In 2005, the 'band of four' - Petro
Georgiou, Judy Moylan, Russell Broadbent, and Bruce Baird of the Liberal
party - put their political careers at risk by opposing the Howard government's proposed changes to the Migration Act, largely because children were to be detained.
The detention of children contravenes a number of Australia 's obligations under
international Conventions and is, quite frankly, a morally repugnant
proposition. There is a significant evidence base to illustrate the appalling
mental harms detention does to asylum seekers. However such laws were being
introduced in the peak of fever about 'illegal arrivals', 'queue jumpers', the
necessity to protect our borders, and a fear about the saturation of the
country by 'floods' of asylum seekers. A deeper colonial, and racist discourse
underpinned government commentary, as Downer branded one group of boat arrivals
who were summarily accused of throwing their children into the water 'uncivilised'.
Much has since been written about Howard government language in the asylum
debate, the misinformation it propagated (there are no 'queues' for refugees in
many countries, it is never 'illegal' to genuinely claim asylum no matter the
method of arrival), and the way in which that language was manipulated to drive
public fear.
In the face of this public and political
pressure, the gang of four put their careers on the line and held out against
the proposed Migration Act measures. As Broadbent commented, 'If I am to die
politically because of my stance on this bill, it is better to die on my feet
than to live on my knees'. Moylan added, 'I cannot believe that the citizens of
this sovereign country would ever cease to wonder, nor would they ever forgive,
were we in this house to acquiesce in silence to pressure from a neighbour on a
matter so much at the heart of our principles of justice.' 'I for one cannot
remain silent.' Much of the media - and the public - recognised the innate ethics in these
acts. So ethical did I consider Georgiou's leadership that I wrote him
a letter thanking him for his stand against the incarceration of children and other
innocent people.
Rudd's election also enabled a range of
changes to harmful areas of refugee legislation. Any worker in the refugee
movement will attest to the destructive nature of Temporary Protection Visas,
which keep family members apart and require re-qualification for refugee status
three years later. Bridging visas deny work and social security rights,
effectively ensuring mental and physical impoverishment for their recipients.
Gillard's controversial elevation to the leadership transpired on the back of alleged
policy failings by Rudd. Asylum was a core point of difference. But the Gillard government
was faced with a conundrum; how to appear more 'tough' and 'practical' on asylum than Rudd, without engaging in
the nasty rhetoric of the Howard era. After the horrific drowning of a boat of asylum seekers on 15 December 2010, government discourse on asylum seekers shifted from its previous focus on border protection to a new focus on the undesirability of drownings.
Harsh measures were now explained in terms of their necessity to prevent drownings. Who could disagree with such an imperative? A survey of media coverage in the ten years before this time,
including the sinking of the SIEV X, frankly reveals no such pervasive concern for drowning on either
side of politics. The new concern may have been real; but its
manipulation as a tool of rhetoric to achieve expedient political ends has been
abhorrent and intractable.
Predictably the solution to 'drownings'
happened to include the same harsh methods proposed by Howard to protect
borders, punish and deter queue jumpers, and dissuade 'uncivilised' people from
coming to our shores. There was little or no evidence to support the
effectiveness of these measures. Further, the new discourse was even more
effective in marginalising those who opposed the harsh measures; political 'idealism' was now cast as the catalyst for drownings. Consideration of alternative solutions to a range of asylum issues
was effectively shut down. The debate had been completely reframed; it was
reoriented to consider only which of the harsh measures would bring
about the end of drownings. Those suggesting boat re-direction or offshore
processing were characterised as 'doing something' about the drownings. Labor proposed the Malaysia solution and a frenzy around asylum seeking was re-invigorated. The Liberals admonished
the Malaysia
solution, citing concerns that Malaysia was not a signatory to the Refugee
Convention. The Liberals'
sudden concern for the Convention smacked of political opportunism; Nauru had not
been a Convention signatory during the Howard era. Abbott's about face suggested a desire to beat Gillard at any cost. Labor refused to support the Nauru solution.
In a recent environment of more drownings
Gillard forced another parliamentary vote on offshore processing. Readers of mainstream
papers were 'educated' about the Liberal and Labor options. Rob Oakshott was
represented as the voice of compromise and reason because his
proposal enabled redirection to both Nauru
and Malaysia .
Importantly, criticisms of all parties to this debate centred on their lack of
preparedness to endorse at least one of the harsh, offshore measures; that is,
any action was said to be better than no action at all. The Greens opposed
'offshore processing', questioning its evidence base and raising concerns about
Australia 's
commitment to its various Convention obligations. In tandem with a range of
organisations that work intimately with asylum seekers, the Greens challenged
the way in which asylum problems were being framed. For example, academic and
empirical research has contested assertions that Australia is being 'flooded' by
refugees or that offshore processing will guarantee reduced drownings. In particular, the Greens
questioned the ethics of applying harsher punishments to groups of people who
were already suffering and in distress; they drew on the evidence of academics
and NGOs working with asylum seekers to argue that no amount of incarceration
or threat would deter asylum seekers who felt desperate. The problem, they
argued, needed to be understood and tackled differently.
The Greens' position was not generally
popular with the press; the party was accused of blocking a solution to the drownings. Enormous pressure was brought to bear on Bandt and
Hanson-Young during that week in parliament. They faced serious, sustained, and
harsh 'analysis' from the media and were accused of putting abstract 'human
rights' over the loss of 'real human lives'. The Labor party's Sam Dastayari
went so far as to claim The Greens were 'bordering on loony', while Paul
Howes labelled them 'extremists who threaten our democracy'. Such hyperbolic
language was notably absent when Labor struck a deal with the Greens to form
government; its emergence during a debate about people who were drowning was
utterly distasteful.
The extremity of these reactions is worthy of reflection. The Liberal gang of four had proposed 'softer' asylum
measures and even stood up to their own party. The reaction to their positions
was mixed, however it did not attract the accusations of idealistic self
indulgence or political ineffectiveness that the Greens did. In the current offshore debate, I am reminded of a scene from Aaron Sorkin's 'The American President',
in which a young aide is upset at the incumbent (Democratic) president for not
speaking out against the poison and vitriol of an opposition Republican
candidate. The dialogue goes as follows:
Presidential Aide: You have a deeper
love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it
says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to
question your patriotism.
President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...
Presidential Aide: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson (Republican candidate) is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...
Presidential Aide: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson (Republican candidate) is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
I fear that the current debate on asylum
seekers has cultivated a population of sand drinkers. People may be looking for
ethical leadership in politics and, in particular, in the asylum debate - but
will they know it if they see it? I agree with Adam Bandt that many voters (and
opposition Parliamentarians) come to the asylum debate with a genuine concern
for refugees who are drowning. However both media and the voting public appear
to have accepted without question the proposition that any kind of
policy which includes offshore processing is better than no policy at all. This
seems ethically repugnant to me; what if the 'any' solution proposed is at best
ineffective and at worst harmful? Is it at all possible that NGO and
academic experts working with asylum seekers might be right; that offshore
processing and boat redirection will likely only hurt already injured people,
and result in no fewer drownings? These experts also ask a valid and insightful
question about the shaping of the debate - is the prevention of drownings the
same problem as the prevention of refugees reaching our shores? If the
concern is to prevent drownings, then why are we forbidden from discussing,
considering, or exploring policy alternatives that do not also facilitate
the deterrence of refugees?
Perhaps the Greens get some political
mileage from their asylum stance. Perhaps envious Labor party members consider
that the Greens are in the 'luxurious' position of being able to act on
principle because they don't have the realistic problem of having to hang onto
power. Even if the Greens' efforts might be framed in terms of political
expedience, it nonetheless strikes me as astounding that most political analysis did not seem to contemplate an ethical or courageous dimension to their actions. Rather than being
characterised as the 'block' to 'some' or 'any' kind of outcome, why were they
not applauded for having the tenacity to stand up for a principled, human
rights position in the face of overwhelming criticism from the major parties.
As the classic quote (commonly attributed to Burke) proposes, 'The only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'. The boat
issue has been a long and protracted one in Australia , and its use as fodder by
political parties desperate for re-election has been extensively researched,
documented, and analysed. It is indeed disconcerting that while Australian
voters complain about the dearth of ethical politicians and desert of ethical
politics, they are so easily prepared to drink from the sand of a leadership
which colludes on the harsh treatment of asylum seekers to ensure political
survival. One would think that those with a thirst for some idealism or ethics
in politics would be heartened by a group of mostly young politicians in the
Greens who have taken the courageous step of placing their consciences and the
lives of people who are without voice, without family, and without country,
ahead of a deeply flawed mainstream policy.
Hello I have posted this to Labor for refugees Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/labor4refugees
ReplyDeleteThanks for that Matthew! Hope it stimulates some meaningful discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent article with which I agree wholeheartedly. As a journalist I was appalled by the narrowness of the debate and the harsh treatment of those who would not go along with 'compromise'. It was this reaction that was the motivation behind by timeline on Nauru which readers of this blog will find in two parts on New Matilda.
ReplyDeletehttp://newmatilda.com/2012/07/24/our-nauru-amnesia
http://newmatilda.com/2012/07/25/three-waves-nauru-anguish
My motivation was to try to bring some facts to the fore - but this opinion piece eloquently analyses the debate itself,
Wendy Bacon
Dear Wendy
DeleteYour timeline on Nauru is excellent. In my research work I have relied heavily on similar evidence based timeline devices in order to interrogate issues around the Children Overboard and Tampa affairs. Forensic work like yours is integral in trying to inject some 'truth' into the debate.
Thank you for your kind comments.
Melinda
You wrote:
ReplyDelete' After the horrific drowning of a boat of asylum seekers on 15 December 2010, government discourse on asylum seekers shifted from its previous focus on border protection to a new focus on the undesirability of drownings. Harsh measures were now explained in terms of their necessity to prevent drownings. Who could disagree with such an imperative? A survey of media coverage in the ten years before this time, including the sinking of the SIEV X, frankly reveals no such pervasive concern for drowning on either side of politics. The new concern may have been real; but its manipulation as a tool of rhetoric to achieve expedient political ends has been abhorrent and intractable.
Predictably the solution to 'drownings' happened to include the same harsh methods proposed by Howard to protect borders, punish and deter queue jumpers, and dissuade 'uncivilised' people from coming to our shores. There was little or no evidence to support the effectiveness of these measures. Further, the new discourse was even more effective in marginalising those who opposed the harsh measures; political 'idealism' was now cast as the catalyst for drownings. Consideration of alternative solutions to a range of asylum issues was effectively shut down. The debate had been completely reframed; it was reoriented to consider only which of the harsh measures would bring about the end of drownings.'
Absolutely agree with your analysis!
An estimated 1,000 people have drowned attempting to come to Australia by boat since 1989. Significantly, 90% of these deaths have occurred on less than 1% of boats (ie six major sinkings). Of these six sinkings there are serious question marks over Australia's knowledge and response - in particular, SIEVX, Barokah and the boat that sank on 21 June after calling Australia for help repeatedly in the two days prior to the tragedy.
To paraphrase David Marr, the toxic policy of the boats is not about the boats that sink, its about those that arrive.
Dear Marg
DeleteThanks for your posting. The numbers on drownings and boat arrivals are telling. The paraphrased quote from Marr does sum it all up; the policy drivers are not about sinking boats . . . they are about those that arrive.
Melinda