking asylum – a threat to Australia?

Yesterday, the Liberals, Nationals and Family First voted against the following motion, which I moved in the Senate for debate as a matter of urgency.

The need for the Australian government to unequivocally guarantee that the latest group of boat people, reportedly including 83 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, will immediately have access to independent assistance, have their refugee claims assessed openly and fairly and will not be subjected to the risk of refoulement, consistent with our international obligations.

I’m not sure what the government Senators saw in this motion that was objectionable, as all of their speakers asserted that no refugee would be sent back to danger by the Australian government. Unfortunately, we know that this has occurred in the past under the government’s inadequate and deliberately unaccountable offshore processes.

Sometimes I suspect that if John Howard had run West Germany back in the Cold War era, the communists in East Germany wouldn’t have needed to build the Berlin Wall and have the military patrolling it to stop people escaping persecution. Mr Howard would have used his own armed forces to either repel them, or detain them and force them to another country.

Such a suggestion brings howls of outrage from supporters of the government, many of whom point (quite rightly) to our nation’s record under the previous Liberal government of Malcolm Fraser into taking in Vietnamese boat people fleeing communist oppression – some of them also point to well known assertions that Labor’s Gough Whitlam was less than keen on this. (see this speech by Qld Liberal Senator Brett Mason yesterday for an example)

Yet, at the same time as Liberals laud the record of Malcolm Fraser, they condemn anyone who suggests we should adopt the policies and approach which Mr Fraser took as Prime Minister (and which he still advocates). If the latest group of boat people are Tamils and Muslims from Sri Lanka, as has been widely reported, then they are quite likely to have fled a civil war like situation and be at risk if they are returned. This should certainly be verified before any talk is given to sending people back.

To have officials from the governments of Sri Lanka and Indonesia openly talking about potential agreements being negotiated with Australia to promptly return these asylum seekers to Sri Lanka is even worse than what occurred when our military were first ordered to repel asylum seekers in 2001. These proposals have received coverage in many overseas media – see this example in the Hindustan Times.

There had been a general feeling that the Australian government’s attitude towards asylum seekers had slowly become more rational and humane in the last couple of years, but their reaction to the latest arrival of 85 boat people shows the much vaunted (and very expensive) ‘culture change’ in the immigration ministry is a sham.

All reports suggest that the latest group of asylum seekers include 83 people from Sri Lanka, a large number of them Tamils. There is absolutely no dispute that this country is in the grip of a very nasty and currently worsening civil conflict, with serious atrocities being committed by armed groups on both sides. The LTTE (usually known as the Tamil Tigers) are often seen as very ruthless, even for a guerrilla army in a civil war, including towards any perceived dissenters amongst Tamils. As one can expect in a war, the government, and paramilitaries that support them, can be just as brutal in waging their side of the battle.

The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, (page 6 of this report) reported that extrajudicial killings are “symptomatic of the widespread use of police torture, the failure to rein in abuses committed or tolerated by the military and of the systematic efforts by various armed groups, and particularly the LTTE, to kill Tamils who refuse to support the LTTE and to provoke military retaliation.”

This link goes to a stream of stories from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) about some recent events in Sri Lanka. In December 2006, the UNHCR released a detailed position report on the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. It goes for 16 pages, but here are a few quotes from it:

By mid-November, 204,163 persons (56,272 families) had been displaced in government-controlled and LTTE controlled area. These new displacements are in addition to the 312,712 persons displaced before the Cease Fire Agreement. Furthermore, over 16,000 Sri Lankans have fled to southern India since January 2006.

There are indications that all sides are drawing civilians into the conflict, and not respecting individual’s rights to seek safety and/or remain in displacement for as long as they deem it necessary for their own security. The Government has coerced displaced communities into going back to their homes before they were ready to do so for example in Jaffna and Muttur; and the LTTE has prevented communities from fleeing areas where their lives might be in danger from military attack for example in Vahari in Batticaloa District.

In addition to the situation of widespread insecurity and the impact of the armed conflict in the North and East, Tamils in and from these regions are at risk of targeted violations of their human rights from all parties to the armed conflict. Harassment, intimidation, arrest, detention, torture, abduction and killing at the hands of government forces, the LTTE and paramilitary or armed groups are frequently reported to be inflicted on Tamils from the North and East. (my emphasis)

Paramilitary units travel in unmarked white vans and are reportedly responsible for some of the disappearances which have increased dramatically in 2006. Sixty-two cases of disappearances in the North of the country have been registered by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka over the past year. The Commission is also investigating the status of 183 other individuals who are still missing. Apart from alleged state-sponsored paramilitary groups, the army, the LTTE, armed elements of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP, a Tamil opposition party with associations with the security forces), and the Karuna faction have also been implicated in abductions, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and other forms of persecution.

The UNHCR recommendations include that “no Tamil from the North or East should be returned forcibly until there is significant improvement in the security situation in Sri Lanka. The fact that internally displaced persons are receiving assistance in certain areas in Sri Lanka should not give rise to the conclusion that return to such areas is safe or reasonable.”

Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Indonesia, Major-General Perera, has said Sri Lanka could guarantee the men’s safety if they were sent back. “Yes, of course. Why should we persecute our own people? We are fighting a terrorist organisation that wants to divide the country. The war, or the fight, is not with the Tamil people.”

Providing protection for people fleeing a war zone or targeted persecution is not a matter of choosing sides. It is about providing help to human beings who are in genuine and serious danger. In speaking against the motion I moved in the Senate affirming this simple principle, Coalition speakers regularly mentioned the need to maintain the integrity of our nation’s borders, a phrase which resonates with a lot of people. However, I’ve never seen it explained how people turning up at our borders and asking for protection from persecution or death can be seen as threatening those borders. I certainly never heard any suggestion that West Germany complained that the integrity of their borders were being threatened when people fled the East.

130 Comments, Comment or Ping

Megan

Thanks Andrew – didn’t see this on question time yesterday.

The Howard Government are just plain MEAN.

As for the Tamil Tigers – how come any resistance to an invading force is labelled “terrorism”? You know, when the Boxing Day tsunami happened, I looked for an organisation to donate to, and they were the only group that appeared to be actively providing aid to that part of the world. As well as money, they were collecting blankets and food to ship to Sri Lanka.

Feb 27th, 2007
Damian Doyle

Congratulations, Andrew. It is clear that the government’s “policy” of turning asylum seekers away is a solid plank in its program, and one that will not be removed unless there is strong and principled opposition.

I feel very strongly about this issue and concur with your views. I’m glad that you are in the Senate as a representative of those who care about this issue. I can only hope that Australian democracy does its job sometime soon.

Feb 27th, 2007
DrJon

I am given to understand that Australian Immigration are also looking to deport Falun Gong refugees back to China.

The allegations of involuntary organ harvesting of Falun Gong members by the Chinese government have so far seemed to me to be credible. The Australian authorities can not but be aware of this situation.

Our government and our statutory bodies appear to have been taken over by Replicants. Where’s Harrison Ford when you need him?

Andrew, thank you for being one of the few actual real Humans in politics.

Feb 27th, 2007
ken

The reason those people voted against your motion was becasue you moved it – I’ll accept your puzzled bemusement as genuine – if you haven’t leanrt yet that on these sort of issues – irrespective of the merits of motions you or other of similar ilk put up they won’t be told what to do – you really shouldn’t be in the big house on the hill.

Howveer, I do agree these people shoudl have their claims approrpaitrly processed here in a timely fashion and their status determinede accordinlgy.

Perhasp ther’s more to that indo – OZ treaty after all….

Feb 27th, 2007
Lynette2

You’d think this latest arrival would punch a hole in the argument that the current policy deters asylum seekers, but they’re apparently wheeling it out again anyway.

Why would you bother about human rights when you’re not even required to make sense? Maybe that’s why they ignored you Andrew; you stated the obvious too plainly.

Feb 27th, 2007
CORAL

What is refoulment? Does that mean being sent back out into No Man’s Land?

These days, lots of people are scared of Arabs and Muslims – politicians must be included.

The Tamils also have an extremely bad reputation.

The local high school has a new Chaplain this year. My son said he looked like an Arab, and was a little afraid of taking his friend (who had a significant problem) to see him.

But I think the man has to be a Christian if he is working in a mainstream public high school. I think he has done a reasonable job of sorting out the boy’s problem.

I think John Howard crawls after the Indonesian government in the faint hope of averting an eventual invasion.

Feb 27th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

refoulement means returning people to situation where they face a real risk of death or persecution. It is a key principle of humanitarian law which evolved out of World War 2 and the lead up to that war, when many nations failed – or consciously refused – to provide protection for people fleeing persecution by the Nazis.

Ken, I have been in and around Parliament for over 16 years now, so I am well acquainted with having others vote against amendments and motions purely because they don’t like the person or party moving them. However, while getting support for amendments to legislation is very rare these days, one days get support for general motions from time to time, even from this government. However, I still sometimes find it mildly perplexing when people are willing to vote against a form of words they actually agree with, due to factors external to the actual words. The plain record of what people support or oppose lasts much longer than the political atmospherics of the day. However, I guess it’s just another example of the blinkers which the short-termism of politics can put on things

Feb 27th, 2007
adam

Andrew, thank you for summarising this issue for us so helpfully. Indeed, more than summarising.

And many thanks for pressing this government on its absolute abuse of the principles, practice, respect and support of human rights.

Feb 27th, 2007
Adam

I agree with my above namesake. It’s great to know Queensland has at least one genuinely progessive voice in the Senate. Just out of curiosity, what did the Labor Party and the Greens have to say about your motion, if anything?

Feb 27th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Labor and the Greens supported it Adam. There were a few speakers, but these links go to speeches by Labor’s Joe Ludwig and Linda Kirk, plus the Green’s Bob Brown.

Oh, and while I’m at it, here’s a link to mine.

Feb 28th, 2007
Paul Walter

Megan, am usually on side with your thoughts, but wonder if you are not “reducing” or over simplifying the the Tamil/ Sinhali conflict?
Would not the Sinhalese claim that the Tamils are the “invaders”?
In fact, of course, Sri Lanka suffers from a typical colonial idiocy,in this case courtesy of the British- the at times coercive importation of large amounts of Tamil labour from India to work the new tea plantation s of the nineteenth century to the advantage of the British tea producers.
Such a policy would have had little thought as to the welfare of Tamils or Sinhalese. As usually seems to happen with these sorts of unplanned importations of offshore labour, there has been a local reaction and resultant fueding that eventually reached an intensity that pushes the wider situation beyond recall.
’nuff said

Feb 28th, 2007
ken

I thought i posted this yesterday – maybe it got censored or I forgot to hit submit. Anyway lets try agian.

Lynette said – You’d think this latest arrival would punch a hole in the argument that the current policy deters asylum seekers, but they’re apparently wheeling it out again anyway.

Lets try the figures (Source DIAC)

1999- July 2001 – 9,500 arrivals
July – December 2001 – 1,544
2002 – 0
2003 – 0
2004 – 0
2005 – 7
2006 – 43 and now
2007 – 84

So that’s a horse I’d like ot get on if thats called puncturing an argument – makign no judgement on the rightness or wrongness just the facts

Feb 28th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

sorry Ken – there’s been a surge in spam again lately and the spam filter seems to be getting more assertive in an effort to couter it.

You’re right to point out that stat – it’s the one genuine string the government has got to hang it’s whole policy on (I think you’ve missed a few actually, like the Vietnamese boat that arrived at Port Hedland in 2003, but the general point from those figures remains the same)

although like all stats, they only tell part of the story. Last financial year, there were actually over 3300 refugee claims ldoged in Australia – it’s just that almost all of them managed to get here on a valid visa first, unlike the boat people. The biggest proportion of them come from China, one of our major, growing trading partners. (Many of these claims are unsuccessful, I should add, unlike the refugee claims of boat arrivals, the vast majority of which are found to be valid.)

Feb 28th, 2007
ken

Thanks Andrew – i know what happened I mentioned pinpr***ck rather than puncture – hecne the filter.

I just wonder taking the politics of “we say who comes here” etc out of it, to my mind ther’s no reason Australia should not accept an approrpaiet quota of refugees. Most people would surely agree.

Given the “successs” of the policy, one must ask why has that happened? Why did it dry up so dramatically?

Feb 28th, 2007
philip travers

I am like a refugee out at sea,have I been cast with the body snatchers that want a spare heart for their friends and allies and stuff me up in the spam contests!?The sugar plum fairies,ASIO.have they found somone within the Sri Lankan ranks that are not automatically the assembled green tea drinkers?Extremists being radicaliized surely means less superannuation monies for those whose super funds are investing in coal and Arvi Parbo..refugee supremo of all nice miners and aluminium boats.If Arvi Parbo is back on the beat,telling all and sundry,that they befoul the climate by their pseudo-science religion,take heart Senator!Parbo will solve the problem for you,just ask him!It is because he hasnt opened his mouth on this subject like that of climate change that the problem existed,but doesnt now.With an abundance of refugees like Parbo,why are the common persons refugees,like Sri Lankans so unacceptable?

Feb 28th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Lynette the refoulement was necessary because of what the world did to the Jewish refugees in 1938. 22 supposedly civilised nations, including Australia under Joe Lyons, got together in Evian France to decide what to do with Jewish refugees.

It was decided to send them all back and we know the results.

We have refouled Afghans though and they have been killed, one young Pakistani boy was killed, a Colombian man was killed and there have been many others in recent years.

Many have been arrested and tortured after being sent back to Iran, other’s dumped illegally in the wrong countries without documents.

What is intriguing is that Bill Farmer was dealing with the Pakistan embassy in 2002 to “prove” that Afghans were from Pakistan and was told they were not from Pakistan.

This is illegal under refugee law and our law according to the case of Chen Yong Lin. Andrew the letter is on the net from the October estimates round – attachment to question 221 asked by Linda Kirk.

Mar 1st, 2007
CORAL

Yesterday, the Liberals were talking about “people smugglers” in relation to this issue – not “asylum seekers”.

Mar 1st, 2007
red crab

i have only one thing to say
when the facts on what (some ) asylem seekers are actualy bringing with them.
then the attitude will change a lot.
i predict that hanson will convenietly find some proof .
then the govt will be seen to be doing the correct thing.

Mar 1st, 2007
CORAL

I think the United Nations should close all of the barn doors before all of the horses have been forced to bolt – and deal with the people behaving like animals more effectively.

A person should not have to leave his/her country of origin because of the ill-behaved and dangerous.

Mar 1st, 2007
Damian Doyle

Andrew, ta for linking to the text of your motion and speech. I especially like the final comment:

India has 100,000 refugees from Sri Lanka. We get 83 and suddenly we think that our borders are being compromised. It is ludicrous.

Good on you.

Mar 1st, 2007
Paul Walter

Andrew, thanks for including yours and others Senate debate comments. Notice that the underlying, overriding policy of government on any and every issue before parliament; suppression of relevant information is as usual in play.
“Good governance”, no doubt the more misanthropic and curmudgeonly would claim, but more like embarrassed Fascist or Stalinist authoritarianism, I would say.
I draw contributors attention to an interesting point raised by Marilyn Shepherd, concerning canvassing of the Sri Lankan government by Australian officials. This reminded me of the nonsense that went on with the government trying to get Indonesia to alibi them to avoid the West Papuans last year.
Since when do “we make our own decisions about who comes here” when we have to have even our most mundane decisons vetted beforehand by Washington, Colombo or Djakarta, like children interrogated before a schoolmaster?
If last week’s Obama gaff wasn’t enough, on top of all the other Les Patterson-ish stuff from Howard and Downer over the years, now this embarrassment, to send the cringe back along its familiar path down the writer’s spine. ecchh!

Mar 1st, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Coral, the UN has no right to clean up the messes. As for the government ranting about people smugglers. Same old same old.

Every person has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution – if these people had gone to the other 143 nations who have signed the refugee convention there would not be any whining about smuggling because it is not smuggling.

The AFP knew they were in Indonesia and if past form is acted out again it is the Australian run UN office who told them to come to Australia – like those on SIEVX were.

It is not smuggling if the nations involved know and if the people have no interest in hiding themselves from the authorities.

We don’t jail people smugglers – they traffick girls into Australia as sex slaves and we do nothing.

It is quite legal to catch a boat to Australia to seek protection – India and Indonesia can and do send people back to be killed.

Mar 1st, 2007
PC police

Andrew

Why wouldn’t you expect India to be their natural place of refuge? Tamils are Indian by race, India is a democracy with established human rights track record, it is next door and the place is booming. why the need to travel a great distance when they could have easily gone to India. this doesn’t gel right to me. Sorry

They belong in India rather that here.

Mar 2nd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Yeah right PC. Just because India has Tamils they will be welcome. We have poms but we hate the cricket team.

India has not signed the refugee convention, they have over 1 billion people living on top of each other and millions living on the street.

Sri Lankans come here to play cricket – do you like that?

It’s like slipping back into a time warp of stupidity as if all the reports and horrors of the last 6 years have not happened. So we do it again.

Mar 2nd, 2007
ken

So we do it again , says Marilyn? It would appear what has actrually happended is that soem otehr people have made a decsion to try to seek safety in this country again. Why? I suspect someone has decided that given the changing political landscape, pressure on Howard etc – “let’s gvie it a go again”

What everyone has conveniently sidestepped, apart from Andrew acknowledgin the accuracy of it, in their desire to relive the past is to ponder why thousadns of people, suddenly and without exception decided to stop getting on boats because “every person has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution”.

I agree with those rights by the way – clearly the need for refuge still exists – surely no one can be serious in suggesting that the poor souls in some persecuted place read up their Herald daily and realsied the mean old Howard gvoernment policies meant they’d have to go somewhere else?

People make decsions eitehhr based on immediate need – “I’m hubngry – find food”, or longer term need and goals – so who made the decsion to by pass Australai. Clearly the whole refugee process is an organised supply chain, with lots of people feeding off the chain – not odd thats how all buinsess works. Its a shame this opne appears to rely on the gullibilty and expolitation of people in such dire situations.

Mar 2nd, 2007
CORAL

PC police:

You make a good point. If I had to leave the country, I would feel much more comfortable with people who look the same, speak the same language and have the same customs as I do.

Mar 2nd, 2007
Franklin

The possibility that the asylum seekers are economic migrants cannot and should not be automatically discounted. Anyone with an open mind would explore a diversity of views, and the automatic assumption that the asylum seekers are refugees escaping persecution should not be made without investigation.

It needs to be acknowledged that people attempt to leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic and social reasons as well as for political reasons, and that by posing as asylum seekers and refugees the 1951 Refugee Convention provides them with a chance to gain admittance to the West and all the advantages of living in first world countries. Many developing countries haven’t been able to provide basic freedoms, growth and decent living standards, but have developed enough for the emergence of a relatively well-educated middle class who watch the West on TV and the Internet and yearn for the opportunities they see there. Global criminal syndicates dealing in people smuggling target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting illegal immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia. They include genuine refugees in each cargo and often include children to ramp up the sympathy factor, so that the distinction between migrant and refugee has now unfortunately become very blurred.

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “DARK VICTORY OR CIRCUIT BREAKER: AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE SYSTEM POST TAMPA” detailing the disfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be found at:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2

Mar 2nd, 2007
Damian Doyle

Very convenient, PC. By your logic we only have to accept Kiwis, Poms, and Americans, yeah? That’s not exactly in line with our international obligation to offer protection to those seeking asylum, is it?

Mar 2nd, 2007
Paul Walter

Franklin , your description of the symptomatic microprocesses are interesting as a side issue. But the fact remains that unless the world (and the rich West in particular) starts to get its act together concerning the underlying appalling crime, for billions of victims, of global poverty, and encourages a more urgent redistribution of basic resources based on need rather than corporate greed, people will be encouraged to continue to escape undeserved poverty, illness, pain, despair and grief. And as experts like Stiglitz and Sachs have demonstrated, this could be acheived without disruption for the world economy.
“It is every prisoner’s duty to escape” and we would be the first to do so, if we faced even remotely the same misfortunes and conditions.

Mar 2nd, 2007
ken

While what you say Paul is intuitively sensibel and probably logically accurate, it both, initially fails to recognise the biological drveirs of behaviour and then lastly does so. Unfortunatly the two always have and probably always will work agaisnt each otehr.

Mar 2nd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Franklin

Of course a person claiming asylum can turn out to be an economic migrant. That’s why we have a system for assessing their claim, as we do for anyone else who applies for other types of visas. However, asylum seekers are assessed much more thoroughly and have fewer rights than most other visa applicants. In addition, recent history shows us that the vast majority of people who arrive by boat are genuine refugees – unlike the far greater number (well over 3000 last year) those who arrive with a visa and then seek asylum, only a minority of whose claims are accepted.

As for Adrienne Milbank’s paper, I don’t think anyone has ever suggested the global system for handling refugees works well, but I don’t see how that justifies trashing it and taking a one out approach of forcing people (the vast majority of whom are refugees) back to danger or locking up innocent children and adults for years. Making the existing system work better would be a better idea (although some of it also goes to rich-world attitudes to migrants, which current policies are not handling well)

As to Ken’s comment, refugee numbers ebb and flow in various parts of the world for a wide variety of reasons. None of our previous punitive actions such as prolonged detention, temporary visas and forced separation from family had any discernible impact, but it is fair to say that using our military to intercept refugees and force them back to danger, coupled with a Guantanamo Bay style process of assessing those people who do arrive outside of any legal system, has had some impact on reducing boat arrivals, although as I mentioned, people claiming protection from within Australia is still well over 3000 a year, and number of refugee claimants have dropped substanitally in recent years in any case – certainly in our region.

The question of how we should deal with economic ‘refugees’/migrants is one that I think merits much more thought than it gets, but it really is a separate issue

Mar 2nd, 2007
CORAL

I don’t think it is a separate issue, Andrew.

The term Franklin is looking for is an Immigration Queue Jumper.

A relative of mine used to work for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Queue jumpers tried to drive him crazy every five minutes, every day of the week.

I think Franklin, Paul and Ken all make excellent points worthy of consideration.

Mar 3rd, 2007
Paul Walter

Thank you for your kind observation, Coral.
The Feral Abacus will be most dismayed that we are not “quarrelling”.

Mar 3rd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Coral, there is no such thing as a refugee queue jumper. What a ridiculous statement that always was as it suggests that people in danger should wait around somewhere until Australia has a place on the queue.

Absurd in the extreme. And now Indonesia have debunked most of the rant by stating clearly that they told Downer they will send the Sri Lankans straight back as they have not signed the refugee convention and don’t intend to.

The strange thing Coral is that all those “refugees” we claim to resettle have been living safely elsewhere for as long as 17 years and most of them are not refugees at all but the families of those we have tried to keep separated for the past 8 years or so under the TPV system.

Not only that but anyone with enough money can jump the migrant queue just by paying enough.

Mar 3rd, 2007
CORAL

Marilyn:

What I find ridiculous is your reference to a “refugee queue jumper”. I don’t think anyone else has used that particular term, but it probably is quite valid.

It isn’t uncommon for immigration queue jumpers to pose as refugees.

Every time this topic comes up, you seem to be in there boots and all, insulting other people with a zeal bordering on fanaticism.

One cannot help but wonder what your particular agenda is – but I think we could probably all give it a fair guess.

You state that anyone with enough money can jump the migrant queue just by paying enough.

The only people I am aware of that they could be paying off are the “people smugglers” referred to by the Liberals.

Mar 4th, 2007
Donna

Actually Coral

The business visa is just that. Foreigners with enough money can come to Australia, on the condition that they set up a business within a couple of years that employs at least four people. If the business proves viable, they get permanent residency.

This type of immigrant is well-cashed up and virtually pays their way into the country.

Marilyn makes no secret of what her ‘agenda’ is. She is a lobbyist for refugees, and one that is well respected.

Every time this topic comes up, it is you that is in there boots and all. No fence sitting on your part.
I don’t blame Marilyn for insulting your posts. They make me cringe.

Mar 4th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

I don’t wish to sound rude Coral, but in this instance you have no idea what you are talking about.

If your relative that used to work for the Immigration Dept seriously complained about “Queue jumpers driving him crazy every five minutes”, then it is very good news that he no longer works for the Immigration Dept, as they have been grossly misleading you.

There is no refugee or humanitarian visa queue. Asylum seekers are assessed against the humanitarian criteria, and if they don’t fit it, they are liable to be returned. Some as people who apply for any other visa, except that if we get the decision wrong, we can be condemning them to death if we send them back.

Indeed, few of our general immigration visas have queues. Most of them just have set criteria, and if people can meet them (and can afford the application fee and pass health and character criteria), they are given a visa.

Marilyn is technically wrong to say that people with lots of money can “jump the migrant queue”, but her implication is right – people with lots of money are usually able to satisfy the criteria for a range of visas. They don’t need to try to pretend to be refugees.

By contrast, refugee visas relate to whether or not people have a valid fear of persecution, not how much money they have. That’s why it is a separate issue to normal migration visa applicant – economic or otherwise.

Mar 4th, 2007
ken

Andrew – Ebb and flow? hmm… 9,000 to 0 is certainly a king tidal ebb and flow.

perhasp soem of the well respected commentators can tell me why

Mar 5th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Ken, 9,000 to 0 – is that something to be proud of do you think when we have bombed Iraq and created 2 million refugees and refuse to accept any of them?

Each year thousands of people fly here after lying about why they are coming, they get visas on the internet, they come as tourists and all travel legally.

Now a maxim in the refugee world is this – genuine refugees are usually not able to travel “legally” so it is accepted under the conventions that they travel without documents and should not be punished so long as they turn themselves over the authorities at the earliest possible time.

To claim some sort of high moral ground that we have less asylum seekers is absurd as there are more refugees in the world today than 4 years ago but we don’t do a single thing to help them.

And Coral, if there were queues then we are the only country in the world that knows about them.

Mar 5th, 2007
red crab

marilyn
i have read all of your posts since i got on this site .
not once have i read any sort of a solution to the problem of asylem seekers who arive here from you .
what are your veiws on how and what action the govt should take.

Mar 5th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Paul Walter is an accurate soothsayer of my mood – I’m dismayed indeed!

Just how many relatives do you have Coral? It seems that you can call upon testimony from an acquaintance or a relation for every circumstance and every issue. Call me cynical if you must, Coral, but given your background in medical research, I’m sure you would be aware of the extremely limited value of anecdotal evidence. Anyway, here’s my personal anecdote a la Coral:

Refugees changed my life and my world view. My intellectual and cultural horizons have been enormously expanded by a bunch of peasants who arrived in this country from the wreckage of WW2 with nothing other than their vitality and wit, their considerable intelligence and talents, and their earnest desire to contribute to their new adopted homeland, which — by the way — consistently and perversely rejected their offerings and labelled their efforts as inferior. Many of my closest and dearest friends are the children of WW2 refugees. Neither they nor I ever came to grips with their parents’ patriotism for their countries of origin, nor could we really understand the depths of their disappointments and frustrations here. And the refugees’ pain of living away from the places that had meaning to them, coupled with the knowledge that they could never return to those places as they had known them, was something that was too deep for us to fathom.

I can hardly believe that we are still arguing over whether or not we can find room for refugees in Australian society. The reality is that by (grudgingly) offering a place here for refugees, Australia receives far more than it provides. The niggardly mean-spiritedness with which the debate is conducted galls me, sickens me.

Paul W, thankyou for giving me a laugh: I had bad news today and you’ve brightened my evening.

Mar 5th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Ken

I’m not sure what the 9000 figure is meant to represent. I think even at it’s 2000-2001 peak, boat arrivals didn’t get higher than about 4500. In any case, as I stated above asylum seekers do not just arrive by boat – they are just the most desparate and (history shows us) far more likely to be genuine. We’ve never got close to zero asylum seekers. My ‘ebb and flow’ comment related to all refugees, not just boat arrivals.

However, as I have acknowleged, the use of our defence force to intercept and repel asylum seeker boats has certainly had an effect on boat arrivals in Australia. Whether the human cost (or the financial cost for those who wish to assess it through that prism) was worth it is another question, particularly when one takes into account it’s wider impact on how other countries handle asylum seekers.

Mar 5th, 2007
Donna

Come to think of it Feral Abacus, I am the descendent of a refugee. My great grandmother was forced to flee the Potato Famine. So I suppose she was an economic refugee. And I think that’s what a lot of Australians are – the descendents of economic refugees. Australia is a long way from anywhere. It’s a pretty drastic measure to decide to come here.

Mar 5th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Donna – quite so, especially along the eastern seaboard where the Irish diaspora featured so strongly in early immigration patterns.

In 19th C SA there seem to have been fewer economic refugees and more political and religious refugees. The wine industry was largely founded by Lutheran refugees fleeing religious persecution. And of course SA’s early reputation for progressive social attitudes largely rests upon the influence the Friends (Quakers), who were arguably fleeing persecution.

Mar 5th, 2007
Deborah

#41 “Just how many relatives do you have Coral? It seems that you can call upon testimony from an acquaintance or a relation for every circumstance and every issue. Call me cynical if you must, Coral, but given your background in medical research, I’m sure you would be aware of the extremely limited value of anecdotal evidence.”

I was just thinking the same thing. Neighbours, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and relatives all get a guernsey with Coral, and their views are testimony to the state of Australia.

I thought the background was said to be journalistic research.

I’m heartily sick of the demonising of refugees and minorities too. I’m in complete agreement with Justice Kirby, in that the ongoing obsession and hysteria of 9/11 is way past it’s expiry date. It’s all gone pete tong anyway (the war and all).

We need to get some sense of perspective and proportion. The government can’t continue to hide behind terrorism as the excuse for demonising those who have done no wrong, and refusal to meet Australia’s international obligations to all asylum seekers.

Hope you’re feeling better Feral –

Mar 6th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

My great-great whatever number grand parents were refugees too. They jumped on a boat out of Silesia in 1844 and came here to escape the Prussian army and forced conscription for their sons.

My Welsh relatives escaped the poverty when the tin wheals flooded in the 1880’s and had to be closed down and caused great stress and trauma for thousands of Welsh and Cornish miners, they are another family branch. There are some French gypsies escaping persecution in the region and some Scots and Irish fleeing famine and strife.

EP, what is your family background because I would stake my life that your family came from somewhere else on a boat.

As for my solution – all we have to do is live up to our own law which we guaranteed to do when we signed the refugee convention and protocol. That is assess claims when they turn up and not send people back to danger.

Easy really.

Mar 6th, 2007
Keeran

This news item is not encouraging.

http://www.tamilsydney.com/content/view/437/37/

http://www.tamilsydney.com/content/view/430/37/

Mar 6th, 2007
ken

Marilyn #39 – While I understadn your deep feelings it would be helpful if you didn’t impute motives or misinterpret the words of others. Lets assume lack of capability as opposed to malice.

No suggestion of gloating or moral high ground in any of my posts, find it if you can. Simply a question. Why did they stop coming?

Andrew, equally can’t seem to answer without bringing up other realted but peripheral issues to the question. I suspect the real reason, no one wnats to acknowledge, is that somewhere in the supply chain, someone realsied more money was to be made eleswhere.

Mar 6th, 2007
Deborah

According to Fr Frank Brennan at A Just Australia,

http://www.ajustaustralia.com/home.php

they have stopped coming because of Australian policy now permanently in place.

Tampering with Asylum:

http://www.ajustaustralia.com/informationandresources_speeches.php?act=speeches&id=7

” …Now that only two boats have made it close to Australia in the last 18 months, it is time to review the firebreak and to assess the permanent measures that are now in place.

The firebreak has consisted of five key elements:

* Payments to Indonesian authorities to engage in upstream disruption activities that would never be reported to the parliament of either country
* Instructions to our navy to engage in brinskmanship on the high seas requiring non-intervention until persons including children have ended up in the sea abandoning unseaworthy vessels
* Long term detention of asylum seekers in remote desert locations
* Detention and processing of asylum seekers in Pacific locations out of the reach of Australian courts, lawyers and those of us now affectionately known as the do gooder cappuccino set
* Three year temporary protection visas denying the right to travel and return to Australia (in breach of the Convention on Refugees), denying the right of family reunion and denying access to permanent protection and residence if the person transited a country such as Malaysia for seven days where they could be deemed to have had the opportunity to seek protection. This deeming exercise is very artificial when you consider that Malaysian minister Dr Rais Yatim explained last week why Malaysia would not sign the Refugee Convention: “We have had a series of understandings with (other countries), that once their people come here and claim asylum, we automatically tell them to return. Our policy is very simple, those who have no valid documents will not be allowed to stay in our country.”

Mar 6th, 2007
Franklin

Deborah:

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative book review of Fr Frank Brennan’s book “Tampering with Asylum”. It is logical and reasoned and presents an alternate view to yours that is well worth considering. Maybe you would be interested to read it. It can be found at:

elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=128

Mar 6th, 2007
Donna

Feral

I shall be more respectful of Lutherans from now on, particularly on Friday nights, knowing they deserve the credit for the bottle I so enjoy at the end of the week.

Mar 6th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Ken:
I’m not sure why I shouldn’t bring up related issues when addressing your question. The 5 elements of Frank Brennan’s listed in Deborah’s comment detail what is often portrayed as the reasons why the flow of boats has reduced significantly (but not the flow of asylum seekers, as I think is appropriate to keep pointing out).

Personally, I think only the first 2 have had an effect – possibly in conjunction with the major deterrent effect of the very public deaths of 353 people through the sinking of the SIEV X, and the risk of being returned to danger that comes with being refused due process through procesing on Nauru.

I haven’t seen any evidence that mandatory detention had any deterrent effect. Likewise, the only consequence of introducing temporary visa and deliberately keeping families separated was to force women and children into the boats as well (and this why the vast majority who drowned on the SIEV X were children and women). Prior to the TPV, the vast proportion of people on boats were men.

Franklin:
I am very familiar with Adrienne Millbank’s take on things through various papers she wrote for the federal Parliamentary Library (see this one as an example). Nowhere in her review of Frank Brennan’s book does she indicate why “managed migration and refugee resettlement” is inconsistent with Brennan’s position. More importantly, in attacking Fr Brennan’s views – and those of almost every refugee advocate in Australia – she seems to see no need to explain how brutalising people who arrive by boat, including children, especially in a deliberate pre-meditated way, is in any way acceptable.

Mar 6th, 2007
Anne

There are many things to look at before answering the question regarding asylum seekers.Firstly why have they left there country of origin,(2)why not go to the correct end of the line.(3)if they are truely in danger why not go to the closest country why travel to Australia.(4)Are they aware Australia has many problems,lack of water,housing as well as health & many other areas.The list can go on,how sure can Australian’s be that they aren’t terrorists?If they are trying to escape problems in their own country why do they bring them here?

Mar 6th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Donna, if your wine comes from the Barossa Valley, its almost certain that descendants of the Lutheran refugees had a large hand in its making.

Ironically, those early German settlers were exactly the sort of migrants that PM Howard tells us that Australia does not want. Not only did they not speak English when they arrived, but German was still the language spoken in many Barossa homes over 100 years after they arrived. Some of the more traditional Barossa congregations still conducted German-language services 30 years ago. They also formed enclaves, living as they did in rather isolated villages.

Then there were all the security scares that arose during WW1 and WW2. I went to school with someone whose grandfather was jailed as an enemy alien during both wars, despite being 2nd or 3rd generation Australian. It also became `necessary’ for the authorities to rename the German settlements after the sites of Allied battlefield victories. Oddly enough, this was at a time when the YMCA was distributing copies of `The Song of Australia’ to Australian troops in France, the music for which was composed by the South Australian German immigrant Carl Linger.

And yet today we’re all happy to bask in the glow of the heritage of a group that by Howard’s yardstick should be regarded as a migration disaster…

Deborah: Thanks, I’m fine but I’d had news yesterday of someone being unexpectedly very ill. My apologies for creating the wrong impression.

Mar 6th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

In response to Anne’s questions:
(1) because they claim to be at risk of serious persecution
(2) there usually is no “correct end of the line” for them to go to. At best, there are a number of pools rather than a line, with no clear order in which people are resettled. At worst, there is no ability to apply for asylum and/or no security while they await an outcome.
(3) in the case of Sri Lankans, reportedly at least 100 000 of them have gone to the closet country, which is India. Why Australia should say 100 000 of them going to India is OK but 83 of them coming here is not is not immediately apparent to me.
(4) Australia is willingly admitting over 150 000 permanent migrants each year, plus more than double that in temporary residents. It would look rather threadbare to suggest to asylum seekers that we don’t have the financial or ecological resources (particularly given the evidence that new arrivals have been a net wealth generator for Australia).

As for the “how do we know they aren’t terrorists” question, every single asylum seeker has to undergo an ASIO security assessment – unlike the vast majority of the 150 000+ new permanent residents who came here last year. That’s not a complete guarantee of course – nothing can be – but neither can you guarantee the bona fides of anyone else who comes here, including the millions of tourists and other visitors.

Mar 6th, 2007
Alphonse

Anne,

“Correct end of the line” you say. Did you read the bit about queue jumping up above? No doubt you did, because that’s what civilised people do (unlike some).

So what do you think of the senator’s take on lines (you know, like queues?) that need to entered at the “correct end”? Would casualty wards also be improved by better ordered intake? Vetinary hospitals?

That bit about terrorists: I heard Peter Reith say it on TV around the time of the Tampa election. What a guy!

Another thing the senator pointed out up above was that nearly all the returnees got here by plane, not boat. What do you think that means?

(I think the terrorists are more into planes than boats too – especially sinky leaky boats)

Mar 6th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Anne, your house is on fire along with 20 or 30 of the neighbours as happened in Canberra a few years ago. You have to evacuate or die.

Are you going to wait at the correct end of the line and risk your life?

Thought not. Milbank said in 1999 papers for the Parliament “the problem with the refugee convention is that people have to get to the nearest country that has signed the convention”.

She failed to say why this was a problem. And as Andrew said she failed to say why torturing children on purpose was acceptable.

Mar 7th, 2007
Paul Walter

I think you have all overreacted a little to Coral’s “queue jumper” comment.
Why is it so inconceivable that some folk might attempt to pass themselves off as refugees to gain entry, when not actually refugees?

Coral, the issue people take you to task upon is based on a sense that you would resent even genuine applications being considered. You could clear that one up yourself, in one sentence. After all, you would hardly begrudge a traumatised true refugee a chance of hope, would you?
If you were in as much of a mess as a real refugee you would hope for a little mercy, wouldn’t you?
This is not what would happen if the latest lot were sent back to Indonesia, which has said they will be directly sent back to certain danger in war-torn Sri Lanka.
As to where the applications are processed, I agree it should only be a secondary matter, so long as the applications are processed on the facts and applicants decently treated in the interim.
But there seems to have been problems with the fairness, efficiency and politicisation of the offshore and general internment processes over recent times; for the sceptical a puzzlement at the motives behind the secrecy.
A “Guantanamo-isation” of the processes has been felt to be happening which leaves the processes open to secrecy, contempt prior to investigation in the assessments and abuse of powerless applicants, that compromises the primacy of the fairness aspect.
In other words, if it’s fair, why hide it?
Quite the opposite, you would think, if it was all above board.

Mar 7th, 2007
Deborah

Hi Franklin, I did have a look at the book review of Brennan’s ‘Tampering with Asylum’ by Adrienne Millbank.

My impression was that she did not offer any argument against Fr. Brennan’s position of a compassionate and moral obligation to refugees. Her main assertion was that Australia should not be held accountable to the standards set by other, higher asylum countries – too complex she says.

Millbank also fails to reconcile conflicting Australian policy, that whilst we don’t receive a large influx of asylum seekers, we feel a need to have harsher and more cruelly punitive deterrent measures than the other countries.

I have also seen an article from Adrienne Millbank arguing against a guest worker program for pacific nations.

I wonder where she stands on the 457 visa rorts?

Feral and Donna, I come from Polish/German pioneering stock who emigrated to SA in 1844 from Dabrowka (renamed Gross Dammer under Prussian rule then back again after independence). The reasons cited for emigration in my family history book were mainly economic and political – oppression under Prussian rule, decreasing availability of land and religious persecution (disenchantment with Roman Catholicism led them to change to Lutheranism).

The early family lived in Hahndorf and Nain, my father was born in Barmera, is 76 and remembers great grandparents who did not speak English.

Mar 7th, 2007
ken

Well it seems between Brennan, Millgate, Bartlett et al, the answer is no one really knows, or at least ahs any sustaianble data or strucutured source infromaotin to really do more than posit a position probalby based moer on their own value position than anything else.

Which is reasonable enough – at the end of the day – it probably doesn’t mattter to me that a few peole do come here this way – I don’t think the borders are under much threat.

As for backgrounds find anyone in Australia without a polyglot background – the point is irrelevant – mines english, germanic and italian, much the same as those above.

Mar 7th, 2007
CORAL

Paul:

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times before, I sponsored children in Latin America for 18 years. I’m an humanitarian, but I’m not stupid. I think I look at things on a much broader basis than most people.

Everyone:

The term “immigration queue jumper” is a figurative term used to describe anyone who comes here by illegitimate means, who is not a genuine refugee.

It does not include business people coming here on visas. What they’re doing is legal.

The idea that workers from the Immigration Department don’t know what really goes on is so insulting that I wouldn’t waste my time worrying about it.

Yes, I know lots of people (some are relatives) who work in interesting places.

Yes, I do take notice of things that are happening in the real world around me – and I do my own thinking outside of the view’s of so-called “experts”.

Experts used to think the world was flat.

I make no apology for being an intelligent human being who has some first-hand knowledge of some fairly interesting things.

When I was a little girl, my best friend was the daughter of GENUINE (German) refugees. Lots of my friends and acquaintances are people of foreign extraction.

There is more dishonesty around now than there was after WW2 – including “refugees” who CLAIM to be at risk of serious persecution.

Believe half of what you see – and nothing of what you hear or read.

Anne:

“The correct end of the line” is where the United Nations makes a genuine effort to help sort matters out in the homeland, so that people are not displaced.

Andrew:

When ASIO rejects people, you seem unwilling to accept the umpire’s decision.

Mar 7th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Coral it is not illegitimate to seek asylum in Australia without documents. It is legal under the refugee convention to arrive in any country without papers so long as the people turn themselves into the authorities. You have the wrong end of the stick on that one.

As for those German refugees after the WW11 – 700 of them were nazis.

Mar 7th, 2007
Donna

Paul

‘Why is it so inconceivable that some folk might attempt to pass themselves off as refugees to gain entry, when not actually refugees?’

I don’t think folk are unwilling to consider some pose as refugees. It’s just tiresome, and mean spirited, as Feral has commented, that there are those (and always the same bloody people aren’t they Coral) who, when the subject arises, dogmatically focus on that very small percentage who are not genuine.

It’s unreasonable to focus solely on those that arrive on a leaky boat, who do not ‘look the same’, and tend to be the genuine refugees, and conveniently ignore those that arrive by air who, happen to ‘look the same’, and are illegal.

I’m just getting fed up with Coral and her relatives. Save it for the next family gathering Coral. Impose your ‘intelligence’ on them instead. I want to see the return of John Tracey and other interesting posters who seem to have disappeared since Coral arrived.

John Tracey was a truly insightful poster. I learnt a lot from him.

Feral

Thanks for that info on German settlers. I was unaware that SA had regions that were somewhat a little Germany. They’re presence has truly impacted positively, both culturally and economically, on SA. I do tend to drink the Wolf Blass label. I think that sounds German. And I think it might be a SA export.

Deborah

I was reading somewhere recently that Polish women are the most beautiful in the world.

Mar 7th, 2007
Paul Walter

Ha, ha: you’re all fritzes, too?!
Yeah guess. On my old boy’s side. Also an 1840’s lot that got imported to SA because they were persecuted in East Prussia.
Coral has brought her concerns into the open. Good.
I’d just reiterate my earlier point that too much of it all has been conducted in secrecy. Why?
The thing is, when done the way the government has done it over the last half dozen years, it creates unease and people see things as becoming politicised and suspect the intrusion of bias in the process.
You see, you say in your last paragraph, adressed to Andrew, that:
“When ASIO rejects someone, you seem unwilling to acept the umpire’s decision”.
But given the current political climate, with lack of acountability through suppression of FOI etc, and the appointment of people who accept the same personal beliefs, good or bad, of the government, can you be sure that these people are still capable of being objective?
Don’t you think the Hicks case alone could a source of alarm if the same approach and attitudes extend to refugees? What if the most relevent details are left out because of some politically-inspired law?
Consider Rau and Alvarez?
It’s possibly literally life and death for those under scrutiny and the process MUST be “best practice”, if people’s doubts are to be assuaged.

Mar 7th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

ken, I think the point re backgrounds is that there’s a bit of mongrel in each of us. Apart from indigenous Australians, we (or our forebears) all got here at some point in the last 200-odd years from a variety of sources, and many of us arrived as economic refugees, to escape persecution or to flee the disasters of war. So its a way of pointing out that the current refugee ‘crisis’ is not so new.

For the record, I’m mostly anglo-something, with a dash of german (more fritz, Paul Walter!) and allegedly a whiff of french. No idea why my forebears arrived – family history is not a strong point among the Abacus clan.

Donna, Wolf Blass is a Barossa Valley winery established by a recent German migrant – Wolf Blass – who arrived in Australia in 1961.

Mar 8th, 2007
Paul Walter

Donna, was just looking for a chance to find some common ground and encourage a common space.
Things remain polarised and mutual irritation only increases the problem.
Don’t forget, the people have had insecurities that go with globalisation massaged by media and opportunist politicians. It’s going to be difficult to win many over without making the effort to find out why they feel what they feel and addressing and reassuring them on those terms.
Hectoring the cautious or nervous will only reinforce a retreat into isolation and only benefit the scavengers who have thrived on division .

Mar 8th, 2007
CORAL

Donna:

Trying to remove other posters from the thread/site is not a good debating tactic.

You might think again about who is dogmatically focussed ….. on excluding those with views differing from their own ….. a trait you seem to share with a couple of other women.

Paul:

You are definitely on the right track in relation to who can or cannot be trusted. Graft and corruption abound everywhere we go. Unfortunately, I am unable to mention a couple of things you might be interested in knowing.

I cannot help it if some people want to extrapolate in a negative direction every time I have something to say.

Marilyn:

I said nothing about it being illegitimate to seek asylum in Australia without documents. I don’t have either end of the stick on that one.

You are extrapolating (in a negative fashion) on other comments I made.

Let me see now. You said 700 German WWII refugees were Nazis. How about applying that kind of thinking across the board, instead of just bringing it out to attack other posters.

I asked my relative again about the people driving him nuts on the phone every five minutes. He worked in visas – and yes, he has definitely left.

The immigration queue jumpers he was referring to were those described by Donna – “paying their way in” on visas to start businesses.

He said his use of the term “Immigration (Department) queue jumpers” meant “anyone trying to take up nearly all of his time trying to jump the service queue” i.e. trying to push their own claim ahead of other people’s.

There are many meanings which can be drawn from one little phrase.

BTW in the unlikely event that you might be interested, one of my sons had his back fence burned down in the Canberra fires.

When he phoned me asking for survival advice, I told him to go and jump in the lake.

Fortunately, he didn’t misconstrue my meaning or twist it into something it wasn’t.

Mar 8th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Coral, pushing a claim ahead of someone else’s is quite legal and I fail to understand why you keep coming back to it.

Who cares? 5 million people come to Australia each year and I presume they all come instead of someone else.

Mar 8th, 2007
Donna

Paul

I understand what you are saying. But I obviously don’t feel the same sense of tolerance towards certain individuals that are grossly intolerant towards others.

I think it’s something along the lines of good men let bad things happen.

I’m grossly intolerant towards individuals that assume the superior white male stance. Women can be appalling perpetrators of this attitude.

Mar 8th, 2007
CORAL

Donna:

I think the saying you are looking for goes something like this:

“All it takes for evil to thrive is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing.”

I’d like to know why nothing is being done about your unwarranted personal attacks on other posters – in this instance myself – which overinterpret their reasonable concerns in an extreme direction.

BTW an individual is a “who”, not a “that”.

Mar 9th, 2007
Kaye Bernard

The language and descriptors created and used since the 2001 election by this Government, particularly their construct of ‘queue jumpers’, assisted them politically in separating out and deamonising refugees who arrive by boat(on-shore asylum claimants, who come to Australia without being asked) from those Refugees who get a personal invite from the Australian government, while they’re in one of the refugee camps around the world (off-shore refugees, has led to a lot of misinformation and mythes being bounded about.

The Government current theme to excuse the demonstrably flawed and excessively expensive offshore policy is that they concentrate on batting people smugglers through mistreating refugees& insisting on sending them to Christmas Island Nauru.

The Government have said they would go to any cost to keep boat arrivals offshore and this has led to massive amounts of money being wasted but noone has blinked much at this.

I wonder how the Government would address the offshore policy (OP) issue if it was debated in terms of their new found conservation values regarding climate change?

The Government dreastically increase air travel by using the OP. One young West Papuan girl was flown about 20,000 kilometres in a matter of weeks last year because of the OP.

It seems the failed attempt to return the sri Lankans to indonesia will lead to Nauru and the men and numerous Australian officials and staff will be flown back and forth during their internment there.

Mar 9th, 2007
Paul Walter

Am grappling here- patience!
Is the real issue “queue jumpers, or the possibility that the government has wasted years, lives and billions of dollars on a system constructed to operate first and formost as a vote-winner, when the electorate is “tuned” a certain way?
Have other politicians throughout history behaved in such a Machiavellian way? I begin to feel a bit like the animals looking through the windown at the pigs and farmers banqueting, at the end of “Animal Farm”
What of the “war on terrorism”?
Is it “bogus”, too?
Is it a Mcarthyism designed to scare the people into accepting a government that pushes anti-social policies ( eg Hicks/”sedition”, IR “reform”, qantas selloff and ausfta, environmental degradation as the price for “growth”, institutionalised rorting, dumbing-down of media. All of which represent actually a threat to civilisation- if people and a society are denied access to accurate information and resources, how can they plan and live their lives?
Or is the above just conspiricist fear?
Well, am a bit like Coral. Cautious. But concerning many different issues have become very suspicious of politics as practiced by people like Howard and Bush. So in that way, more like Donna and co, have become feel suspicious of politicians and tycoons in the way Coral is sceptical about “queue-jumping”.
Which is not to say that am totally convinced yet that the opposition groups have got alternatives worked out completely yet.
But more of the same from Howard and Bush of recent times and it will become very easy to embark on a leap of faith next time elections come around.
Hope this will not be “live in hope; die in despair”- must test my water.

Mar 9th, 2007
CORAL

Well that about sums it up, Paul.

Mar 9th, 2007
Donna

Paul Walter

There’s a difference between ‘cautious’ and ‘redneck’. And that’s no disrespect to our very own blogger named ‘redneck’, who doesn’t portray any of the narrow mindedness that usually go with the territory.

Mar 10th, 2007
CORAL

I would like to get something straight here.

I am not against Australia taking in refugees. I think it is only fair that they are processed quickly and efficiently, instead of being left in limbo.

I do not mind if this happens offshore, as long as the relevant staff are available, and the refugees are not left incommunicado.

I have no interest in allowing boatloads of people to drown, or sending them back to places where they will be murdered or tortured.

But if they should turn out to be Muslim terrorists, Tamil butchers, Nazis or anyone else involved in a dangerous group – I do not want them here.

What I do mind is people trying to peg me at one extreme.

Mar 12th, 2007
Kaye Bernard

Coral when you say that “I do not mind if this happens offshore, as long as the relevant staff are available, and the refugees are not left incommunicado.” I am wondering if you have considered the additionl monetary cost of offshore detention that is way in excess of the cost of processing on the mainland?

Why should this additional cost be carried if the process ing can be conducted onshore and the time taken for processing be expedited?

I appreciate a “cautious” approach but do not support the extreme measures taken against the principles of the Refugee Convention that Australia subscibes to, for what I see as political purposes by this Government.

Australian Law governing the issue of protection visas to refugees entails security/character checks by our authorities so you can rest assured that for all arrivals, whether onshore or offshore, there is a high level of screening.

Once upon a time it was deemed okay and a measure of caution by this Govenrment to arbtirarily lock up children in detention prisons and today it is proven to have been completley unncessary.

I look forward to the day when the view there is a need to send asylum sekeers offshore will be looked back upon as the fairytale it is.

Mar 12th, 2007
CORAL

But do we know why they’re processing refugees offshore? Surely there has to be a good reason, otherwise, why do it?

Andrew once said he was unsure of the true purpose of the Nauru facility. Ideas, anyone?

I don’t like the idea of locking up children either. But is it better than splitting up families?

If children are released with their mothers, the women might be quite capable of doing whatever their husbands could have done – voiding the idea of locking ANYONE up.

Mar 13th, 2007
Paul Walter

Well, come on, Andrew!!
“Have a go”, as to Coral’s question. You’re the “expert”, so to speak.
Why does the government prefer off-shore processing?

Mar 14th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Coral, the migration act of Australia has a clause 36 that says to seek protection in Australia under the refugee convention a person has to be in Australia. What Howard and his thugs have done is artificially claim that some parts of Australia really aren’t Australia anymore and wasted about $3 billion of our taxes to maintain the pretence.

There is no point in talking about processing off-shore, every one is offshore except Australians.

Here is the nutshell of what we are doing.

The bringing of “refugees” as migrants is a voluntary program we have decided to do where we choose the best educated 4,000-6,000 among the world’s 20 million refugees and claim this is our obligation under the refugee convention – we pay for them to jump the non-existent queue which they can sit on for up to 20 years or more so they are quite safe.

We do this so we can pretend that people immediately in trouble who have no place to land are jumping the same non-existent queue that we pay people to jump.

See?

Mar 14th, 2007
Franklin

A secondary mover (queue jumper) is defined to be an asylum seeker who moves from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in an affluent Western country. Almost all secondary movers arrive without identity papers/ travel documents, destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence/origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. Secondary movers have substantial financial resources relative to the majority of the world’s refugees enabling them to engage people smugglers to travel around the world to their preferred destinations, an option simply not available to most of the world’s refugees.

The UNHCR was sufficiently concerned about secondary movers eroding the international protection system to issue a paper entitled ‘A Comprehensive Approach to Secondary Movement in the Asia-Pacific Region’. It was unfortunately not made publicly available.

There are basically three ways to seek asylum in Australia, firstly arrive with authorisation (visa) and then claim asylum, secondly arrive through Australia’s refugee resettlement program, or thirdly arrive without authorization as a secondary mover. The first two methods of arrival have public support, however, the third method of arrival has never received public acceptance or support.

Offshore processing is perhaps a pragmatic and valid solution to the problem of secondary movers. It negates the effectiveness of the illegal people smuggling syndicates, and reduces the chance of tragedies such as sievx. Those who would have previously traveled around the world searching for the best country of asylum are still able to apply for asylum, albeit in a country of first destination. And importantly, offshore processing allows Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need.

Mar 14th, 2007
Ken

Paul – feral will be getting very feral!!

Mar 14th, 2007
CORAL

That’s very interesting, Franklin. It makes sense. Thanks for the information.

marilyn:

It seems to me that there’s something not very good about the whole box and dice.

BTW I think there should be a requirement for all newcomers to take up citizenship within a specified length of time.

Mar 14th, 2007
Deborah

To put it simply, off shore processing was devised as a means to disassemble the Australian legal system. As Guantanamo Bay is to the Americans, the Pacific Solution is to Australia, a way to lawfully act inhumanely to others.

Most boat arrivals over the last few years have come from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan; reasonable numbers have also come from Palestine, Sri Lanka and China.

Aren’t we still in the process of bombing the crap out of what’s left of Iraq and it’s people? Our armed forces are in Afghanistan. Palestine and Sri Lanka are war torn countries and China does not allow dissidents.

Why is it that people don’t have a problem with Australia starting a war with another country, yet have serious concerns about accepting the fallout and human misery that is a result of that Australian war policy?

It is our responsibility and our moral duty to accept refugees.

From the HREOC website
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/human_rights/health_diversity.html

Long-term immigration detention and mental health:
Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM, Human Rights Commissioner.

” Are they genuine refugees? Over 90% of boat arrivals in detention over the past three years have been found to be genuine refugees ie almost all found to have suffered persecution and released into Australian community.

* In the same period only about 20% of the asylum seekers who arrived with a visa (eg tourist visa) were found to be refugees; this refutes the argument that there is a correlation between being a “boat person” and a “fake refugee”; in fact boat people are much more likely to be refugees.

* Children? Nearly 50% of the children who applied for asylum over past three years are from Iraq and 97% of those were successful. Approximately 35% are from Afghanistan and 95% were successful. Just under 10% were from Iran and 66% were successful.”

Mar 14th, 2007
Donna

I’ve taught some of those children Deborah. They don’t tell their story. It’s too horrific to tell.

They have watched the murder of family members. They have often (and frequently) been raped.

I am sure you already know this. It’s intended for those that so want to believe the worst of them.

Mar 14th, 2007
Donna

Paul Walter

Andrew is up North and out of range.

Mar 14th, 2007
Paul Walter

That explains why we don’t have a new photograph of him since his shave.

Mar 14th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Franklin, the notion of secondary movement is bogus. It is only called secondary movement if the person HAS EFFECTIVE PROTECTION, and makes not difference how many nations they move through.

An example. In 1998 the Iranians withdrew protection from 1 million Afghans, denied them an education, forced them to go back to Afghanistan or flee. Therefore they did not have prior protection and are allowed by law to leave and seek protection elsewhere.

Then we have the fact that to apply for EFFECTIVE protection the person has to reach a nation that has guaranteed not to send them back by signing the refugee convention.

It is utterly fatuous to claim that people are simply moving half way around the world on a joy ride when they could stop elsewhere.

Strangely we never, ever hear these stupid claims when people fly from Russia, Peru, Brazil and dozens of other places half way around the world.

Mar 14th, 2007
red crab

why are we debating the issues of a few boat ppl .
why has no one looked at how many and from what countrys the ppl that are ariving here on coventional transport.
andrew posted the statistics once before it would be interesting to see what they are now.

Mar 14th, 2007
ken

“Most boat arrivals over the last few years have come from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan; reasonable numbers have also come from Palestine, Sri Lanka and China.”

There havent been any boat arrivals of note over the last few years.

Mar 15th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Ken, what is this obsession with a few people coming on boats anyway? It is perfectly legal in international law to arrive on any territory and claim asylum.

Mar 15th, 2007
ken

My obsessions is with accuracy – try adn follow the argumetnt please, this is the third time you hacve misrepresented or interpreted me in this thread

Mar 15th, 2007
CORAL

I don’t believe this debate is about believing the worst of children.

It isn’t the fault of other posters if someone wants to interpret or extrapolate on their comments in the most negative way.

Mar 15th, 2007
Deborah

Ken’s obsession is not so much with accuracy, as sniping at a few people who do not share his conservatist views. He gets quite bent out of shape with some who post here, mostly me and yourself Marilyn, and a few others who are more “leftist” in thinking. You will notice though, that he doesn’t get obsessed about the accuracy of the extremist posts from the barely coherent or rational, RWDB’s.

Yes Ken, my apologies for sloppiness, delete the offending few (literal meaning 2-3, although it seems only a few years ago to me) and make it pre 2001. To be more specific, pre the “ban the boat people” Pacific Solution.

As Red Crab and Marilyn say, what is this obsession by some with boat arrivals, those who usually do turn out to be genuine refugees? It appears that not much is said if you arrive in Australia by any means other than leaky old boats.

The DIMIA stats tell it all really about the Migration Programme;

“There were 97,340 places in the Skill Stream in 2005–06. The Skill Stream made up 68.1 per cent of the total immigration programme.” The Family Stream had 45,290 places.

The Skill Stream has had a rapid rate of increase. Most immigration has come from this. In both the Skilled and Family programs, the majority of people come from the UK, followed by India and China.

In contrast, immigration through the Humanitarian Program has been 14,140 placements with only 1,390 granted onshore.

So, out of a total 142,930 immigration placements, Australia could only manage a total 14,140 places for Humanitarian purposes. And remember majority total immigration is coming from the UK (82% of the total 19% for North Europe) and then NZ (ex program).

Comparing 2005–06 with 2004–05, the Family Stream increased by 5.0 per cent, the Skill Stream increased by 11.7 per cent and the Humanitarian Programme decreased by 3.2 per cent

I’d like to know where the 457 Visa rorts fit into the majority of our immigration, the Skills Stream.

Mar 15th, 2007
Paul Walter

Yes, Deborah- particularly when we consider that the unemployment figures are rorted.
If I suggested that 457’s were actually a form of union or wage-busting labour I suppose I would be in strife.
I would not describe these poorer folk as scabs- necessity is the mother of invention for poorer people- but I might be prepared to suggest they are being exploited by unscrupulous employers backed by the tabloid press, as scab labour.

Mar 15th, 2007
Franklin

The high acceptance rate of secondary movers requires clarification. Most destroy their documents en route to make determination of their identities, verification of their stories of persecution, and return to their countries of residence time consuming, difficult and costly.

In July 2001 a boat departed from Cambodia for Australia with 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board, who were believed to have paid between $US5,000 and $US10,000 each for their journey (average per capita income of Afghanistan was $400 per year). The boat was intercepted and most of those detained were found to be carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers would have been able to apply for asylum in Cambodia as that country is a Signatory to the relevant UN Conventions, however, only after interception did many of the group apply to the UNHCR for asylum. Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the IOM facilitated voluntary return of most of the failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin. If this group of asylum seekers would have reached Australia and destroyed their documents en route, perhaps most would have been granted protection in Australia due to the difficulty in establishing their identities and disproving their almost unverifiable stories.

Destruction of identity documents also occurred during the rescue of asylum seekers by the Tampa. The first mate of the Tampa, Christian Malhaus, testified in a Western Australian court during a people smuggling case that during the rescue he actually saw asylum seekers throw their documentation (“passport like objects”) overboard before boarding the Tampa, thus making it very difficult to establish identities and disprove stories of persecution.

Perhaps the above indicates the inadvisability of allowing Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be undermined by secondary movers and people smugglers.

Mar 16th, 2007
ken

Reasonable point Deborah – I’ll try harder, I’ll assume reciprocity?. However #60 clearly shows second par i don’t have any real problem with these arrivals – hence annoyance at Marilyn’s continual inability to understand posts.

As for sniping – if other posters tried to use less hyperbole and florid over exaggeration vis

“Aren’t we still in the process of bombing the crap out of what’s left of Iraq and it’s people? ………

Why is it that people don’t have a problem with Australia starting a war with another country, yet have serious concerns about accepting the fallout and human misery that is a result of that Australian war policy?”

then perhaps I wouldn’t get annoyed enough to nitpick.

Mar 16th, 2007
CORAL

Yes, it would be good if everyone tried to understand other people’s points of view without labelling them racists, rednecks or worse.

It is clear from our discussion here that there are lots of inequities and worrisome occurrences in relation to both immigration and asylum seekers.

We also need to give serious consideration to the prospect of having wages cut by 50% as a result of bringing in workers from other countries.

John Howard really knows how to hurt the average Australian family with his multi-lateral approach across several portfolios.

Mar 16th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Franklin, I think you are a department stooge because you are talking rubbish. If people had protection elsewhere they would be registered for heaven’s sake.

As for destroying documents – the reality is that genuine refugees cannot get documents and have to travel on false one’s supplied by the agents.

Will you stop talking tripe please. All of this has been proved to be nonsense over and over again.

By law and under article 1D of the refugee convention if people have protection elsewhere they are not entitled to protection anywhere else unless that protection is withdrawn.

Now as we did not have mass deportations of over 10,000 Afghans and Iraqis, in fact we have had no refusals at all under 1D, don’t you see how ludicrous your argument is.

Mar 16th, 2007
Paul Walter

Anyone have any thoughts on why they are wasting $83 million moving them to Nauru?
I know this is slightly off-topic, but it genuinely baffles me why they would waste this much money when they have already spent $3-4 hundred million building a facility on x- mass island, roughly where they picked them up.
Ken, your last comment was too true. If they spent any where the money they have spent on these wars there would need hardly be a poor person left in that region.
BTW, notice that as Iraq unwinds, that Dick Cheney’s Halliburton have shifted their head office offshore, to Dubai.
Why am I thinking “James Hardie”?

Mar 16th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Paul & Deborah (#94 & 93) – the 457 visas are temporary residency long stay business (or skilled worker) visas, so they are all separate (and in addition) to the figures you quote from the Migration Programme (which deals with permanent residency visas). There were around 71 000 of these last financial year. (see this Parl Library research note for more details)

(it is a bit off topic, but as they have been mentioned in a few comments, I would suggest that given there were over 71 000 of them, it is likely that most of them are not rorted, and a significant proportion of them play an important role in filling gaps in our labour market that would not otherwise be filled. However, there is a Parl Committee inquiry into them at the moment, so I will look closer at the evidence that comes out of that before making more definitive statements.)

Mar 16th, 2007
ken

as the 457 have been raised – I’m sure some are used as slave / cheap labour – however with our aeging population the truth is our labour market will simply be stagnant and negative for years – a lot of credible demographic research supportds this see ABS and Treasury.

Like it or not either we import or eventually us boomers will have no one to pay for our service demands in 20 years/

Mar 16th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Some may be used that way Ken – I’ll see what data the inquiry throws up before saying anything more solid, although in most cases if they are being used that way, they would be breaching the conditions of the visa (for anything that could reasonably be called ’slave labour’ anyway – for ‘cheap’ labour, it would depend on what industry they are working in as to whether you could call it ‘cheap labour’. The base pay level that is required would normally not fit that description, but it may in some areas)

Mar 16th, 2007
Paul Walter

NO, no, no, no, no Andrew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I prefaced my post with the observation that unemployed figures are rorted for a reason.
And I feel Deborah will correct me if I misinterpreted nuances in her post that I felt I was responsing to, quick smart!
If actual, underlying unemployment is much higher than you politicians are prepared to admit- thus consigning the problem and its human collateral damage to the “too hard” basket- then cheap unskilled “skilled” labour employed in places like abattoirs, kitchens and on building sites is NOT being imported to offset “shortages”.
I wish you people would STOP lying about actual unemployment and instead work out ways of grasping the nettle concerning it, instead of neglectfully creating the conditions that created incidents like the Bradford riots, in your pursuit of HARMFUL and disempowering neo-liberal quack nostrums and remedies.
When you next answer , will you provide a figure for current unemployment calculated employing the methods used PRIOR to the late nineties when the calculation method was slyly changed?

Mar 17th, 2007
CORAL

I think you are completely right, Paul. Even pre late 1990s, the unemployment figures weren’t right.

These days we have lots of people working piecemeal casual shifts at the whim of employers, which don’t qualify as SECURE PERMANENT FULL-TIME JOBS.

Some are working 2 or more casual jobs.

It may be difficult for the government to fully report the number of married women with children (for example) seeking full-time work, who aren’t able to find it – especially if they aren’t using an employment agency.

The actual rate of inflation is usually double what the government tells us, so maybe we should double the unemployment rate as well.

Mar 17th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Paul, you are connecting two separate issues (and engaging in a group smear as well, but I’ll let that pass).

The misleading nature of unemployment statistics and the non-recognition of underemployment are valid concerns, but they shouldn’t be as a de facto reason to attack migrants or migrant workers. I have no idea what you mean by “neo-liberal quack nostrums”, but the notion that migrants take local jobs and don’t play any role in generating others is a myth that has been perpetrated for over a century. It is about time we jettisoned it.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. 457 visas have been a round for a long-time and have been widely used by many industries, with great economic and social benefit to Australia. To take just one example, if you think people are complaining about inadequate numbers of health workers now, just imagine how it would be if you took thousands more out, as would happen if stopped 457 visas, let along other skilled migration.

In many cases, if the jobs could be filled by people here, they would be – it is far less hassle, much easier to assess your potential employee and no cheaper to employ a local.

If people are concerned about the impact of foreign unskilled labour, they should be looking at working holiday visas (over 100 000 last year) and student visas (much more than this again – who can usually work up to 20 hours a week). Even in this area, as the Senate Inquiry examining the potential use of unskilled pacific island workers into Australia demonstrated, there are areas and industries where quite clearly employers cannot find people to fill unskilled jobs. There are bunch fo reasons for this – not least the high cost and lack of availability of adequate housing,

This is not to say that there may not be real problems with how the 457 visa is operating, especially given the serious weakening in our workplace laws and culture.

I won’t say more on it now, as it is too far off-topic for this post. I will do a separate post on 457 visas after the inquiry has run a bit longer.

Mar 17th, 2007
Paul Walter

Coral, am presuming you read the article from “Online Opinion”,13/3, by Prof. David Peetz of Griffith University, ” The Gap Between Work and Choices”, an examination of the oxymoronically entitled “Work Choices”. Added to the sad tales of welfare recipients mentioned elsewhere by Andrew and most other “small” people, including mothers and many self-employed and we have a grim scenario of unrelenting stress for many average Australians.
Andrew, thanks for your detailed response, although am not happy you accused me of something stuffily referred to as a “group smear”, which one presumes may be something like a “group action” in legal terms.
I presume you are referring to my criticism of “unscrupulous employers backed by the tabloid press” who “exploited” offshore ( and local ) “poorer folk…necessity is often the mother of invention for poorer people” as “scab labour”.
Am sure you over-estimate the sensitivities of employers. Even these shrinking violets would have hides like Rhinocerii when it comes to criticisms of their attitudes toward labour.
However, I take on board your concern that we should not be lured by “wedge” into thus reacting toweards and scapegoating hapless sausages fleeing from bloodied hell-holes like Sri Lanka, particularly when we ourselves would be the first ones over the fence when faced with the horrors of the Third World.

Mar 17th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

No, I was actually referring to your blanket assessment of all politicians, Paul. I shall try to restrain my snippitiness, as no doubt I do it myself sometimes.

Mar 17th, 2007
Deborah

The ACTU submission

Joint Standing Committee on Migration

Inquiry into Temporary Business Visas:

http://www.actu.asn.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/5163/ACTU-Submission-Joint-Standing-Cttee-Feb2007.doc

Mar 18th, 2007
Paul Walter

Many thanks to Deborah, for link.
Defy anyone to find ANYTHING remotely irrational or unreasonable as to assumptions and proposals contained within. Certainly,few signs of irrationality most recently in these threads; let’s hope the rest of the community is waking up, too!
Only problem now is to GET RID of current government and return this country to a rational, community-oriented level of government on so many issues touched on in Andrews columns.
Failing that, at least let’s pray for the return of balance of power to independents and progressives in the Senate, including Sen. Bartlett himself

Mar 18th, 2007
Deborah

Hi Paul, don’t bother with praying, a much more useful strategy would be to mark your ballot paper appropriately, to ensure you “keep the bastards honest”. Number your Senate paper below the line, time consuming, but essential, I think!

Mar 18th, 2007
CORAL

Paul Walters:

I haven’t read “On-line Opinion”, but we really do all need to recognise the fact that employers are human and very GREEDY.

The Howard Government seems almost totally lacking in compassion towards ANYONE unless they are GREEDY employers.

Mar 19th, 2007
ken

Andrew is on the money here – unfortunately Paul no matter how desirable or undesriable depending on your point of view the soltuons offered in 109 are – none of them will provide the workfroce, skilled or unskilled, that will enable the inexorabel tide of agiong to be maanged and serviced without some form of labour importation, in some form or anotehr.

That is of course if people want to continue a growth and first world development paradigm – there is of course the wither and die paradigm

Mar 19th, 2007
Paul Walter

Well, I dunno, Ken!
Have not said that should not take place if necessary.
All I did was reiterate the point made in Deborah’s link ( a submission to a senate committee on visa abuse), that if people come here they be given decent conditions to work under and that they are not here to take jobs of locals when that is not necessary, for cynical reasons involving employers trying to snooker local workers, imports and local unemployed alike.
But then, what happened to the first world education and retraining systems we once had, that should have been able to cover demand for skilled labour and solve much unemployment grief at the same time, whilst not impacting adversely on the importing of offshore labour, as to local hostility?
Why was education and retraining tampered with in such cavalier fashion?
What happened to the money for these sorts of programs and what was it spent on instead ( I can hear Shepherd chewing out one answer in the background and I would personally add botched defence spending and silly wars as two more)?
Only yesterday a former(?)RAAF Air Marshall was scathing in his assessment of yet another apparently botched ordinance purchase, this time involving $6 billion more, for mediocre aircraft, writing in a column in the “Melbourne Age”.
So, so much for a “1st world economy” built on solid foundations and rational leadership.

BTW, Coral your comment says it all.
Like you, I weep at the lost opportunities brought about by the primitive and unconscious pol-economic mentality that has got us into these problems, heading into the future, in the first place.

Mar 20th, 2007
ken

I guess I am not able to make a clear point – it wouldnt matter if there was zero (real imagined or whatver) unemployment, and every man wonmen and child below 30 was trained up to a PHD level – there simply aint enough of em.

its no neo con policy or anything like that. However take heart the crunch here will occur well after Japna and Italy and the like – so we will at least be able to learn from them.

Mar 20th, 2007
Deborah

Not sure, but I think that Ken’s point is one of old school economics, that population, therefore immigration growth means economic prosperity for Australia.

There is also the equally valid argument of Paul’s, that we need to put more money into local training, development and infrastructure, so that our own local population can be employed in those apparently highly skilled trades that require such immigration levels.

The traditional areas of immigration used to be high earning management types, now we are seeing high trade occupation figures, so the question has to be asked – are those people receiving equal wages and conditions to that of other Australians? or are they getting less and being used to drive down the wages and conditions of locals.

Ken, in relation to immigration, is there a corresponding emigration figure? The last numbers that I read seemed to suggest that emigration of Australians for employment overseas (higher wages and better taxation, the so called brain drain) were about equal to that of skilled migrant immigration.

Mar 20th, 2007
Deborah

How about some social investment? The unbridled free market is not the only way forward.

There is always the social democratic model of increased work force participation, a more equitable approach, I believe.

Some thoughts from Fred Argy at Club Troppo

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/24/immigration-too-much-of-a-good-thing-fred-argy/

and below from Online Opinion.

Howard’s workplace and welfare reforms and Australian values:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5423

“Australia needs to remove unnecessary barriers to workforce participation so as to ease the fiscal and economic pressures of an ageing population.

Howard’s workplace and welfare agenda offers one policy route to higher participation, but it relies overwhelmingly on market forces to achieve its goals, so the costs and benefits are unevenly spread. The divisiveness it is creating could sow the seeds of its own destruction.

Howard’s way is not the only way to improve workforce participation rates. There is an alternative, equally effective and in many respects more sustainable policy agenda which retains some of the market friendly ideas of Howard but throws out the harsher ones and instead relies heavily on social investment.

The two strategies produce different sets of winners and losers and appeal to sharply different social values.”

Mar 20th, 2007
ken

Well if its old fogey school I’m your man. But whatever school goods and services have to be produced and / or paid for by someone, they aren’t ethereal constructs of the mind. In fact I do not assert population has to grow as a necessary and sufficient precursor to prosperity – mendelian biology is the go here – not prosperity, itself an arguable concept. All I asserted is that the future working age (generally accepted that is) demographic we have is shrinking relative to the old age demographic. That alternatives to the growth paradigm can be produced is obvious, however someone still has to do something. I would think nursing would be an area well cognisant with the demands, labour shortages and massive cost pressure to deal with an ageing population.

I’ll let my in laws know that after 35 years of toil as a taxi driver, moonlighting in cafes and sewing buttons on dresses at night for rich Anglo kids for nix they are considered as high earning management types…

And yes Paul’s point is dead right, as far as it goes, however if thers 10 jobs and only 5 bodies to fill, that called not enough. Granted even worse if 2 of them are not trained or not capable.

Emigration is an issue. The latest figures from ABS 04/05 are departures 307,000, arrivals 431,000. I also know there are approx 1 million citizens O/S, with more than half earning in excess of 100k. However the point is not how many are coming in, or going out it is the shift to dependency via ageing that is the issue.

Thank you for a civilised discussion.

Mar 20th, 2007
Franklin

The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported the existence of coaching schools located in the Pakistan/Afghan border region where Pakistani clients of people smugglers would spend a few months preparing for DIMIA interviews. The people smugglers in Pakistan used copies of Australian interview tapes and information from people released from detention centres, and were well informed about processes used to detect Pakistanis posing as Afghanis. The Pakistanis were provided with maps and information on common food items, ceremonies, customs and famous people and events in Afghan history. People smugglers advised clients to learn about farming techniques, language, and to pretend to be illiterate to evade in-depth questioning. The Pakistanis would claim to be Afghan farmers or shepherds and recount tales of being taken to fight for the Taliban. Identity checks on suspected Pakistanis were complicated by the use of false names and disposal of identity documents prior to arrival in Australia.

The case of Ali Bakhtiyari may provide illustration. Could it have been that Ali Bahktiyari attended such a coaching school and then posed as an Afghan asylum seeker ? Investigation by DIMIA of his asylum claim was done remotely and was based on data gathered from various sources to indicate whether there was reasonable probability that his claim was valid. He was initially accepted as a refugee, but it was only after some excellent investigative journalism by Russell Skelton of The Age who actually went to the village that Ali Bakhtiyari claimed to come from (something that DIMIA did not do) that it was established that the information he had provided was false. Additionally, his wife Roquia Bakhtiyari was found to be an unreliable witness by the Refugee Review Tribunal, perhaps due to her lack of coaching.

Perhaps this is further indication of the inadvisability of allowing people smugglers to determine Australia’s refugee intake.

Mar 20th, 2007
Paul Walter

Austin, is this the same Russell Skelton discredited on ABC’s Media Watch last night for a put-up job on Aborigines?
If the Afghanis got the same treatment as the Aborigines mentioned during the MW segment, god help them!

Mar 20th, 2007
Franklin

Paul Walter: For your reference Russell Skelton published his findings on the origins of asylum seeker Ali Bakhtiyari in The Age on March 15, 2003 in an article entitled “The Truth behind Bakhtiyari”. The article is available at:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/15/1047583712508.html

An excerpt from the story:

Ali Bakhtiyari, the refugee accused of having fraudulently obtained a temporary protection visa, has admitted to the The Age that he spent two years in the Pakistani city of Quetta before paying people smugglers thousands of dollars to get him to Australia.

His admission comes after extensive inquiries in the Uruzgan village of Charkh, where Mr Bakhtiyari claimed he lived before fleeing the Taliban in March, 1998, failed to find any evidence that he or his wife, Roqia, ever lived there.

The investigation has also uncovered an extensive people-smuggling network operating among Hazara communities throughout the impoverished areas of Uruzgan province and Hazarajat, where people are being kept from starvation by a massive international food assistance program.

Villagers said smugglers routinely supplied people with false IDs and personal histories to make it difficult for Australian authorities to investigate claims of persecution. They said a regular part of the people-smuggling network included a “20-day stopover” in Quetta, where “asylum seekers” were drilled on what to tell immigration authorities to ensure applications for refugee status were heard.

A New Zealand freelance journalist named Alistair McLeod (now deceased) working for The Australian newspaper also investigated the story of Ali Bakhtiyari and confirmed Skelton’s findings. The Australian editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell praised Mr McLeod’s story on the origins of asylum seeker Ali Bakhtiyari as “an important piece of journalism”.

Mar 20th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Franklin, Russell Skelton made the whole thing up. You are way behind the times mate. I have every file on this family in my possession and these are the facts.
1. ASIO cleared Ali as an Afghan refugee on 29 June 2000.
2. DIMA and ASIO cleared Roqia and circulated a memo on 22 March 2001 that stated “Roqia Bakhtiyari, Afghan”.
3. When Russell went to Afghanistan he was 100 km from the village where he was told to go by Ali.
4. The official record shows that no-one in Afghanistan ever spoke to Ali because he was in Woomera for the day and did not take his phone.
5. Two years after he was released from Port Hedland DIMA gave false Pakistani documents to Ali claiming he was really Asghar Ali – something Skelton precipitated.
6. Skelton claimed that Roqia’s father was a rich carpet maker but the record shows he sold Kilims (prayer mats) which was verified by her cousin to Paul McGeough in September 2005.
7. DIMA now state – we never denied Mrs Bakhtiyari is from Afghanistan.

Fair dinkum – there is also confirmation that Skelton invented another interview with Afghan authorities that the Afghan Ambassador claims was simply not true.

Skelton has a history of getting it wrong – like we would not be deporting Iranians, but we did. That aboriginal communities have no hope, but he didn’t go there.

Do you know Franklin that Skelton never spoke a single word to Roqia or the three little girls? And the little girl was only 3 when she was locked up.

I don’t want to read another word of this spurious tripe from you. Skelton is wrong and the evidence is freely available on the senate website.

Mar 21st, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Deja vu! For anyone interested in seeing lots of comments on the sage of the poor Bakhtiyari fmaily, there a string of posts on this site from 2005 and 2006 where they are mentioned.

The fact that people still bring the family’s name up as ‘proof’ that there are fraudulent asylum cliams just shows what enormous lengths the government went to to smear this family and just how much they got caught up as a political football.

Whilst I haven’t seen as much of the evidence as some people, I’ve seen a lot more of it than what the general public got continuously fed by the government through the media. I have little doubt that Ali Bakhtiyari was a genuine refugee, and our govenrment’s deliberate persecution of him and his family was a disgrace.

I have no doubt that some asylum seekers make fraudulent claims – people do that in every area of life – but the Bakhtiyari’s weren’t one of them. In any case, whilst awful for that family, it is distraction (albeit a deliberate one) from the main issue. I can’t see how it justifies turning away refugees, just because a small number may be trying a scam (although there are far less dangerous and brutalising ways of trying to scam your way into a country, if that’s what your doing).

Mar 21st, 2007
Paul Walter

Andrew, you must be talking about the expose of the riotous corporate-driven “education visa” rort presented by the experienced and respected Heather Ewart on “7.30 Report” the other night.
Probably the nearest 7.30 report has come to the old broadsheet stuff recently, and vintage stuff: you had to oscillate between belly-laughter and gobsmacked shock at such a crass, dysfunctional and lazily administered state of affairs.
Sadly, the deepest of the laughter came at the inept responses of airhead Julie Bishop, one of a convolution of state and federal ministers engaged in the constructive malfunction of this aspect of education and immigration.
( BTW, watched Conroy on teev just now and no matter how I try I can’t take to the fellow or his outlook. You reckon I have a problem with politicians- well, why don’t we start with him and Coonan, for openers)

Mar 21st, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Thank you Andrew – the senate I believe have done an amazing job investigating who said what about that family and why and we know the family are and always were genuine.

I still find it unbelievable that some like Franklin consider it rational to destroy a three year old child to prove some deranged point.

Linda has posted a number of new questions about the brother Mazhar Ali and those Pakistan documents as DIAC keep lying about their origins, when they got them and so on.

Mar 21st, 2007
Franklin

The commandeering of Australia’s refugee resettlement program by secondary movers and people smugglers never received public acceptance or support. Perhaps the reason was a public perception of unfairness. Australia’s provision of assistance is targeted to those most in need, our pensions and social security are naturally targeted to those most in need, not to those with adequate financial resources to care for themselves. Secondary movers have substantial financial resources relative to the majority of the world’s refugees thus enabling them to engage people smugglers to travel to their preferred destinations, an option simply not available to most of the world’s refugees.

A press article once reported an Iraqi family group of 23 members engaging people smugglers to leave Syria for Australia. With an estimated cost of between $5,000 and $10,000 each, a total amount of $100,000 to $200,000 would have been required for payment to people smugglers. For perspective, a government official in Saddam’s Iraq reportedly earned around $30 per month (source: 7:30 Report).The financial aspects of secondary movement asylum seekers have never been examined in depth. Many questions are unanswered. How do family groups being persecuted put together such large amounts of money, particularly in countries with low per capita incomes. For family groups being persecuted and having to quickly flee, how are they able to take time to sell assets such as house, etc. These questions are even more puzzling in failed states such as Afghanistan where a barter type economy is prevalent.

Important questions requiring consideration are should Australia’s refugee intake be targeted to those most in need, and should Australia’s asylum system be allowed to function so that those with substantial financial resources are able to gain preference and precedence over those without financial resources, such as destitute refugees living in squalid unhcr camps.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Franklin

The asylum seeker debate was played out in the media, where perception and reality can sometimes be intertwined. Refugee advocacy groups blanketed the media with emotion based information / misinformation aimed towards having their perceptions being taken as reality. Like it or not, Ali Bakhtiyari became very symbolic in the asylum seeker debate. The revelation that Bakhtiyari was a fraudulent asylum seeker was a public relations disaster for refugee advocates. Some refugee advocates have since been attempting to create perception of Bakhtiyari as a genuine refugee through use of the media, by casting as much doubt as possible on official findings, by presenting inconclusive information as evidence, and by attempting to discredit those such as Russell Skelton and others who take contrary views.

Skelton related that he interviewed Bakhtiyari at length through an interpreter about verifying his story. In answer to claims by activists / lawyers that he and the late Alastair McLeod (The Australian) went to the wrong place, he stated that he went to Charkh because that was where Bakhtiyari told him he came from and directed him to go.

It became a matter of record that no trace of the Bakhtiyaris was found in Charkh or the local district, and that when Bakhtiyari was confronted during a satellite phone conversation with the interpreters and a village elder, he suddenly and inexplicably changed his story, claiming he came first from Charkh Nolije and then Charkh Chaprasak before hanging up. A search of both villages found no trace of the Bakhtiyaris.

Skelton reported that the interpreter on the Afghanistan assignment was harassed by an activist closely linked to Bakhtiyari’s lawyers urging him to renounce the veracity of his reports.

Conclusively, Bakhtiyari’s return to Pakistan was accepted by Pakistan authorities.

Skelton article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Immigration/When-a-family-tree-casts-only-shade-and-doubt/2004/12/25/1103825127166.html

Mar 23rd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

Frnaklin, give it up. The family were sent out of the country on false documents in a the wrong name and even the baby born in Australia was said to have been born in Pakistan.

Get this straight Franklin, Russell made it up. He made up conversations from Afghanistan, he made up converstations with Afghan authorities, he made up a life story, he never said a word to Roqia.

If you don’t believe me I suggest you read the transcripts of the investigation into the operation of the Migration Act, the questions on notice from the last 3 sets of senate questions on notice and this is what you will learn.

“we have never denied that Mrs Bakhityari is from Afghanistan”.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd

And Franklin there is no such thing as secondary movement unless the person had EFFECTIVE PROTECTION.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Paul Walter

I watched the Media Watch program again on Wednesday night to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood the Skelton expose. Nothing I saw on this second viewing has me any more convinced that I should take Skelton seriously, than before.
Rather; the opposite.
His attack on the Aborigines of Bargo seems cowardly and innacurate and the innacuracies surely could not have been accidental. Furthermore, this is about what you would expect from the Melbourne “Age” on the subject, given its previous surprisingly poor history on the subject of indigenous affairs.
It seems therefore not such a flight of fancy to suggest if these people were prepared to commit such a nasty fraud on readers concerning indigenous unfortunates- misunderstood in the community and lacking a means for effective reply, when this has easily been done in the past, when convenient on different fronts.
In fact this sort of garbage journalism occurs every night on telly on the infotainment shows. The victims are always the same. They are from minorities unable to literately defend themselves, like umarried mothers, and are always as per selective example, legitimation for harsh conservative reaction involving funding cuts also to eventually pay for corporate and mortgage belt welfare as well as gaining cheap votes at the expense of uncosmetic minorities
Am also put in mind of the repulsive antics involving Rau and Alvarez, BTW!
Demonisation of minorities is always a stock in trade for populist politicians and one suspects that the Bhaktiary story was indeed the same sort of concoction developed as propaganda for a Howard government trying to sell itself for election purposes. Like the nasty smears against “lazy” aborigines “welfare bludging” off hard working nice white “taxpayers” in the mortgage belt, this unsavory politics involved suffering for the victims, this time the Bhaktiarys, and was likely amoral garbage by even by the most indulgent of criteria

Mar 23rd, 2007

Anna Nicole Smith and asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. « PARADIGM OZ - Mar 5th, 2007

Bartlett's Blog

people seeking asylum – a threat to Australia?

Advertisement

130 Comments, Comment or Ping

Mini Posts

Radio chat on the election

Pre-election 'Debate' Farce

Mountains of Coal

Recent Interviews

Piece on The Drum about challenges ahead for the Greens

Wild Rivers

Listen in to Choose Mics

Blogroll / Other Links

Blogs I visit regularly

A very incomplete list of sites I visit less regularly

Latest Comments

Advertisement

Categories

Subscriptions

Meta