In 1974 the Parliament passed the Trade Practices Act which, by section 52, decreed that a corporation should not “engage in conduct which is misleading or deceptive…”. But parliamentarians are not subject to similar restrictions. We accept without questioning that norms of conduct which parliamentarians sets for commerce do not apply to them.
Most people expect politicians to lie. But few politicians have shown the capacity for dishonesty and hypocrisy which Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton have displayed in connection with people seeking asylum.
Abbott, Morrison, Turnbull and Dutton claim to be Christians, along with most other members of the Australian Parliament. For fear of being misunderstood, I should declare that I was brought up in the Christian tradition, but I no longer adhere to any religion. But I do remember some of the fundamental tenets of Christian teaching: compassion for those in need; treat others as you would want to be treated…
These men lie to us, and they are hypocrites. They lie when they call boat people “illegal”, when it is not an offence to arrive in Australia, without a visa, seeking to be protected from persecution. And by their wilful mistreatment of people seeking asylum they betray the Christian values they pretend to hold.
Christ told the parable of the Good Samaritan. A Jewish traveller on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, has been stripped and beaten and left, helpless, beside the road. A priest and a Levite both pass him by and avoid engaging with him. A Samaritan sees him and helps him, even though Jews and Samaritans were traditional enemies.
Tony Abbott, who claims to be a devout Roman Catholic, once suggested that the parable of the Good Samaritan might have been different if a number of travellers had been found beside the road. It takes someone like Abbott to claim that he can reconstruct Christs’s teaching.
Abbott had earlier exposed his bankrupt version of Christianity when he gave the second Margaret Thatcher Lecture, in London on 27 October 2015. Among other things he said:
“Implicitly or explicitly, the imperative to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” is at the heart of every Western polity. It expresses itself in laws protecting workers, in strong social security safety nets, and in the readiness to take in refugees. It’s what makes us decent and humane countries as well as prosperous ones, but – right now – this wholesome instinct is leading much of Europe into catastrophic error.”
So, a wholesome instinct is sidelined because of its consequences.
In the same speech, Abbott said this:
“…no country or continent can open its borders to all comers without fundamentally weakening itself. This is the risk that the countries of Europe now run through misguided altruism.
On a somewhat smaller scale, Australia has faced the same predicament and overcome it. The first wave of so-called “illegal” arrivals to Australia peaked at 4000 people a year, back in 2001, before the Howard government first stopped the boats: by processing illegal arrivals offshore; by denying them permanent residency; and in a handful of cases, by turning illegal immigrant boats back to Indonesia.
The second wave of “illegal” boat people was running at the rate of 50,000 a year – and rising fast – by July 2013, when the Rudd government belatedly reversed its opposition to offshore processing; and then my government started turning boats around, even using orange lifeboats when people smugglers deliberately scuttled their vessels.”
(Incidentally, in addition to his lie about “illegal boat people”, his figures were false. The Australia Parliament House library shows that the largest number of boat people to come to Australia in a single year was just short of 25,000).
Malcolm Turnbull converted to Roman Catholicism . He has not tried to reinterpret Christ’s teaching, but he has embraced Abbott’s practical lessons in morality by embracing his policy of mistreating refugees.
By contrast, Pope Francis has taken a principled stand on the need for compassion for the plight of asylum seekers said:
“Biblical revelation urges us to welcome the stranger; it tells us that in so doing, we open our doors to God, and that in the faces of others we see the face of Christ himself.”
He was referring to a passage in the Bible (Matthew 25), where Christ says:
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
Sadly, neither Abbott nor Turnbull appear to have listened to the Pope or understood the Bible.
Scott Morrison’s maiden speech in Parliament placed great emphasis on his Christian values. Among other things he said:
“So what values do I derive from my faith? My answer comes from Jeremiah, chapter 9:24:
… I am the Lord who exercises loving-kindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things, declares the Lord.
From my faith I derive the values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of others; to fight for a fair go for everyone to fulfil their human potential and to remove whatever unjust obstacles stand in their way, including diminishing their personal responsibility for their own wellbeing; and to do what is right, to respect the rule of law, the sanctity of human life and the moral integrity of marriage and the family. We must recognise an unchanging and absolute standard of what is good and what is evil. Desmond Tutu put it this way:
… we expect Christians … to be those who stand up for the truth, to stand up for justice, to stand on the side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the naked, and when that happens, then Christians will be trustworthy believable witnesses.
These are my principles.”
If those are Scott Morrison’s principles, he is not a man of his principles. During his time as Immigration Minister, Morrison showed no trace of “loving kindness” or justice or compassion for refugees who came to Australia by boat looking for protection from persecution.
Peter Dutton claims to be Christian, but he boycotted Kevin Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generations in February 2008. Like other members of Coalition governments during the past 16 years, he refers to boat people as “illegal” and he administers a system of detention which shows astonishing cruelty.
This is not the place to give details of Australia’s mistreatment of refugees: the facts are well-enough known. Equally well-known is the Coalition message that a harsh refugee policy is essential to protect refugees from the risk of drowning.
But to suggest that they are worried about refugees drowning is a lie: a fig-leaf to make immoral mistreatment look compassionate. “Worried about people drowning”! So worried that, if they don’t drown, we punish them as if they were criminals, and call them “illegal” to make their punishment look vaguely respectable. We do it, explicitly, as a deterrent so that others will not try to find safety in Australia. And these dishonest politicians, pretending to be motivated by compassion, overlook altogether that if persecuted people stand their ground and are killed by their persecutors, they are still dead: just as if they drowned; if they die in an attempt to escape to some other country, they are still dead: just as if they drowned.
For politicians like Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Dutton to say they are worried about boat people drowning is a lie. For them to mistreat asylum seekers in the way they do is a betrayal of the Christian values they cherish.
They are dishonest hypocrites.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) sits at The Hague.
We joined the ICC in 2002. Since then, our treatment of people seeking asylum has involved various crimes against humanity.
So far, 5 communiques have been sent to the ICC, inviting it to investigate and prosecute our PMs and Immigration Ministers for crimes against humanity. The one exception is Chris Evans, who behaved very well as Immigration Minister. The rest: appalling.
Offshore processing has just made it worse. The Memorandum of Understanding between Australia and Papua New guinea makes it clear that humane treatment was never the point: rather, the point was to end the people smuggling trade by holding refugees in horrible conditions for a long time. For most of them, it’s been 4 years now. MOU-PNG-Aus
To understand how our treatment of refugees amounts to a crime against humanity, here is one of the communiques. Analysis of the legal aspects starts at page 15: Communiqué to ICC
It is worth looking at the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between Australia and Papua New Guinea.
It sets the frame-work for the humanitarian horrors which are unfolding there.
Bear in mind: the MOU makes it clear that the purpose of the whole exercise is to combat people smugglers by making an example of the people held on Manus. When government Ministers say they are worried about people drowning, don’t believe them: they are using the survivors as hostages.
If they were genuinely worried about people drowning, they would treat the survivors decently, but there’s no trace of that: not in the MOU and not in the way it is playing out: inadequate medical care; refugees had to queue 7 hours today to get fed.
Just for a moment, imagine that the refugees held on Manus are German Jews, late 1930s: is our treatment of them ethically acceptable?
Here’s the MOU: notice there is no promise they will be treated decently.
The refugees on Manus have written a letter to some of the leaders of the free world (I have corrected a few spelling mistakes):
To the Honourable: President Donald Trump,
Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau and also humanitarian people of those countries
We, refugees and asylum seekers in Manus Island detention, are writing to you to explain our terrible condition and also our request. The condition in here is out of humanity. Australian government cut food , water and electricity for 5 days. They also cut toilets and everything for around one month. There is no medical clinic in here if something happened for us. We are refugees or asylum seekers and we are not criminals. Even criminal have the right for food and water. This type of torturing is new and Australian government have been torturing us in many ways for more than 4 years. Crime against humanity have been exactly happening in here. To sum up, President Trump, our processing for the USA is running. We want you to please notice some genuine refugees have detained in here. We have no any other choices except for remaining in here. We also ask from Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau to help us. We are skilled or educated from University. We can participate in the way that your countries are heading.
Please help us as much you can. We are in critical condition right now.
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
Detainees in Manus Island
5th of November 2017
– All humanitarian people all over the world.
An open letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Join in: to sign the letter, email here, to show your support
6 November 2017
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern Prime Minister Private Bag 18888 Parliament Buildings Wellington 6160 New Zealand
Dear Prime Minister
Warm congratulations on your election as New Zealand’s new Prime Minister.
We are writing to call upon the New Zealand Government to intervene in the entirely preventable humanitarian disaster unfolding on Manus Island.
We applaud your Government for renewing New Zealand’s previous offer to resettle 150 refugees from Manus Island and Nauru. We are aware that on Sunday the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, refused your renewed offer at this stage. This is not acceptable. The men who have languished in Papua New Guinea for over four years need urgent access to a durable solution.
We urge you to actively pursue negotiations with the Papua New Guinean Government and the UNHCR Regional Representative to resettle as many of the men from Manus Island as soon as possible.
We acknowledge, with regret, the unfortunate necessity of writing to you to request that New Zealand step in to resolve this crisis when it is so clearly an Australian responsibility. We believe, however, that the moral leadership New Zealand can take on this issue will increase the pressure on the Australian Government to work with resettlement countries to resolve the current crisis. We will do all in our power to assist you.
In the spirit of international cooperation and humanity, thank you for considering this letter.
Paul Barratt AO Former Secretary, Department of Defence
Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH Immediate Past President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)
Dr Alison Broinowski Writer and former Australian diplomat
Scott Cosgriff Chair, National Committee, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
John Falzon (TBC) CEO, National Council, St Vincent de Paul Society
Andrew Farran International lawyer
Michael Hamel-Green Emeritus Professor, Victoria University Melbourne
Marion Le AM Registered Migration Agent; specialist in International Law and Refugee Resettlement
Rebecca Minty Human Rights lawyer
Kellie Tranter Lawyer and human rights activist
Dr Sue Wareham OAM President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)
Matthew Zagor Associate Professor, Director of Law Reform and Social Justice, ANU College of Law
Julian Burnside AO QC Barrister
Doctors For Refugees have written a very well-considered letter to Federal MPs, concerning the crisis on Manus. It captures the problem very well:
Immediate action required to prevent humanitarian catastrophe on Manus Island
As you know, a major humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding on Manus Island. Six hundred male refugees and asylum seekers are occupying the former Regional Processing Centre (RPC). Outside sits the PNG Defence Force, which is preventing food supplies, purchased by well-wishers, from entering the facility. The men have been told to move to three locations in or near the regional capital, East Lorengau. Two of these are not ready for habitation. All three are insecure and these men have legitimate fears for their own safety. PNG locals have demonstrated their opposition to the move to the town in the last week with a vocal protest outside the centre and the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary Police Commissioner, Gari Baki, stated in a media release in late October 2017 that the safety of refugees is ‘not to be taken for granted given the tensions that are being expressed by the locals on Manus Island’. Paradoxically, the former RPC, with no access to food, clean water, sanitation, electricity or adequate medical care is currently the ‘safest’ place for these men to be.
However, the former RPC is not safe. These men have now been without access to the fundamentals necessary for life for over six days. In PNG’s tropical climate we must expect that serious consequences will start to occur this week. We can expect severe skin and respiratory infections, dysentery, malaria and other illnesses to start to take hold. If no action is taken immediately to alleviate this situation, we can expect deaths to start occurring very soon.
On the evening of 4th November 2017 a man with a suspected heart attack in the former RPC sought assistance in Lorengau Hospital. This man was discharged from the facility without having an ECG or blood tests and returned to the former RPC. Thirty six hours later these essential investigations still had not been performed. With this level of medical support, it seems there is little hope for any refugee who becomes seriously unwell on Manus Island, whether they are in the former RPC or relocated to East Lorengau.
If the situation deteriorates further and the PNG Defence Force decides to clear the centre then there is a risk of many deaths through violent action. This is a military force which has demonstrated tremendous antipathy to the refugees, which fired indiscriminately into the RPC causing multiple injuries earlier this year and which has no training in crowd control.
This situation is a direct consequence of the Australian government’s arbitrary, indefinite incarceration of hundreds of innocent men in a hostile environment on a remote island in a poor country, unequipped in all respects to look after them. It must finally take adequate responsibility for the welfare of these men. The duplicity of the Australian government in this matter is eye-watering. On the one hand, the representations of Doctors for Refugees and others about the welfare of these men are referred on by the Australian government as ‘a matter for the PNG government’. On the other hand, we hear that Prime Minister Turnbull has once again turned down the New Zealand government’s offer to shelter some of these men. If the Australian government can dictate what happens to them then it is evidently responsible for their welfare and in fact PNG Immigration Minister, Petrus Thomas, explicitly stated last week that Australia will remain responsible for the welfare of these men when the Australian-funded centre closes. All pretence to the contrary must now stop.
Amnesty International and the UNHCR have been condemning the detention and conditions of these men for years and this was first termed a situation amounting to torture over two years ago. Today, things are exponentially worse and we reiterate: we are heading for many deaths in the coming days and weeks unless urgent action is taken by Australia. Action to alleviate these men’s situation needs to be taken today to prevent deaths. As a start, they need food and water today.
You, as an Australian parliamentarian, must realise that at stake are these men’s lives and Australia’s international reputation as a Western democratic nation and that only you hold the power to influence the situation. Whether by your action or inaction to date it is you who is directly responsible for what is happening. If you do not act now, by speaking, lobbying and voting appropriately then whatever happens to these men will be on your conscience.
For the sake of humanity and compassion we urge you to act immediately. The world is watching you.
Dr David Berger, Executive Committee Member
Dr Barri Phatarfod, President
Dr Paddy McLisky, Secretary
Dr Igal Augarten, Treasurer
Doctors for Refugees
 HLRC 27th August 2017
 PNG Constabulary Media Release October 2017
 ABC 17th April 2017
 ABC 5th November 2017
 Reuters 30th October 2017
 Guardian 9th March 2015
Australian Friends of Palestine Association (AFOPA) is a not for profit incorporated association based in South Australia. It is run professionally by a voluntary Executive Committee and volunteers. It was established in 2004, by Paul Heywood-Smith QC and others.
AFOPA’s primary concerns in respect to Palestine are:
- the current humanitarian crises that exists in Palestine as a result of the Palestinian disposition of land and the provision of humanitarian support; and
- consistent with the position of the United Nations, support for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict based on 1967 borders; it calls for Palestinian people to have the right to self-determination by recognition of the Palestinian State. This is fundamental to the achievements of social and economic freedom, and equality before the law.Australia is one of a few countries (along with Israel, the United States and Canada) that does not recognise the Palestinian State. AFOPA advocates for a change in this position. Australia’s recognition is required to contribute to the peace process. A Roy Morgan poll this year showed that 73 per cent of Australians support recognising Palestinian statehood.
This is a speech I gave to the annual dinner of AFOPA in Adelaide on 4 November 2017.
It sounds pathetic: I just did not know.
I did not know what was being done to Palestinians.
I was vaguely aware of troubles in Israel, of course. I was vaguely aware of reports of Palestinian youths causing trouble, throwing stones at Israeli settlers. I was vaguely aware that Israelis who were attacked would strike back. And of course, like most people, I was aware that the State of Israel was established as a homeland for the Jews who are one of the most persecuted races in all of history.
But I did not realise how shockingly the human rights of Palestinians are being violated.
It’s 69 year since al-Nakba, the great catastrophe: when more than 800,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes; 500 villages were destroyed; 15,000 Palestinians were killed.
It’s 100 years since the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration originated in a letter written by Lord Balfour on 2 November 1917: 2 days after the famous charge of the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade.
Back then, the Palestinians fought alongside the British. They didn’t get much gratitude: the Balfour Declaration included this paragraph:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
As it turned out, the rights of Palestinians have been comprehensively trashed.
And when Malcolm Turnbull went to Beersheba recently to celebrate the famous battle, no Palestinian leader was invited to attend.
The abuses of the human rights of Palestinians are getting worse. In particular, Palestinian children are grossly mistreated, despite the provisions of various international human rights conventions to which Israel is a party.
Palestinian children as young as 12 are being:
- Arrested in their homes, at night, between 10pm and 5 am
- Taken away, blindfolded, hooded, their hands tied
- They are often placed on the floor of the van that takes them away, and they are taken by long, slow routes, so they often spend hours on the floor in the back of the van
- They are physically abused: head-butted, kicked, tasered, dragged across the ground
- They are strip-searched and threatened
They are interrogated without being told they are entitled to have their parents present; without being told they are entitled to have a lawyer present; without any warning that they have the right to remain silent. One Palestinian child reports: “The interrogator told me I had the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. I told him I wasn’t going to say anything before I was allowed to speak to a lawyer. He became angry and slapped me when I said this.”
Some Palestinian children have been held in solitary confinement for weeks on end.
And beyond all this, there is the Israeli Defence Force’s use of administrative detention: detention without charge, without trial; sometimes for months, often based on secret evidence.
John Lyons recently published a piece in the Weekend Australian. It includes this paragraph:
“Twice a week they had children’s days when children as young as 12 faced the army judges. I caught a glimpse of four young boys, in brown prison overalls, shuffling across the courtyard. They were handcuffed and shackled at the feet. I thought: if the 1nost powerful army in the Middle East thinks it’s acceptable to treat children like this, then something has gone badly wrong…”
Israel has been warned that these things are a gross violation of international human rights norms. Its response has been to suppress information about what it is doing. But it has not improved its behaviour.
The legal rights of Palestinian children are not the same as the legal rights of Israeli children. Palestinian children are treated as legally responsible when they are 12; Israeli children are not legally responsible until they are 14. Israeli children are taken to a civil court; Palestinian children are taken to a military court. Israeli children are treated properly if they come into contact with the criminal justice system; Palestinian children are not.
Israel is making the same tragic mistake Australia makes in relation to boat people. It seems to have forgotten completely the most fundamental point: these are human beings.
Anyone who criticises Israel’s conduct can expect a fierce response. John Lyons writes about it. Anthony Loewenstein has experienced it, and so have I.
I do not wish to deflect attention from the mistreatment of Palestinians for one moment, but it is worth noticing that we have a parallel set of events in Australia.
Australian Aborigines know what it is like to have your land taken; they know what it is like to be kept out of privileged areas; they know what it is like to be given a different, and inferior, legal status; they know what it is like for their children to be taken, mistreated, turned into aliens in their own land.
As I learned what was being done to Palestinian children, I had a recurring vision of the Aboriginal children in the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre.
And Australia has a terrible record for mistreatment of children whose parents brought them to Australia as boat people: they get locked up indefinitely, in what the legal system regards as…yes…”administrative detention”. No charge, no trial. Just like we say to justify the indefinite detention of boat people, who come to Australia seeking a safe place to live.
It is eminently appropriate that AFOPA was founded in South Australia. South Australia leads this country in many things, not least in its advocacy for decent treatment of boat people. And South Australia is the only State where an Aboriginal man, who was taken from his parents when he was 13 months old, was accepted by a Court to have been taken unlawfully, and to have suffered harm as a result.
South Australians seem to understand human rights. Please support the work of AFOPA: keep reminding our politicians that what is being done to Palestinians is utterly unacceptable; donate to charities which concern themselves with human rights: especially Military Court Watch, which is doing remarkable work reporting the atrocious treatment of Palestinians. And hit social media: make sure Australians learn the truth about what is happening. After all, if our political “leaders” hide from the truth, let’s use the new democracy of social media to remind them.
Arundhati Roy, the Indian writer who is famous here for writing “The God of Small Things”, is more famous in her home country for her constant campaigning against the needless creation of dams which serve no useful purpose but which displace small farm holders in the valleys above and below the dams. Arundhati Roy, in one of her essays a couple of years ago, said that “a thing once seen cannot be unseen. And when you have seen a great moral wrong, to remain silent is as much a political statement as to act against it.”
So: now you know what is being done to the Palestinians. Now is the time to speak against it.
This touching, truthful message is from a refugee suffering on Manus.
How can we be so miserable to a tiny group of people? Our politicians have persuaded us to forget the most basic thing: These people are human beings – they need our help.
I don’t normally pass on messages from politicians, but this one from Adam Bandt is an exception:
As we bear witness to the horror that is unfolding on Manus, we cannot be bystanders.
If we are silent, we are complicit. If we turn away, we are complicit. We cannot ignore the atrocities committed by Peter Dutton and Malcolm Turnbull in our name. These callous men must know that there is fierce, widespread opposition to their barbaric regime. As this crisis deepens, the most important time to stand up is now. Will you join me at an emergency rally tomorrow in Melbourne, calling for the immediate evacuation of the men stuck on Manus?
WHAT: Emergency Rally for the Men on Manus Island
WHERE: State Library of Victoria
WHEN: Tomorrow, 4th of November
This week, I am ashamed to be Australian. The hypocrisy that Australia can be on the UN Human Rights council whilst at the same time willfully disregarding the human rights of the men on Manus is disgraceful. That this is happening under our watch shakes me to my core.
It is inconceivable that our Prime Minister can wield the power of the state to inflict torture on innocent people, cutting off food, water and electricity for 600 people under our care. We must stand against him. Join me tomorrow as we occupy the streets of Melbourne’s CBD to send a message the government can’t ignore.
A national tragedy is happening before our eyes. It is disturbing that the Labor party, who started the Manus camp and put people there, are working with the Liberals to deflect attention away from this crisis.
Our major parties are knowingly, and in full view of the international community, attempting to destroy the lives of innocent human beings that need our help. Tell them that this is unacceptable.
Julian, when we look back on this time in Australian history, we will be deeply ashamed. Make sure you are on the right side of history. Make sure that when the next generation asks you what you did when this was happening, you can answer them with pride.
Stand with me tomorrow at the emergency rally in the city. Be counted.
P.S Can’t make it tomorrow? Forward this email to five friends and ask them to stand with you.
Here is a Facebook message from Behrouz Boochani, posted about 4 hours ago:
The situation is getting worse in Manus prison camp. The bodies are getting weak and people are developing physical problems. The refugees collected some more water in rubbish bins from a big tropical rain storm yesterday, and they are also using water from a hole that they dug in Oscar coupound. This water is not clean enough for people to drink, but they are boiling it on a small fire so it can be used. Another important thing is that people are struggling with starvation, and at the same time don’t feel safe in the centre or safe enough to go out because of their previous bad experiences. Many people are unable to sleep because of hunger and fear. Yesterday a Manus missionary wanted to bring food in to the refugees but the Navy prevented them. It’s really hard to describe the difficulty of the current situation. Nonetheless, what I’m understanding from talking with people is that they are not going to leave the prison camp. Also it’s important to state they are saying they don’t want to go to Australia. They are asking that Australia lets them go to a third country. They are so tired from Australia and don’t want to hear any more from Australia.
Hey: Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton how are your Christian values looking?
The situation on Manus is a humanitarian disaster, entirely Australia’s fault. Here is a message from one of the refugees on Manus, received this afternoon:
“EXTERMINATION OF REFUGEES IN MRPC IS UNDER WAY ACCORDING TO THE PLAN.
People are starving and hunger and thirst is everywhere in camp. Locals and churches are trying their best to provide food and water in the camp for the starving people. People have no electricity so when they tried to get help from the nearby home and a kind woman wanted to help with charging phones, a huge contingent of Navy and police arrived to arrest the woman and confiscate the phone sets. She was continuously weeping and crying over the situation happening with these helpless people. She still vows to help us through every possible help according to her capacity. Everyone is barred from outside to provide some Humanitarian needs, but in vain. Even it is not possible to take some stuff stealthily with the help of locals living around, even locals tried to help us with their meagre resources but in vain. A Humanitarian crisis is looming sooner or later if no help get in from the outside world. They are adamant to close the so called RPC through force and starvation. No sewage system is working anymore and filth will cause the epidemic of dysentery pretty much soon. We appeal to the outside world to assert every possible pressure on the authorities concerned to allow some help inside the camp for relief.” (emphasis added)
This disgrace is the direct responsibility of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. They are both engaged in a policy which is criminal, but they are too puffed up with their own importance to notice that the civilized world holds them in contempt.
And let’s not forget all the Coalition members of Federal parliament who go along with this brutal policy.
And don’t let Labor off the hook: The Australian Labor Party should reverse its refugee policy and embrace something with a shred of decency. Instead, it is playing along with Coalition policy. A policy which is causing untold human misery, and at vast expense to the taxpayer: offshore processing is costing Australia about $3,000,000,000 per year: that’s 3 billion dollars a year. A competent Treasurer would ordinarily blow the whistle on that sort of financial insanity, but Scott Morrison was refugee-torturer-in-chief until he became Treasurer.
Turnbull, Dutton and Morrison claim to be Christians. What they are doing gives the lie to their supposed Christianity.
There is a person who emails me quite lot. He represents the very worst of the Australian community.
He started with these suggestions:
- banning all Muslims from Australia
- supporting Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump
- putting all Australian Muslims in Concentration Camps
- strafing Muslim boat people (for the millennials, strafing means machine gunning)
Recently I got another email from him, in which he said that the Rohingyan Muslims who are facing genocide in Myanmar are simply being punished for 9/11.
That prompted me to ask him a couple of questions. My questions, and his answers, are as follows (prepare to be shocked):
Q:How many of the thousands of Muslims being killed in Myanmar were involved, directly or indirectly, in 9/11?
A: All the Muslims receiving divine retribution in Myanmar were indirectly involved in 9/11. Anyone who believes that non-Muslims should be killed, especially if they are Jews or homosexuals and who give credence to the evil ideology of Islam are collectively guilty.
It gets worse. Last week he wrote “The greatest mistake of the 20th Century? – the alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler instead of an alliance with Herr Hitler to defeat Stalin”
I agree that Stalin was terrible, but wishing we had formed an alliance with Hitler…? And this was in an email with the subject line: “This would never of happened under the 1000 year Reich” (I won’t even bother pointing out that he seems only semi-literate).
And today, he quotes a suggestion that Andrew Hastie should be PM, and comments “There may be a better option than Pauline Hanson…Someone who has actually killed Muslims …”
Why do I feel a need to have a shower after receiving his toxic emails? Maybe I should identify the name he uses in his emails. But no: that might just encourage him.
I have received the following report from Manus, just a couple of days ago. As you read it, remember this is YOUR government, spending YOUR taxes, doing things to innocent human beings that would horrify most Australians.
The Australian Government is trying coerce the 600 or so inmates of the Manus Regional Processing Centre (RPC) to leave the Centre.
It is doing this by slowly reducing services to the Centre, each one either more extreme or each one resulting in a more extreme environment for the men in the Centre.
For example, in the most recent examples the Centre management reduced medical services on Monday and this morning has reduced the access of men to the town, allowing only a maximum of 30 per day to visit the town using the Centre provided transport. Before that hourly buses were available to transport up to 150 men to town daily.
The Centre is located within a PNGDF naval base 30 mins drive from the main town of Lorengau.
Our Government wants the men to leave the Centre by 31 Oct, when it will close.
Our Government has paid to establish three new centres in the town to house the men.
Significantly, while Australian Immigration officials and officers have a very important role in the management of the RPC, Australia will have no such role in the new centres.
I have been told that all Australian ABF and APS will return to Australia shortly after 31 Oct.
As detention of the men in MPC has been declared illegal by the PNG High Court, the men, when housed in these new centres, will be free to move around the town as they please.
Lorengau is a small town of around 7000 people with many people living in poverty and with no knowledge of the culture of these men who are from many countries which they know little about.
So it is not surprising that a significant portion of the Lorengau population is opposed to this move.
They are also upset that they only found out about the details of this plan on Sun 8 Oct.
They were told in public announcements by a PNG Immigration Officer after church services in the town.
My wife and I witnessed the meeting outside the Catholic Church on that day.
The opposition to this move is universal in the community of Ward 1, one of seven or eight wards or districts of the town, where one of the centres is being built, and where I am staying. I was invited by the ward councillor to attend a meeting on Monday which I did.
But, for some of my Australian readers, it may be surprising that after four and half years in detention in RPC none of the men there want to leave the camp to live in the town under the conditions proposed. The want to leave, but only to go to a safe place where they can begin to re-build their lives.
Again, for some it may be surprising that after a similar period of advocacy for their freedom, many refugee advocates, including me, agree that they will be worse off in town than they were in RPC before the services started being cut at the Centre several months ago.
In short, the‘cure’ … is worse than the ‘disease’ itself.
The primary concern of both the men and the community is that after 31 Oct Australia will abandon the men in PNG. Certainly the US settlement will continue, albeit with numbers and time frames unknown, but otherwise the Australian Government is taking no further responsibility for the men.
We already know hundreds of them cannot or will not be accepted by the US, with their only choices being:
• remain permanently and involuntarily exiled in PNG, a country that cannot support them safely and where the community does not want them; or
• return to the country from which they fled in fear for their lives. The refugee assessment process, (in declaring them to be refugees) has found that the vast majority of those remaining have both:
– been forced to flee their country because of persecution, war, or violence, and
– (still) have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group (if they return to their country).
Both these two dot points, of course, match the UN endorsed definition of a refugee.
[I note as an aside that some politicians in Australia have taken to using the term ‘economic refugee’ to describe these people. This is not a legitimate term. People are either refugees according the above definition or they are not. Economic issues are not considered in assessing refugee status – both rich and poor people have equal right to protection under the Refugee Convention.
People who leave their country purely for economic reasons are not refugees but are economic migrants.
To clarify this further. Under the UN convention signed by Australia, any person leaving their country and arriving in a country which is a signatory to the convention has the right to seek asylum by applying for refugee status in that country. If a person leaving their country for economic reasons seeks asylum in a signatory country, that signatory country (Australia in this case) must still assess the refugee status of that person and if found not to be a refugee and this determination is so considered by an appropriate and fair review process, only then can that person be treated as a migrant and then will be subject to consideration of deportation to their country of origin if it is safe to do so and if the country will accept a deportee. Some countries such as Iran will not accept the return of their citizens unless they return voluntarily.]
But now back to the other concerns.
The second major concern of the men is that their medical and health services will be reduced under the new arrangements. In the latest stage of the coercive action taken at the RPC, that level of service was imposed on them on Monday and today so we already know how bad that will be.
As an example, from now on they have no access to torture and trauma counsellors, a key need for the hundreds of men with psychiatric disorders resulting from torture and trauma and for all of the men, all whom now have some degree of long term depression. This service was available to all the men up until last week. and I met one of these critical people looking very distressed to be at the end of their appointment, knowing that they would not be replaced.
Also, as the medical service winds down, the men with current prescriptions have been given a month’s worth of their medication. However, for any new prescriptions and for ad hoc requirements even such as Panadol, it is unclear what the situation in RPC actually is at the moment.
What we do know is that the men already in East Lorengau have to get their medicines in town. Only some of the medicines are free in town at the Hospital dispensary. If it has no stock or the drug is not on the catalogue of free medicines, the men have to buy it at the local pharmacy. These men get only 100 kina (around $40) per week to live on, plus limited food. Medicines that they have to buy vary between 20 and 60 kina. All of the men will be subject to these arrangements if and when they move into the centres in town.
What I have not yet confirmed is what is happening to the men in RPC from now until the closure of the camp. The pharmacy in the camp that has previously serviced most of the refugees needs has been closed, and their informal access to a one off issue of two Panadol from the security gate for the relief of immediate pain has been terminated. However I understand there is still a pharmacy in the still open medical centre that also services Centre staff. But I do not know if that second pharmacy is open or not, and if it is, is it available to supply medicines free of charge to the men who have no income from the Centre, meaning many of them have no money at all.
My fear is that, if the answer to either of these questions is no, then those men with no money who suffer anything (from a simple headache to a serious new medical condition needing drug treatment) will have to come into town. And if the Hospital dispensary has no stock, or the drug is not on the catalogue of free medicines, the men will not be able to get the drugs at the pharmacy because they have no money. And since only 30 people a day can travel to town on free Centre transport, they will have significant difficulty in getting to and from town anyway. I am told that there is limited public transport from the PNGDF base into town, but this costs money and is so of no use to men with little or no money.
The local community is also concerned about this medical situation.
These new arrangements will put a drain on the already very limited resources of Manus. I visited the Hospital dispensary and the pharmacy yesterday to check this out. I spoke to the staff at the dispensary and they told me that the Manus dispensary now only gets a re-supply of medicines every four to six weeks, with the irregular arrival of commercial boats from Lae. Three years ago they used to have a weekly boat service to Manus and then medicines were delivered weekly. The shipping company went broke.
More importantly the staff at the dispensary had not be told that in a month’s time many hundreds of men whose prescriptions have run out are likely to turn up there to seek additional medicine.
They said they would inform their boss. But it could be all a little academic. Even if they knew what medicines were required and they could find out in a few days, the order could not be delivered for at least another four weeks at the earliest, by which time the men could be on their doorstep.
The third big issue is security.
A small number of men (around fifty I think) have already moved to one of the new camps in East Lorengau which has been open for at least a year.
There have been six deaths out of the 1000 or so refugees and asylum seekers originally on Manus, now reduced to 600 in the last four and a half years.
The two most recent of those deaths, both suicide, have been residents of the much smaller population in town in East Lorengau and they have occurred in the last two months!
The men rightly believe that they are being asked to reside in a death trap.
As a result all the men now in RPC are refusing to leave RPC as it is closed down and demolished around them. They also intend staying there until Australia has carried out its threat to close the Centre 31 Oct, whether full or empty. and whether or not all Australian officials and officers have departed in early November At this point, Australia will accept no responsibility for the welfare of the men. whether they have moved into town or whether they remain at the derelict MPC site with no access to water, health services, food, power, communications, shelter or transport. The men have also given no indication if or when they will leave that derelict site after that date. Indications are that they may intend to seek to stay there indefinitely.
On a personal note, for eighteen months my group has taken specific responsibility to support 23 men on Manus. As of today one has been deported, one living in East Lorengau committed suicide two weeks ago and the other resident of East Lorengau is living at a hotel with … two of his refugee friends. He is mentally unstable and on daily medication. He was the room mate of the man who committed suicide. The Sunday before I arrived he had a serious psychotic incident in town in which he had to be restrained by three of his friends assisted by my colleague J, who was in Manus at that time. On that day despite numerous efforts, they were unable to find any one at the hospital, the East Lorengau centre or anywhere on Manus to help him. They eventually returned to J’s hotel (the same one I am now staying in) and he has been here ever since, initially under the care of his friends and J. I have replaced J in that role as she has returned to Australia.
Since then I have been negotiating with the authorities to find a safe place for my sick friend to stay. Their only offer is for him to return to East Lorengau where he has no friends and where he witnessed his roommate’s first suicide attempt, before being moved to the hospital for treatment where he subsequently committed suicide. Furthermore none of his friends at RPC are allowed to visit East Lorengau. My sick friend is prepared to go back to RPC and stay with his friends and leave when they leave. The authorities have so far refused this request as they are trying to get everyone else out of RPC. The only other suggestion from the authorities is that his friends now move permanently to East Lorengau, leaving RPC, as Australia is trying unsuccessfully to get them to do. And of course his friends are not prepared to move there permanently for the three reasons outlined in this background, but particularly because, of the two members of their community who have moved to East Lorengau, one is now dead and the other has been made seriously mentally ill.
Negotiations and advocacy continue to protect my friends. I am not leaving Manus until late October, when another Australian colleague will have arrived to take over from me.
Here is a message I received this morning from a lady who is deeply concerned for the refugees held on Manus. I have modified it slightly. Please read it and ask yourself: is this really what Australia does to people fleeing persecution? People who have committed no offence?
Halloween is Festival of the Dead, This year, it is also the literal deadline for the Manus men still at Lombrun RPC.
On that date they are to be forced out of the compounds that have housed them for 4 years and into Lorengau.
For many this feels like an actual date with death.
They fear that PNG locals will fight them violently for every job or resource available and that, instead of liberation, their lives will become even more desperate.
Their fears have some foundation. Machete attacks and thefts have occurred during day trips on the island.
Men at Lorengau Transit Centre have gone mad and then died.
The kindness of some Manusians does not completely offset the fact that PNG is still a very harsh, struggling country. There has been envy and anger towards strangers who have been warehoused by Australia and who have no tribal allegiances.
Australia’s exercise in colonialism ended abruptly 40 years ago. This latest failed exercise in offshore detention has managed to signal to the world that we left PNG in chaos, one of the least safe travel destinations in the world.
The irony of men wanting a safe form of freedom being herded out the gates of RPC by force is acute.
There is no freedom to thrive waiting for them on November 1, 2017.
They see the trap. Moreover, their main strength has been their solidarity. Dispersal means disunity.
What the men have achieved together through fellowship, collective action and mutual compassion is also under attack.
On paper they have been given thorough medical discharges and records. In reality they get a bunch of untranslated words they don’t understand and a month’s supply of medication but little else.
These are medicines they would generally not have needed if in community detention in Australia. Tropical ulcers, antidepressants, sedatives would have been less necessary if they had been free to work. The risk of overdose is high and Manus hospital is not resourced to help.
Refugee allies in Australia might dream of protecting them in refuges or running a hospital ship. Doubtless they would feel the need to help locals, too.
The reality is that sustaining refugee hostages of the past 4 years is beyond the resources of most community activists. They have done a great deal to support the men across that time. And perhaps also to delude them that wholesale rescue was still possible.
Some lawyers have worked hard for the release of individual refugees. Deals were done with Border Force to conceal each release from publicity. The image of a boat blockade remains roughly intact.
The truth is that some boat arrivals have been admitted to Australia and others have not. The arbitrariness of the process is shocking.
So the Halloween deadline seems ominous in more ways than one.
Activists have strong bonds with these 700 men. They fundraised for phones, shoes and bath towels. They have counselled them through sleepless tropical nights and reached out to the families left behind.
As with the Rohingyans, it is perfectly clear that taking a plane back home is equally perilous. Some of the homesick have gone. They felt they could not leave their families unprotected in poverty for any longer.
Survival rates of those refouled is less clear. Some have found ways to cope.
The experience of those refugees transferred to America last month is another paradox. These men took planes, were given accommodation and a chance to find jobs. They feel “lucky”.
American gun violence, racism and poverty seems benign by comparison with the issues faced by PNG.
So the few handpicked, highly educated men perhaps not destroyed by the uncertainties of detention who were airlifted from Manus by America get a chance at life.
Hundreds more do not. And children remain trapped on Nauru: a small pile of rocks with machetes.
Then we have the plight of mainland refugees.
What is already dead is the compassion of Australia’s right wing conservatives and white supremacists.
They have spent a fortune to make an example of boat arrivals. Food, mouldy shipping containers or tents and guards have cost Australian taxpayers a great deal.
Breaking the smuggling trade has also resulted in waste of life.
My friend xx arrived on Manus after the Taliban came for him. A month earlier his father had received the Taliban’s death knock and did not survive. The family business was in repairing and reselling foreign vehicles. This was enough to incense fundamentalists. His mother and brothers have been cowering around the borders of Afghanistan ever since. His mum became catatonically depressed and eventually received treatment in a major city. The great fear was that the younger brother would be recruited by extremists. AR, a talented mechanic fluent in English, has used the 4 years to complete some online learning. He has also become atheist, deeply depressed and addicted to cigarettes. I helped with phones and call credit.
The family had earlier tried to send xx to Japan to escape all this on a trade visa. He was refused. Then they tried a boat from Indonesia.
Will xx find a way into PNG life? Will he be safe in PNG?
Australia is throwing away a stoic, resilient and talented future citizen.
Recently I received a letter from refugees held on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.
It is signed by nearly 200 refugees, who have been held in hellish conditions on Manus for the past four years. For obvious reasons, I have not reproduced the signatures.
The letter makes grim reading, but all Australians should know about it.
Here is the letter: Letter_DrR
On Sunday 15 October 2017, the Wheeler Centre put on a day of ideas at Melbourne Town Hall. The first session was called Questions for the Nation.
Here’s my contribution:
“Is democracy still working?”
Donald Trump is President of the USA.
Malcolm Turnbull is Prime Minister of Australia, and the alternative PM is Bill Shorten.
This is what democracy has thrown up. Whatever happened to the idea of leadership?
Donald Trump was democratically elected. Leaving aside the complexities of the Electoral College system, it seems he was elected in accordance with the democratic principles of the United States of America.
Since his election, Trump has been an embarrassing failure.
He denies the science of climate change. As a candidate he vowed to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,”. His first budget cut the EPA’s budget by more than 30%.
Trump is famous for his use of Twitter. As long ago as 2012, he tweeted:
“The concept of global warming was invented by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”
Meantime, in the real world the past 10 weeks have seen10 tropical storms become hurricanes: Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irma, Jose, Katia, Lee, Maria, Nate and Ophelia.
The strength and ferocity of a hurricane is a function of the ocean temperature: as ocean temperatures rise, so hurricanes become more destructive. There is no doubt that hurricanes will be more destructive as the oceans warm.
In the past couple of months, Texas, Florida and various Caribbean islands including Puerto Rico have suffered immense damage because of hurricanes.
The people who live on Puerto Rico are American citizens. They have been without electricity and fresh water for nearly two weeks, because of Hurricane Maria. Last week, Trump got around to visiting Puerto Rico.
He spent four hours there. He visited a wealthy suburb of San Juan called Guaymabo, which had suffered very little damage. He said he “had fun” in Puerto Rico. He might not have said that if he had visited the rest of the island, where people are still dying for want of the most basic supplies which FEMA is planning to provide once all the paperwork is done.
In Washington, Trump has not achieved any legislative success. He has not delivered on any of his electoral promises.
This is due in large measure to Trump’s shameless capacity to deny facts. So he tags as “Fake News” anything that does not sit with his world view.
Malcolm Turnbull is a very intelligent man, and likeable. When he replaced Tony Abbott as PM, most Australians breathed a sigh of relief.
If he had had the political nous to go to the polls straight away, he would probably have won a substantial majority. He would have been able to hose out the hard-right.
But instead of going to the polls straight away, he dithered until his political instincts were shown to be missing in action. And now he is hostage to the hard right, with Tony Abbott sniping at him from the back bench, and Pauline Hanson calling the shots in the Senate.
The big change in the way democracies work happened 20 or 30 years ago: the science and technology of opinion polls developed dramatically. It is now possible to get an apparently accurate, representative measure of public attitudes easily and cheaply (it does not have to cost $122 million).
As this technology developed, political parties saw a way of shaping their policies so as to suit a perceived majority of the electorate. It is an interesting irony that this technology could have been, but has not been, used to find the nation’s views on marriage equality. If it had been used, the result would be more reliable statistically and would have cost thousands rather than millions of dollars. But that’s what the government does when it does not intend to be bound by the result but rather intends to leave plenty of room for the hard right to vote against same sex marriage.
In recent years, the government has been brutalising asylum seekers in ways that would appal most Australians. It has been costing us a fortune: it costs Australian taxpayers about $560,000 per refugee per year to lock them up in hellish conditions in Nauru and Manus. And the government makes it nearly impossible for us to find out what is going on. Journalists simply can’t get to Nauru. It costs $8000 for a journalist to apply for a Nauru visa. The fee is not refunded if the application is refused. The application is refused for any journalist who does not share the government’s ideology.
The public has been persuaded to accept all this by dishonest political rhetoric:
- the Coalition call boat people “illegal”. It’s a lie
- the Coalition call the exercise “border protection”, suggesting that we need to be protected from boat people. It’s a lie.
- the Coalition says the offshore processing regime is the responsibility of PNG and Nauru. It’s a lie.
- the Coalition prevent us from learning the truth about the cruelty with which innocent men, women and children are being treated. It’s a disgrace
And the same politicians who have lied to us for years about refugees have thrown $122 million at a postal plebiscite to find our views on marriage equality: a subject on which Australian views are already very clearly known. And they don’t intend to do what we want.
That’s where democracy has got us: Malcolm Turnbull panders to a party that has Pauline Hanson as its leader and (for the time being at least) Malcolm Roberts as a successful Senate candidate.
And what better can we hope for? Bill Shorten? He’s a very nice guy personally; he is intelligent and thoughtful. But he leads a party which reintroduced the Pacific Solution and made its operation even more vicious than John Howard and Philip Ruddock managed.
Look around and identify a genuine leader in politics these days. It’s a lonely search.
The mistreatment of asylum seekers is now, effectively, a bi-partisan issue. But that is true of many issues.
There was a time when you could predict, with fair accuracy, what the Labor policy on a particular issue would be, and what the Liberal policy on that same issue would be. Because the origins and inclinations of both major parties were well-known.
There was a time when politicians would say “This is what I believe. Here is why you should agree with me”.
There was a time when political leadership included the idea of leading. That idea seems to have faded away, some time in the past 20 or 30 years.
Western democracies now have leadership in the Jim Hacker mould. Jim Hacker, in Yes Prime Minister, famously said “I am their leader. I must follow them.”
There was a time when, despite Churchill’s comment, democracy worked quite well.
That time has passed.
It is easy to forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. So was Richard Nixon.
It is easy to forget that Australia once had political leaders like Deakin and Menzies; Chifley and Keating.
It is also easy to forget the real point of the American Declaration of Independence. Part of the Preamble is famous, but its broader point is often overlooked. It starts like this:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
–We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …”
This is not talking about just calling another election: it is about a fundamental change to system of government.
Democracy is not working. Short of scrapping the entire system, let’s try something novel: let’s see if we can find some politicians who are also willing to be leaders.
Earlier I wrote about a person who emails me with very odd views about Islam. Here are some of this person’s toxic ideas. He advocates:
- banning all Muslims from Australia
- supporting Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump
- putting all Australian Muslims in Concentration Camps
- strafing Muslim boat people (for the millennials, strafing means machine gunning)
And he quotes Adolf Hitler to advance some of his poisonous views.
Today, I got another email from him, in which he said that the Muslims who are facing genocide in Myanmar are simply being punished for 9/11.
That prompted me to ask him a couple of questions. My questions, and his answers, are as follows (prepare to be shocked):
Q1:How many of the thousands of Muslims being killed in Myanmar were involved, directly or indirectly, in 9/11?
A: All the Muslims receiving divine retribution in Myanmar were indirectly involved in 9/11. Anyone who believes that non-Muslims should be killed, especially if they are Jews or homosexuals and who give credence to the evil ideology of Islam are collectively guilty.
Q2: I get the clear impression that you think it is OK to kill people because of their religion, regardless whether they have done anything wrong. Or have I misunderstood?
A: I do not consider Islam to be a religion. Islam is an ideology that hides behind a cloak of religion. During WW2 the allies bombed civilians in Germany and Japan. These civilians may themselves have done nothing wrong, however they were collectively guilty. No allied aircrew were ever prosecuted for killing these people. I rest my case
This provoked me. I responded:
I understand your answers, and I disagree profoundly.
You clearly have no conception of the rule of law, or of any recognisable form of ethics. Your willingness to countenance the slaughter of countless thousands of people because of their religion (or ideology, if you prefer) is, quite frankly, appalling.
I do not know what religion or ideology you adhere to, if any. If you claim to be a Christian, it is clear that you know nothing about the teachings of Christianity.
Your answers disclose a degree of bigotry which astonishes me, despite the shocking content of some of the emails you have sent me in the past.
Your attitudes disgust me.
Here is a statement made on 24 July in Geneva by Filipo Grandi. How many times do we have to be told we are behaving badly? Blame: Howard, Ruddock, Rudd, Gillard, Marles, Abbott, Morrison, Turnbull, Dutton…
All of them dishonest. All of them have committed crimes against humanity by their indefinite imprisonment of innocent human beings.
Geneva, 24 July 2017 Statement by Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Australia must end harmful practice of offshore processing
Australia’s policy of offshore processing in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, which denies access to asylum in Australia for refugees arriving by sea without a valid visa, has caused extensive, avoidable suffering for far too long.
Four years on, more than 2,000 people are still languishing in unacceptable circumstances. Families have been separated and many have suffered physical and psychological harm.
In light of this dire humanitarian situation, last November UNHCR exceptionally agreed to help with the relocation of refugees to the United States following a bilateral agreement between Australia and the US. We agreed to do so on the clear understanding that vulnerable refugees with close family ties in Australia would ultimately be allowed to settle there.
UNHCR has recently been informed by Australia that it refuses to accept even these refugees, and that they, along with the others on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, have been informed that their only option is to remain where they are or to be transferred to Cambodia or to the United States.
This means, for example, that some with serious medical conditions, or who have undergone traumatic experiences, including sexual violence, cannot receive the support of their close family members residing in Australia.
To avoid prolonging their ordeal, UNHCR has no other choice but to endorse the relocation of all refugees on Papua New Guinea and Nauru to the United States, even those with close family members in Australia.
There is no doubt these vulnerable people, already subject to four years of punishing conditions, should be reunited with their families in Australia. This is the humane and reasonable thing to do.
The Australian government’s decision to deny them this possibility is contrary to the fundamental principles of family unity and refugee protection, and to common decency.
UNHCR fully endorses the need to save lives at sea and to provide alternatives to dangerous journeys and exploitation by smugglers. But the practice of offshore processing has had a hugely detrimental impact. There is a fundamental contradiction in saving people at sea, only to mistreat and neglect them on land.
Australia has a proud humanitarian tradition, manifested in its support for overseas aid and its longstanding refugee resettlement programme. I urge Australia to bring an immediate end to the harmful practice of offshore processing, offer solutions to its victims, for whom it retains full responsibility, and work with us on future alternatives that save lives at sea and provide protection to people in need.
At a time of record levels of displacement globally, it is crucial that all States offer protection to survivors of war and persecution, and not outsource their responsibilities to others. Refugees, our fellow human beings, deserve as much.
Background Approximately 2,500 refugees and asylum-seekers have been forcibly transferred by Australia to ‘offshore processing’ facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru since the introduction of the current policy in 2013. Of these, some 1,100 remain in Nauru and 900 in Papua New Guinea.
Following the Australia-US bilateral agreement on relocation, UNHCR has referred more than 1,100 refugees to the US over the past eight months. Another 500 people are still waiting for the outcome of the refugee status determination processing being carried out by authorities in PNG and Nauru, under the Australian arrangement.
Here is a press release from the Refugee Action Collective concerning the demolition of Charlie compound in the Manus Island detention centre. You will see from this that the Australian government, and its contractors, seem to regard the well-being of the refugees as irrelevant:
Refugee Action Coalition
MANUS HUMAN RIGHTS TRASHED AS REFUGEES FORCED TO MOVE
Charlie Compound, where ten Rohingya, Pakistani and Afghan refugees have been living for a month has been demolished after power and water was cut off and the refugees were evicted by PNG police and immigration officials last week. (Photos attached.)
The eviction and demolition are the latest moves by an increasingly desperate government to try and force people out of the detention centre to meet the deadline for the end of the Ferrovial contract on 31 October.
The ten refugees have been living in Charlie since Border Force announced that the Foxtrot compound was being closed at the end of June. They have been forced to try to find accommodation elsewhere in the detention centre defying attempts by Border Force and PNG immigration to force them to move to the East Lorengau Transit Accommodation, closer to the Lorengau settlement on Manus Island.
But there are fewer places for them in an increasingly crowded camp.
The latest notice inside the detention centre days that there are 102 days until the detention centre closes. But only people determined to be refugees are allowed in East Lorengau but it is unsafe and has even fewer services than the detention centre. There are around 60 refugees presently living at East Lorengau, but, in turn, they are being pressured to sign agreements to be resettled in PNG. Although PNG has no resettlement arrangements. The few who have signed for PNG resettlement are living precariously in Port Moresby.
Refugees have again been told that Foxtrot compound is going to be closed ‘in the next few days’. But there is nowhere for them to go.
To make space within the detention centre, refugees will have to forced to move out of Oscar and Delta compounds to East Lorengau. Yet East Lorengau, has room for only around 280 and there are over 700 refugees in the detention centre.
There are around 60 refugees at East Lorengau, who are being pressured to sign agreements to be resettled in PNG.
Any forced closure of Foxtrot would create badly overcrowded and unsanitary conditions inside the detention centre.
Neither Border Force nor PNG immigration have any legal power to use force on refugees inside the detention centre. In April 2016, The PNG Supreme Court found that all the Manus detainees are being held unlawfully.
“Withdrawing power and water, closing down accommodation areas, ending services and activities have become the method of choice for Border Force to pressure the refugees,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.
“They hope by creating intolerable conditions, they can force enough people out of the detention centre. This kind of coercion amounts to further human rights abuses of people the government has no right to imprison. Such abuses that have already cost them $70m million in damages for the years of unlawful detention.
“Things are coming to a head. Minister Dutton says he wants to close the detention centre but there is nowhere in PNG to put the asylum seekers and refugees and no third country. There is no prospect of refugees from Manus being settled in the US before the deadline.
“That leaves Australia – a choice the Minister, and the Labor opposition will find the decision hard to swallow. But it is a dilemma of their own making. The sooner everyone is brought to Australia, the sooner they will get the safety and security they need. “
For more information contact Ian Rintoul 0417 275 713
Demolition of Charlie Compound
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is holding an enquiry into proposed changes to the Citizenship Act. The bill being considered is the “Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017”.
The Bill includes the following provision:
“At the end of section 46 Add:
Required information or documents
(5) The Minister may determine:
(a) an Australian Values Statement; and
(b) any requirements relating to the Australian Values Statement….”
The Minister (that is, the Immigration Minister) is therefore given the power to decide what constitutes an appropriate statement of Australian Values. The significance of that power should not be underestimated.
The values which define a nation’s character are, typically, very diverse. It is not easy to imagine that every person in any nation would identify the same values as characteristic of that nation. The proposed amendments noted above would produce the result that adherence to Australia’s values would become a touchstone to citizenship. It seems odd then that one person should have the power to determine, for the nation at large, what its values are. For example, the history of Australia since white settlement could lead a person to suppose that Christian principles were central to Australia’s values. But that proposition would be inconsistent with aspects of Australia’s conduct (past and present) and inconsistent with section 116 of the Constitution, which says:
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
It is worth noting that the proposed s. 46(5) may not prevent a Minister from including, in a Statement of Australian Values, a requirement to adhere to Christian principles. This would be objectionable on at least four obvious grounds:
- The fact of growing Islamophobia in the community;
- The fact that people from various religious backgrounds join the Australian community and contribute greatly to it;
- The fact that such a requirement would be inconsistent with section 116 of the Constitution, even if not in breach of it;
- The fact that the indigenous peoples of Australia embrace religious views which are pre-Christian.
It seems highly undesirable that any one person, whether a Minister of the Crown or not, should have the power to determine what the nation’s values are, especially when his or her determination has the potential to affect a person’s right to citizenship.
There is a further point. A Statement of Australian Values already exists, as part of the process of applying for permission to enter Australia. If it is a template for what is proposed, then we have a problem.
The Australian Values Statement, in Form 1281, provides as follows:
“AUSTRALIAN VALUES STATEMENT
This statement must be signed by the main applicant and each person aged 18 years or over who is included in the visa application, unless they have already signed it on the visa application form…
- Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good;
- Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background;
- the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.
What is notable about the parts emphasised is that they are difficult to reconcile with the idea of imprisoning innocent people who have sought a safe place to live, and in particular they stand awkwardly with treating asylum seekers the way we do in order to deter others from seeking asylum in Australia.
If we are to have a Statement of Australian Values, the Parliament should ensure that it genuinely reflects Australia’s values as reflected by its conduct as a nation, and the Parliament should ensure that all members of the Parliament could, in good conscience, say that they embrace and live up to the Values reflected in the Statement.
It is notorious that Australia’s treatment of people seeking asylum has been trenchantly criticised by various NGOs. If we are to have a Statement of Australian Values, it should either reflect our willingness to behave in ways that had attracted that criticism, or else our conduct as a Nation should be made to conform to the Statement of Values. Failing one or other of these, the proposed Statement of Australian Values would only survive at the frontier where self-delusion meets self-congratulation.
And while it is true that the English language is important in Australia, there are some Federal MPs whose grasp of English is so tenuous that they would probably fail the Values Statement.
Submissions can be made online at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ Committees/OnlineSubmission or via email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The text of the bill and the Explanatory Memorandum can be found here