Prev
Next

How Labor roped Timor into asylum seeker vote-grabbing

Graham Thom

by Graham Thom

13 Oct 05:38am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Border Protection, Chris Bowen, East Timor, Immigration, Timor Solution

38 comments

On Monday Chris Bowen, Australia’s Minister for Immigration, flew out to East Timor, Indonesia and Malaysia to push for the development of a so-called ‘regional framework’ for addressing refugee issues, and more specifically to progress the idea of a regional processing centre for asylum seekers in East Timor.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen arrives at Dili airport on Monday. Photo: Henrique Jordao

The day before he left, Minister Bowen told Laurie Oakes that the trip was about more than just regional processing centre and that he is working towards the development of “an entire regional framework” to deal with the refugee issue.

In the same interview, he also made the point that “it makes sense for all of us, all of our regional neighbours to work together in reaching a solution to what is essentially an international and regional problem.”

The Minister was correct in his assertion that a true regional framework is the only way forward if a meaningful regional initiative is to emerge. But if this sentiment is sincere, the government has used the wrong starting point. No discussion about a meaningful regional approach should begin as this one did, with an announcement about a processing centre in East Timor, delivered in highly charged pre-election political environment.

If politicians are serious about a real, constructive, regional approach to these issues, the first concrete step must be the development of a regional agreement on the treatment of refugees. Unlike Africa and Latin America, the Asia Pacific does not have such a framework. It is impossible to foresee effective regional cooperation on these issues in the absence of an agreement that sets out a common understanding and approach, and that sets minimum standards for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers.

We have already tried – and subsequently dismantled – a system that consisted of towing distressed people who arrived in Australia by boat to an Australian-funded detention centre housed on the territory of one of our small neighbours. It was called the Pacific Solution, and going back to that is not the answer.

The government’s current proposal for a regional processing centre raises more questions than answers, particularly in the absence of any detail as to what is meant by Minister Bowen when he speaks of “an entire regional framework”. For example, who would run such a processing centre? How would it be funded? What role would UNHCR play? Which asylum seekers would be sent there – only those who try to get to Australia by boat, or also those already in places such as Indonesia and Malaysia? What about people officially recognised as refugees by UNHCR? Would asylum seekers who get to Australia by plane also be taken to the processing centre?

How would asylum seekers be treated when they arrive at the processing centre? Would they be detained? Who would ensure their treatment meets international standards? Would they have access to counsellors? Legal advice? Other support services? Who would determine whether they are refugees? What sort of resettlement places would be available? How quickly would people be resettled? And the list goes on….

Without answers to these and many other questions, it is near impossible to predict what this so-called ‘regional solution’ might look like in practice, or how effective it would be.

Realistically, the only way of preventing asylum seekers and refugees from attempting dangerous boat journeys in search of safety is to provide them with viable alternatives. This requires increasing the capacity and willingness of countries across the Asia Pacific to protect refugees, and ensuring that refugees have access to durable solutions in the countries to which they first flee.

The UNHCR recognises three such solutions for refugees – voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement to a third country. For the majority of asylum seekers currently in the Asia Pacific, war and internal strife mean that repatriation is simply not an option. Australia is one of the only countries in our region where the other two durable solutions - local integration and resettlement - are a realistic possibility. This makes Australia one of the only places in the Asia Pacific that offers refugees the chance rebuild their lives safely and with dignity. These solutions must also be provided by other countries in our region if a real regional solution is to be achieved.

While they would be welcomed, regional resettlement initiatives and efforts to strengthen protection in countries to which people first flee can never serve as a substitute for, or grounds to discredit, spontaneous requests for asylum. Nor can these initiatives be used to take people where responsibility, enforceability and accountability for refugee protection are weak and unclear.

Any proposal which involves Australia participating in involuntary transfers of asylum seekers to other countries for processing, once they have reached Australia, is inherently unlawful. Such a practice contravenes the intent and purpose of the right to seek asylum set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the protection regime established by the Refugee Convention.

Anyone who remembers the dark days of the Pacific Solution – of genuine refugees being indefinitely detained, of hunger strikes, of refugees sewing their lips together - knows that this type of approach was no regional solution. It was an affront to human dignity.

Nobody wants to see desperate asylum seekers endangering their lives by getting on unseaworthy boats. But if we are serious about stopping this practice, we need to get equally serious about engaging in a genuine and constructive conversation about how we can ensure that refugees fleeing persecution and violence can get the protection they need.

Most commented

38 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      04:47am | 13/10/10

      “Realistically, the only way of preventing asylum seekers and refugees from attempting dangerous boat journeys in search of safety is to provide them with viable alternatives.”

      Yes, and the most viable alternative is for those asylum seekers to stay in the countries where they are already safe - and away from Australia.

      The Pacific Solution, together with Temporary Protection Visas, was an effective remedy which drastically cut the number of unwanted arrivals. But it didn’t go far enough.

      It’s time for Australia to renounce the outdated Refugee Convention of 1948, which is well past its use-by date. Few other countries in our region are signatories, so we should join the trend.

      Another new policy should be to refuse refugee status to any unwanted arrivals who cannot prove that there was no alternative to coming directly to Australia. This would include all who come through third countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia.

      All that Mr Thom’s proposals would accomplish is to generate a sea of illegal immigrants which would threaten to swamp us. If you look at Europe or the US, you will see the problems that await.

      Reply

    • jeffb says:

      03:32pm | 13/10/10

      Are you suggesting that refugees are safe in Malaysia or Indonesia? Both of these countries don’t recognise refugees at all, they’re nothing more than illegal immigrants and are regularly exploited.

      Claiming that Howard didn’t go far enough is shocking. What more could he have done? Torpedo the boats and line the refugees up against a wall?

      Also your claim about a trend of renouncing the Refugee Convention is ridiculous. Do you actually have anything at all to back up your claims?

    • AdamC says:

      04:48pm | 13/10/10

      To me, the solution is clear. Simply amend the Migration Act so as that nobody who arrives in Australia without a valid visa can ever obtain permanent residency or family reunion rights. (Unless they subsequently leave Australia and make an offshore application that is approved.)

      That is a solution that can be accomplished without offshore processing or (at least based on my understanding) breach of the refugee convention. We would still be offering protection, just not resettlement, which to me seem quite distinct concepts anyway.

      Jeffb, nobody is talking about torpedoing boats. Grow up and ditch the puerile hyberbole.

    • Phil says:

      06:20pm | 13/10/10

      Adam C
      Top idea. Too many bleeding hearts want us to take them all. In my opinion Labor are just shoring up voters in decades to come by having a regional processing centre. They will take everyone there put the people smugglers out of business but offer HMAS Sydney as the new vessel of choice out of Indonesia straight to Timor if it ever gets built.

      Anyone who wants more refugees should put up or shut up. Yes your own cash. Ive got money on it you dont.

    • acotrel says:

      07:00pm | 13/10/10

      ‘It’s time for Australia to renounce the outdated Refugee Convention of 1948, which is well past its use-by date. Few other countries in our region are signatories, so we should join the trend.’

      Abbott should declare himself and face the consequences! While he’s at it, he can declare Menzies to be an idiot for signing it in the first place?

    • fred says:

      10:36pm | 13/10/10

      What? Potential asylum seekers should just put up with the persecution and stay home and die ? Aren’t they human, like us, with a right to life? May you never find yourself the subject of life threatening persecution!

    • Jon says:

      06:57am | 14/10/10

      The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees has created a system for providing protection to people at risk of persecution in their own countries. There are few countries willing to risk turning such people away. However it is unlikely than many governments would sign up to the Convention today. The problem with the Convention is that it was developed in and for a different era. Time for a new one that all countries sign or we get out of it.

    • acotrel says:

      05:46am | 13/10/10

      The question is - how can John Howard’s actions in denying asylum seekers their basic human rights be vindicated?  Back to Nauru of course! Habeas corpus is a fundamental tenet of western democracy!  Howard well knew that, his cynicism knew no bounds!

      Reply

    • Dash says:

      09:01am | 13/10/10

      acotrel, aren’t the Labor party following the same policy as the Howard government? Offshore processing. Except that they are spending more taxpayers money to build a new centre and will bribe the East Timor Government to accept in order to save face from their pre election announcement. After they realised that their policy wasn’t working and they needed to make an announcement before calling the election, they chose to adopt the LNP policy and came up with East Timor without even consulting the East Timorese government. They announced a “solution” when it never existed. Another ALP cynical election lie!

      What basic human rights were denied acotrel? And how is what the ALP offers (which is nothing yet) any different? Safe passage, food, clothing, medical attention and shelter offered to people arriving illegally is denying basic human rights?? Please explain.

    • watty says:

      06:29am | 13/10/10

      *people with enough moneyific solution”?

      Were these the days when illegal boatmasters stopped their illicit trade of bringing families with enough money to Australia’s shores to jump the immigration queue?

      Thanks for your Amnesty policy,but it just doesn’t work.

      Reply

    • hdr says:

      07:52am | 13/10/10

      Watty, where is that bloody queue that all these desperate people are jumping over?

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:07am | 13/10/10

      @ hdr, refugee camps across the world I suspect. They are the ones that miss out.

    • Gregg says:

      01:52pm | 13/10/10

      You do not need to suspect Adam for there are only about 27M refugees registered in various UNHCR and other NGO refugee centres.

      Australia has a program that sees 6000 selected and paid for by the government per annum and then there are another 7750 places available p.a. for sponsoring by organisations and individuals.

      For every asylum seeker arriving courtesy of a people smuggler that is one less place of the 7750 available to people in refugee centres.

      And then we have Sarah Hanson Young is it up in Darwin having a great whinge because a Motel there is not good enough accommodation for some with children not on Xmas Island.
      The Greens will be wanting holidat resorts leased for them and still they will not be happy.

      And now all the kids are off to school and so there will either be classroom numbers/teacher up or more teachers to be employed and so the gravvy train keeps running.

    • acotrel says:

      07:06pm | 13/10/10

      Dash, Any one who is locked up in a western democratic country, can access the courts through a writ of habeas corpus, and ask the reasons for their imprisonment.  If they are being unlawfully detained, they must be released.  It’s a basic human right!  Howard denied asylum seekers that right! East Timor is a signatory to the UNHCR, that’s how it differs from Nauru!

    • Clint Walsh says:

      07:29am | 13/10/10

      “spontaneous requests”...i’d like to see that. How you arrive thousands of kilometres and several countries away and then spontaneously decide to request asylum.

      I’d prefer to see two refugees stuck without money or transport taken directly up by Australia no questions asked for each boat arrival sent back to a safe third country. Humane, Generous and devastating to the smuggler industry.

      Reply

    • Realist not Racist says:

      07:36am | 13/10/10

      Eric is right.  The UNHCR Refugee convention must be revoked along with the 1967 Protocol which prevents Australia from having any say in who is accepted as an asylum seeker.  Times have changed and so must conventions and protocols.  But it takes over 12 months for this to happen so in the meantime, altho I voted Labor, the Temporary Protection Visas must be returned before even more millions will be spent on detention centres.

      Reply

    • Viable Alternativer says:

      07:39am | 13/10/10

      I think it is unlawful for young Afghan men to run out on their country and let others fight for their freedom. A ‘viable alternative’ to asylum seekers from Afghanastan is to send them back with guns.

      Reply

    • Rory the Red says:

      07:48am | 13/10/10

      The objective in opening Regional Processing Centres is that the Gillard Labor government can save the Illegals the boat trip and in their warped world that will solve the problem because No Boats = No Illegals = No Media Coverage = No Problem. Of course they believe that we will be deceived into thinking that Labors policy is the same as the Liberals because it is offshore.
      The Left of the Labor party & Greens will be happy because in effect the Regional Processing Centre will finally mean Australia can have the open borders they desire without the the “Red Necks” being dog whistled by the media every time a illegal boat lands at Xmas island.
      Labor are indeed the Masters of Spin.

      Reply

    • jb says:

      08:46am | 13/10/10

      Forgive me for thinking but since the election all I have heard from Labor supporters is bagging of the Libs, if I didn’t know better I would think Abbott was our PM.
      Guys you won the election I know you feel ripped of with that drip as your girl but just get on with running the country instead of making excuses and blaming Abbott for everything.
      If you can’t do it on your own pick someone smart like Stephen Smith, I dare say even a healthy smattering of Libs would give him the support to fix up our country.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      09:25am | 13/10/10

      I thought the Libs were doing a fine job of bagging themselves.  Auditgate.  Jetlaggate.  The fun never ends.

    • jb says:

      10:17am | 13/10/10

      I rest my case…

    • Richard says:

      01:11pm | 13/10/10

      Jetlaggate? Really iansand? I would love to hear you elaborate on why you think the Richard Nixon scandal is such a close analogy to the “outrage” of Tony Abbott making an off-hand comment about wanting to meet the Prime Minister of Australia’s close ally in a fresh and fully rested state.

    • Gregg says:

      02:01pm | 13/10/10

      Come on Richard, we do not really want to hear more of the drivel.

      Of course Tony had a pre-arranged schedule and even ian would know that you do just not reschedule knocking on another governments PM door at your own pleasure.

      It has just been typical Labor stooge and leftish media beat up to cover the inadequacies of Labor in having a PM not really wanting to be involved on the world stage because she may have to introduce Keven WhoOlemon747 and she would rather be overseeing billions to be blown on school halls and cabling for computers she did not supply.

      When it comes to auditing, we know only too well how good Treasurey and Labor did with Resources Tax money.

    • Richard says:

      02:55pm | 13/10/10

      Sorry Gregg, all the noxious repetition of nonsense from nosthow/rob r charteris/christian real/etc riled me up. I’m over it now, lets never speak of it again.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:12am | 13/10/10

      Firstly I think an article such as this should define the goal of a refugee processing.

      Are we deterring boat arrivals?
      Are we choosing whom comes here?
      Are we helping the most in need, people in refugee camps?
      Are we providing humane conditions for boat arrivals?
      Are we increasing our refugee quota?
      Are we trying to get our neighbours to sing up to the refugee charter so its no longer our problem?

      At least with the pacific solution we knew the aim of the program, and it was successful in that aim.

      One small point, I know being detained would be horrible, (by my standards anyway) but surely if you are a refugee, 3 star service paid by the taxpayer is better than whateva sh**hole you came from. I would assume they always have the option to go back to thier country if they choose. So hunger strikes and sewn lips are nothing more than emotional blackmail, facilitated by whomever they speak to, (activists and lawyers).

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:05pm | 13/10/10

      To answer some of your questions:
      - deterrence:  cynical though it was, the Pacific Solution broke the smugglers’ business model - it became too hard to sell the product, when the clients knew (or thought they knew) that Nauru rather than Australia awaited.  When the Solution ended, the smugglers could again market leaky boats as a good way to get into Australia, with a pretty decent chance of acceptance at the end of the process.  The Timor solution may damage the business model, but the smugglers may have new marketing in mind. Time will tell.

      -choice:  no, we’re not choosing who comes here.  The boat people are self-selecting.  And we have about the highest rate of acceptance of refugee claims anywhere.  That certainly needs to be looked at.

      - helping the desperate:  well, we’re still taking people out of the camps, but the numbers re linked to the numbers of onshore cases accepted. So, probably not.

      - humane conditions:  better than they would get in Indonesia, Malaysia or Pakistan.

      - refugee quota:  don’t know if we’re increasing it, but we should - for offshore (ie camp) cases. And delink the offshore from the onshore.

      - neighbours signing up:  actually, a lot of the Pacific Islands are signatories.  I doubt that Malaysia or Thailand or Indonesia would ever sign up - it would mean they’d be responsible for all those people moving through, and that’s a burden they won’t want.  Neither would most of the West, if we had the choice over again.

    • The Badger says:

      09:41am | 13/10/10

      The funny thing is Graham
      nowhere in your rant did I actually see any information regarding that somewhat sensationalist headline

      “How Labor roped Timor into asylum seeker vote-grabbing”

      Perhaps I’ll read it again, I might have missed it.

      Reply

    • jeffb says:

      03:41pm | 13/10/10

      I’m pretty sure The Punch aka NewsCorp picks the headline and picture.

    • Mike T says:

      10:24am | 13/10/10

      Whilst i agree that working with our neighbours to help solve the problem is a great initiative i am not sure about the the East timor processing centre. The Timorese have made it VERY clear that it is not thier preferance so it seems we are instilling our will on our weaker neighbour for the sake of political point scoring….. what right do we have to try to force them ino this one??? This negotiation with the pacific nations in this instance seems similar to the carbon price commitee, by that i mean the government open communications with relevant parties with the perception that they are looking for the best solution, when in actual fact the solution is already made and they are committee/negoation is simply about perception and a sales pitch.  How do you say you want a processing plant in ET, then turn around and say we are going to sit down with ET and work out the best regional plan of attack??? havent you already done that by stating your policy??

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      10:54am | 13/10/10

      Is this the same UN that on 28 March 2008, sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, a noble document whose articles 18 and 19 guarantee freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, was killed off by a block of Islamic countries. This UN has failed the most fundamental test to implement universal human rights. All its other pursuits, pale into insignificance.

      This agreement could have prevented or minimised issues with refugees or by not making them refugees in the first place. What did Amnesty do? Nothing, they have their own political agendas. Refugees are a big industry for better or worse and sadly are now a resource that can be used by organisations for their political purposes. These purposes may not be acceptable to many of their membership and countries they live in. The main problem is these types of organization are very effective at shielding themselves from accountability. They provide ways for unqualified and self-serving people to acquire money, influence, and power; and their income depends upon manipulating public opinion, which means garnering support from politicians, other bureaucracies, and the elites.

      Recently when Gita Sahgal a highly respected lifelong human rights activist and head of Amnesty’s gender unit, questioned the human rights group’s links to Islamic radicals, it suspended her. Now she fears for her safety. Amnesty respond was totally inadequate and its credibility to comment human rights issues diminished.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      11:27am | 13/10/10

      How much money has the current minority Federal ALP Government of Julia Gillard offered East Timor? When Gillard proposed this “Solution” the MPs of East Timor said they would not have a bar of her proposal. They, RIGHTLY, said that Australia should deal with it’s own problems on Australia soil. Whether or not the president of East Timor gets talked around is immaterial for their Parliament will decide.
      How many hundreds of millions have been, secretly, put on the table? I don’t mean the millions it will cost to build this new Australia Prison. How much other financial aide is being offered in return for the East Timorese Parliament’s agreement?
      This is all about Gillard & her fear that should they refuse she will have mud, or something worse, all over her face.

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      11:45am | 13/10/10

      How about WE take the $500k each boat load earns and use it towards funding the cost of keeping the refugees here. They’re coming anyway, so why not ship them here for the same cost as they illegal shippers are charging? The cost of a leaky boat should leave most of the fees for housing them once they land.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      12:08pm | 13/10/10

      “...the dark days of the Pacific Solution – of genuine refugees being indefinitely detained, of hunger strikes, of refugees sewing their lips together”

      What, as opposed to the wonderful new days of detainees plunging to their death from the roof of villawood detention centre?

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      01:47pm | 13/10/10

      Maybe all the angst against refugees is that when the next time people see them it is in a house that has been paid for by the taxpayer .Then the new cars are parked at the front ,there is one of a few in my area with 5 near new cars 2 4x4 . Ordinary people are now saying if these are genuine refugees where is the money coming from.
      When my brother-law first arrived in England with 5 others ,after the war he did not have a penny to his name , they got no help but a communal roof over the head with food and clothing provided .They were given work straight away where he stayed till retirement after 40 years . These 6 men had been part of the Polish army and were in concentration camps till escaping then they joined the french underground till the war ended. This is why I am against the young Afghans leaving there country for others to fight their battles,my brother-law could not go back to Poland as then the Russians used to send all the Poles into Gulags.

      Reply

    • Lurch says:

      01:00am | 14/10/10

      I am a product of refugees from Italy. They arrived in the early 50’s by boat. Not much difference to refugees from different countries these days i imagine.
      Well in the 50’s there were no handouts, my ancestors were expected to make their own way & more importantly they were required to WORK.
      These days it seems that the requirement to WORK is one of convenience not one of necessity aftyer the welfare guys have had their 20 cents worth.
      It is my belief that that most fair minded aussies dont really mind boat loads refugees coming here but we do resent that most, if not all, people who come are not required to WORK and can eventually choose their place of residence.
      Why can the imigration dept send successfull applicants to areas where plentiful work is available, or to country areas that are crying out for labour.
      I am most definately not against offering citizenship of the country to foreingers but all the perks should be EARNED and not simply GIVEN cos the bleeding heart brigade disagrees.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:23am | 01/01/11

      Is it Tony Abbott’s policy to reinstate the White Australia Policy?  That’s obviously whay you guys want?

      Reply

    • Delly says:

      09:23am | 17/10/11

      This information is off the hzoiol!

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:59PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

tory_maguire

_Tors 25 May 13 12:42PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:03PM

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 25 May 13 11:09AM

@benpobjie @jessadamson7 @jhwakelin kinda creepy from a high school cheerleader #misheardlyrics

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter