NationStates Jolt Archive

WHAT kind of country has Australia become? This is the question Australians again have to ask themselves in the wake of the Federal Government's disturbing decision to deny 72 Sri Lankans, who have been found to be genuine refugees, the right to settle in Australia. What the Government has granted this group of Tamil men is the right to languish on Nauru Island until the Government finds another country willing to assume Australia's international and moral obligations to accept and resettle them.

The men are in for a long and possibly fruitless wait. According to the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, only about 4 per cent of asylum seekers processed on Nauru and Manus Island have been accepted by other countries. This sad, paltry figure is testament to the fact that other countries are reluctant to accept people they consider, with justification, to be Australia's responsibility. And, if past experience is any indicator, these refugees also face a traumatic life in detention, a life characterised by isolation and mental illness.

Wednesday's decision is troubling, but not surprising. In February, the Howard Government foreshadowed this hardened stance prohibiting unauthorised arrivals from settling in Australia even when they had been found to be genuine refugees.

[...] The Government also holds the firm view that unauthorised arrivals are "queue jumpers" and that those who aspire to be accepted into Australia should follow the correct channels and complete the necessary paperwork. While this is entirely appropriate in an ideal world, some people, such as those fleeing the chaos of the brutal internicine conflict in Sri Lanka, may not have the opportunity to line up in the proper queue.

On the whole, Australia fulfils its duties as an international citizen and, relative to its population, pulls its weight in terms of accepting refugees from camps around the world. But its reputation has been sullied by its intransigence over the Pacific Solution and will be further besmirched by its unreasonable stand on these 72 unfortunate Sri Lankans. The Government needs to accept that these men have been found to be genuine refugees, people who according to the UNHCR have fled persecution in their homeland and face torture or death should they return. By failing to offer them permanent entry to Australia, the Government only demonstrates that it fails to understand their plight and that its moral compass has gone awry.

As a civilised nation that acknowledges, and for the most part meets, its international humanitarian obligations, it should be welcoming what is a very small group of people and helping them rebuild their lives. What possible threat could they present? Australia has strong historical ties with Sri Lanka and a robust Sri Lankan community that would welcome them and provide a ready-made support network, which may not be available should they be cynically hand-balled to another country for resettlement. Australia should not forget that it is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and in the spirit of that historic covenant it should take these refugees and rescind its decision to condemn them to a life of indefinite detention and indeterminate exile on Nauru. In doing so it would send a message to the world that it places its human rights obligations above its policies of deterrence. Anything else is a shameful denial of the right to sanctuary.


(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/australia-must-not-lose-its-way-on-the-rights-of-refugees/2007/09/13/1189276894282.html))

See also:
*"Downer's refugee call sparks ire over Nauru" (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/downers-refugee-call-sparks-ire-over-nauru/2007/10/23/1192941066161.html)

THE Foreign Minister has suggested that Australia should provide sanctuary for people fleeing violence in Burma — prompting calls from refugee advocates for him to start with the seven Burmese who have languished on Nauru for the past year.

[...]"I think inevitably, at the moment, there should in Australia be a real focus on taking people from Burma. It's in our neighbourhood, terrible things have happened in Burma in recent times, so there should be a focus on that," he said.

Refugee advocate David Mann said that if Mr Downer wanted to help Burmese who had suffered at the hands of their regime, he should look no further than Australia's detention centre on Nauru.

And to this I hope New Zealand accepts them. We accepted the Afghan refugees, and how they're settled into NZ society, contributing to the economy. Interesting that ABC did a documentry on their life in New Zealand. I think they realised that they should have gone to NZ the first time around :)

Oh, and for Australia, its all about elections. The country is filled with rednecks who vote on the basis of who is let into the 'lucky country' (most aussies are ignorant to the fact that the phrase was irony, not a positive remark about australia).

And to this I hope New Zealand accepts them. We accepted the Afghan refugees, and how they're settled into NZ society, contributing to the economy. Interesting that ABC did a documentry on their life in New Zealand. I think they realised that they should have gone to NZ the first time around :)

If New Zealand doesn't let them in, they're going to be in a mess. And remember NZ's Foreign Affairs Minister is Winston "There Are Too Many Asians In This Country" Peters.


Oh, and for Australia, its all about elections. The country is filled with rednecks who vote on the basis of who is let into the 'lucky country' (most aussies are ignorant to the fact that the phrase was irony, not a positive remark about australia).

Heh. Indeed.

More information:


MORE than 70 Sri Lankan asylum seekers on Nauru have been found to be genuine refugees but will not be allowed to resettle in Australia, prompting fears they could remain in indefinite exile on the tiny island.

Just days after the end of a hunger strike on the island, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday announced 72 of the 83 Tamils, who were intercepted in international waters in February, had been assessed as being refugees.

However, Mr Andrews said, Australia was seeking to resettle the men in a third country and they would remain on Nauru until arrangements were made to settle them elsewhere.

"The successful reduction in the number of people seeking to enter Australia unlawfully has been a direct result of the Howard Government's clear policy that persons who seek to enter Australia illegally will not be settled in Australia," Mr Andrews said.

The decision has angered refugee advocates, who say the men could be left languishing indefinitely on Nauru, with the Government expected to struggle to find a third country that is prepared to take them.

Immigration lawyer David Manne, who represents 27 of the 83 Sri Lankans, said the men had been rightly recognised as refugees but remained stuck in a terrible predicament.

"There is no proper process and no proper plan which will guarantee these genuine refugees will be resettled in a place of safety and security where they can rebuild their lives," he said.

"The concrete evidence in the past is that people, having found to be genuine refugees, have languished in limbo for years and fallen apart on Nauru because other countries around the world were not prepared to take up Australia's responsibilities to these people to protect them."

One group of more than 50 asylum seekers spent more than 3½ years on Nauru.

Half were resettled in 2005 after a mental health team warned that several were suicidal.

Of the first group of more than 1200 asylum seekers to be processed on Nauru, more than 480 were resettled in Australia and another 274 were mostly settled in New Zealand.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said only about 4 per cent of those processed on Nauru and Manus Island had been accepted by other countries.

Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said almost everyone who had been resettled from Nauru ended up being allowed to live in Australia.
"The cost to the Australian taxpayer of the Pacific Solution is approaching $300 million. The centres on Nauru and Manus Island should be shut down," he said.


(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lankans-win-asylum-case-8212-now-seeking-a-home/2007/09/12/1189276809725.html))


The Opposition spokesman on immigration, Tony Burke, said: "The truth is, almost everybody who has been resettled from Nauru ends up being allowed to live in Australia.

"Of those who were resettled from the group John Howard said would never come to Australia, more than 1000 were either resettled directly in Australia or were resettled to New Zealand, and New Zealanders have a right to enter Australia. Fewer than 50 were resettled in Europe or in North America."

The Labor Party has said it would close the Nauru detention facility if it wins the election.

A refugee advocate, Pamela Curr, warned that the decision to resettle the men in a "mythical third country" meant they would "languish on Nauru until they become so physically and mentally debilitated that Australia has no option other than to offer them a home here".

(link (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/minister-unmoved-by-uns-refugee-call/2007/09/12/1189276810225.html))

And to this I hope New Zealand accepts them. We accepted the Afghan refugees, and how they're settled into NZ society, contributing to the economy. Interesting that ABC did a documentry on their life in New Zealand. I think they realised that they should have gone to NZ the first time around :)

Oh, and for Australia, its all about elections. The country is filled with rednecks who vote on the basis of who is let into the 'lucky country' (most aussies are ignorant to the fact that the phrase was irony, not a positive remark about australia).

Yes, we call them Victorians. ;)

If New Zealand doesn't let them in, they're going to be in a mess. And remember NZ's Foreign Affairs Minister is Winston "There Are Too Many Asians In This Country" Peters.

Well, now its actually Mr Wintson "Maori might have some link with Asia" Peters - which he has trumpeted up as a 'great thing'.

Winston is a populist, plain and simple. He'll jump on any damn bandwagon going past his door if it means re-election.

Well, now its actually Mr Wintson "Maori might have some link with Asia" Peters - which he has trumpeted up as a 'great thing'.

Really? When did that happen?

Winston is a populist, plain and simple. He'll jump on any damn bandwagon going past his door if it means re-election.

That's the impression I had, yes. He's shifted too quickly for me to follow his last u-turn. ;)

I've been trying to think of a few things that will change if Labour wins the election.

*Australia will ratify the Kyoto Protocols
*The immigrant detention centres in PNG and Nauru will be closed
*The government will issue a formal apology to the Indigenous peoples
*Australia will withdraw its troops from Iraq
*There may be a new referendum on having a republic

This, of course, is all assuming Labour does as it says it's going to do.

What am I forgetting?

I've been trying to think of a few things that will change if Labour wins the election.

*Australia will ratify the Kyoto Protocols
*The immigrant detention centres in PNG and Nauru will be closed
*The government will issue a formal apology to the Indigenous peoples
*Australia will withdraw its troops from Iraq
*There may be a new referendum on having a republic

This, of course, is all assuming Labour does as it says it's going to do.

What am I forgetting?

Rudd's also implied that the new workplace relations laws will be eliminated, but I don't think he's actually come out and stated it.

It's ironic Nauru is being used the same way the British Empire used Australia - to dump people.

What am I forgetting?

That, unfortunately, all politicians everywhere are shameless bare-faced liars.

And to this I hope New Zealand accepts them. We accepted the Afghan refugees, and how they're settled into NZ society, contributing to the economy. Interesting that ABC did a documentry on their life in New Zealand. I think they realised that they should have gone to NZ the first time around :)

Oh, and for Australia, its all about elections. The country is filled with rednecks who vote on the basis of who is let into the 'lucky country' (most aussies are ignorant to the fact that the phrase was irony, not a positive remark about australia).

That is an exaggeration, especially in this election where immigration is a non-issue. Aside from the Sudanese thing a while back there has been no mention (and no campaigning at all) of immigration issues. I don't deny there are rednecks here but you yourself are generalising to an indecent extent.

I've been trying to think of a few things that will change if Labour wins the election.

*Australia will ratify the Kyoto Protocols
*The immigrant detention centres in PNG and Nauru will be closed
*The government will issue a formal apology to the Indigenous peoples
*Australia will withdraw its troops from Iraq
*There may be a new referendum on having a republic

This, of course, is all assuming Labour does as it says it's going to do.

What am I forgetting?

That Labor is spelt without a 'u'.

This is Australia's fault how ???
So, if a natural disaster occurred in the next town over, and I find fleeing refugees in my shed, instead of calling the Red Cross and the local authorities to help them, by this logic I owe them my spare room- and permanently ?!?
Just because these refugees wound up managing to get to Australia - without papers! - does not mean they are Australia's *responsibility*.
I can understand that sometimes fleeing for your life is more important than paperwork.
But it's the responsibility of the UN and the Red Cross/Red Crescent to resettle these people and negotiate with member nations until a solution is found that is acceptable to all.

Rudd's also implied that the new workplace relations laws will be eliminated, but I don't think he's actually come out and stated it.
Yeah he has, all current AWAs will last until the end of next year I believe (or when the contract expires) and be replaced by either collective bargaining or common law statutes after that, although if the Greens get the balance in the Senate (pretty likely) they will push for AWA's to be scrapped straight away, plus other things. That is why I will be voting Labor first in the house and Greens in the Senate.

Also, we so need to have another Republic referendum, I think Australia is ready now as long as we get a better choice (ie not a Presidential style Republic but something more democratic).

Yeah he has, all current AWAs will last until the end of next year I believe (or when the contract expires) and be replaced by either collective bargaining or common law statutes after that...
What if someone wants an AWA, like if they're professionals or they just prefer more money to a break? I can't imagine Rudd would want to take that choice away (though the unions probably would).

This is Australia's fault how ???
So, if a natural disaster occurred in the next town over, and I find fleeing refugees in my shed, instead of calling the Red Cross and the local authorities to help them, by this logic I owe them my spare room- and permanently ?!?
Just because these refugees wound up managing to get to Australia - without papers! - does not mean they are Australia's *responsibility*.
Yes. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm)


I can understand that sometimes fleeing for your life is more important than paperwork.
But it's the responsibility of the UN and the Red Cross/Red Crescent to resettle these people and negotiate with member nations until a solution is found that is acceptable to all.

They've done that already. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm)

What if someone wants an AWA, like if they're professionals or they just prefer more money to a break? I can't imagine Rudd would want to take that choice away (though the unions probably would).
People would 'choose' to be unfairly treated!?!

People would 'choose' to be unfairly treated!?!

Depends - if you have skills the employer needs and can't get readily, then you can have a negotation position. If you're going for one of those dead-end jobs which pay crap wages then the choices in WorkChoices isn't much of one. But ultimately, the Choices in WorkChoices seems to be handed over the employer and not the employee.

Australia should get their shit together when it comes to refugees. They've done some strange things in the past...