Monday 29th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

advance awstrayla unfair ....

advance awstrayla unfair ....

from the Drum …..

Ahead of SBS's Go Back to Where You Came From, participant Catherine Deveny reflects on the Government's asylum seeker policy and asks, is this the Australia we want?

Whether Peter Reith and the Howard government did actually 'stop the boats' is contestable.

That the policy to 'stop the boats' caused misery, loss of life, loss of face, corroded our national reputation irreversibly, made the international community think of Australia as a bunch of redneck racists, reneged on our international obligation as signatories to the UN Refugee Convention and poisoned the welcoming and compassionate heart of Australia is, in my opinion, undeniable. And unforgiveable.

And the Gillard Government's resuscitation of the heartless and unconstructive 'stop the boats' mantra is beyond shameful.

Go Back To Where You Came From series director Lincoln Howes wrote a piece about the show yesterday observing,

What we didn't expect was the grudging mutual respect that grew between Reith and Deveny that by the end saw them behaving like a long-married couple taking the occasional swipe.

Darling Lincoln confused the friendliness I extend to all humans as respect. It wasn't. I have no respect for Peter Reith. But like most Australians I do not grade, rank or class people.

Dog whistles like 'boat people', 'queue jumpers', 'people smugglers', 'illegals', 'children overboard', 'onshore and off shore processing', 'national security' and 'border control' were used by the Howard government to incite panic.

It is crucial to remember these dog whistles did not infect us all. Informed and compassionate people have became more determined and vocal in response to the lies and misinformation, inspiring shows like Go Back To Where You Came From and documentaries like Between The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea and A Well Founded Fear.

However, the dog whistles and sentiments appealed to the worst in some people. They fed the parts of their hearts and minds that were racist, xenophobic and fearful. They infected our nation's psyche and it spread like a virus.

Asylum seeker dog whistles appeal to those who feel ripped off. Blaming the fact they can't get a job, a bed in a hospital, a seat on the tram, affordable housing, a pool in their backyard, their kid in the school they want on asylum seekers is convenient. It allows people not to blame themselves, or poor infrastructure because of bad government. It's not their fault, it's the fault of government with no vision, no courage, no compassion, no balls.

Make no bones about it. Our treatment of asylum seekers is born out of bigotry, xenophobia and racism. If the boats carried French physists, British doctors or American teachers fleeing death, fear and persecution there would be no 'problem' and no need for a 'solution'.

Our nation was built on 'boat people' and it will only survive and thrive if we revert back to the county we once were; a tolerant, secular democracy that lead the world in workers rights, feminism and multiculturalism.

People ask me why I'm I so passionate about asylum seekers. Were my parent's asylum seekers? No, they weren't. My family migrated from Ireland generations ago and I have no idea why.But whatever that 'better life' my peasant ancestors were prepared to risk leaving everything behind for I am a humble and grateful recipient of.

I went to Preston Primary School which was full of migrants. Italians, Greeks, Dutch, Yugoslav, Croatian, Macedonian, German. We called them 'New Australians'. For all my parents' faults, I never heard a single racist word growing up.

At our grade six graduation we sang;

I'm as Greek as a Souvlaki, I'm as Irish as a stew

I'm Italian as spaghetti, I'm as Danish as a blue

I'm as German as a dumpling, Middle Eastern as a lamb

And I'm an Aussie, yes I'm an Aussie, yes I am.

And we felt it.

What I find sad and inspiring, in equal proportions, is when racists and xenophobes actually meet migrants, refugees and asylum seekers personally. They almost always, and immediately, think these particular ones are okay. It's just those other ones. The ones that are dodgy are the ones with the funny names, funny religions and funny smelling food that they have not met.

Bill Bryson, in his book Made in America, neatly sums up anti migration sentiment for me. His take is many people believe "immigration was a wise and prescient thing in the case of one's parents or grandparents, but it really ought to stop now."

No one is suggesting an 'open door' policy. And no one is suggesting Australia take the 43 million displaced people in the world. The fact is that Australia is not doing its fair share. Australia is currently home to only 0.2 per cent of the world's refugees. Per capita, we rank 68th in the world.

Raising our humanitarian intake, processing asylum seekers swiftly and compassionately, and supporting them as best we can while they resettle is all we ask.

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share,

With courage let us all combine

To advance Australia fair

Racist, nasty, ungenerous, backward, deceitful... Is this the vision we have of Australia? Is this the Australia we want? The demonisation of asylum seekers diminishes us all culturally, politically and economically. And it's deeply unAustralian. Whatever that is now.

Regular Drum contributor Peter Reith will reflect on taking part in the SBS documentary series tomorrow.

Catherine Deveny appears in Go Back To Where You Came From, beginning August 28 on SBS1. View her full profile here.

Advance Australia Unfair

 

no advantage? nobody yet knows what that means ….

from Crikey …

Crikey journalist Amber Jamieson writes:

ASYLUM SEEKERS, MANUS ISLAND, NAURU, PARIS ARISTOTLE, REFUGEES

It's the cornerstone of the expert panel report and Australia's new asylum seeker policy, but the government still hasn't decided what a "no advantage" principle means.

The report that inspired Labor's policy -- authored by Angus Houston, Marcus L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle -- explains: "Asylum seekers gain no benefit by choosing not to seek protection through established mechanisms." Or in other words, asylum seekers who come by boat will have to wait just as long in Nauru or Manus Island as they would if they'd stayed in Malaysia, Indonesia or wherever.

But there's still been no official explanation of what it means in practise, although the government has signed deals for asylum seekers to be sent to Papua New Guinea and Nauru and it's been a month since the Houston report recommendations were passed into legislation.

Will "no advantage" mean waiting months or years? Will all refugees have to wait the same amount of time? On what basis is a waiting time decided? Does the waiting time begin from when the asylum seeker gets off the boat or from when their refugee claims have been approved?

"It's not simply an issue of length of time as some commentators have referred to it as," Aristotle told Crikey. "It's more complex than that.

"What would be envisaged is that the way in which UNHCR processes now and makes determination of who is in need of resettlement and then makes the determination of who in that group is prioritised for those resettlement places, that's the exact same operational principles that would apply in this context. That's why you can't simply rely on a mathematical formula about length of time only."

Meaning a young single mother with three children who have experienced torture would be placed quicker than a young single man who was healthy.

However, the UNHCR won't be involved in processing asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island, meaning it's Australian officials who are attempting to use UNHCR principles. "I fully accept that's a complicating factor," said Aristotle. "It's not an exact science and it's not a test and it's a principle that should be applied."

A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen called it a "complex process" and said the details were still being finalised.

"Data around the processing and resettlement times for a range of cohorts in various circumstances is being gathered from a number of places, including from the UNHCR, Immigration and Australian diplomatic posts across the world," they told Crikey.

The UNHCR confirmed it had been in discussions with government and the Department of Immigration on a number of issues in the Houston report, including the "no advantage" principle, but would give no further details on the type of data the government wants. "I can't discuss those discussions in terms of any information we may or may not have provided," a spokesperson said. Instead, they pointed to a letter by UNCHR president Antonio Guterres sent to Bowen last week and tabled in parliament on Monday on the UNHCR's formal advice on Nauru being a processing country.

Regarding the "no advantage" principle, it reads:

"The practical implication of this are not fully clear to us. The time it takes for resettlement referrals by UNHCR in South-East Asia or elsewhere may not be a suitable comparator for the period that a Convention State whose protection obligations should use. Moreover it will be difficult to identify such a period with any accuracy, given that there is no 'average' time for resettlement ... Finally, the 'no advantage' test appears to be based on the longer term aspiration that there are, in fact, effective 'regional processing arrangements' in place."

Aristotle agrees that the regional plan hasn't been fully developed yet but adds: "The worse thing you could do is to wait for the environment to be ideal."

Forty to 50 male asylum seekers will be flown to Nauru this week, although Bowen's spokesperson told Crikey: "The government will make further announcements on the 'no advantage' test in due course". When Crikey pressed for further clarification of "due course", the spokesman replied: "This is a complex area with legal intricacies and it is important we get it right. As such more detail will be released when appropriate, and I don't intend to provide arbitrary timelines, sorry."

The "no advantage" principle has refugee advocates angry. "It's nonsensical," said Pamela Curr. "No advantage to what? It's an implied threat to asylum seekers."

Curr notes that some asylum seekers spend decades waiting in Malaysia. She says there's been speculation in refugee circles of different waiting time periods for different nationalities. Two recent boatloads of asylum seekers (who have been earmarked for removal to Nauru) include Burmese families, Iranians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Pakistanis and Somali asylum seekers.

Once the offshore processing centres are running at full capacity, Nauru will hold a maximum of 1500 (with 500 expected to be living there by the end of the month) and Manus Island will hold a total of 600. Over 2000 asylum seekers have arrived since the implementation of the Houston plan.

Although the government and media focus is on Nauru and Manus Island, Aristotle calls them only "short-term measures" and says the real focus should be on building a regional processing arrangement, the increase of humanitarian refugee visas and the millions the government has committed to spend on capacity building and research.