I used to teach a first year course called Power and Change in Australia. It was a popular course that’s no longer running; the reason given was that it was time for a change. Anyone following the unfolding-refolding Asylum law debate in Australia over the past weeks may be forgiven for thinking that title rather aptly alludes to the practice of those in power to effect change, an example being the ways a ruling government has the power to change laws if they become inconvenient. Even if that may mean by-passing prior international human rights obligations and changing the Migration Act, through exercising sovereignty.
“This is something else. This is about government having power to act” said Prime Minister Julia Gillard when announcing today the government’s intention to change the laws to by-pass the High Court decision that the Malaysia Agreement is unlawful.
The government’s announcement was condemned by the Greens and by refugee action groups.
Greens leader Senator Bob Brown accused Labor of moving “to the right of Tony Abbott” on refugee policy. Senator Brown criticised Ms Gillard’s determination to pursue her government’s failed ‘Malaysia Agreement’:
“She is out of touch with the Australian people. The Green will not be supporting this position.”
In what is one of the most controversial aspects of the move, concerning the protection of refugee children recently raised by the High Court, the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen's confirmed the governments's intention to amend legislation to ensure that unaccompanied children could be processed offshore. This would require changing the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act so the Minister can make “blanket decisions” to send unaccompanied minors off-shore despite the conditions or lack of safeguards that might exist in any third country.
The government’s controversial ‘Malaysia Solution’ - a deal to swap up to 800 asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia for 4000 processed refugees from Malaysia - was this month overturned when the High Court ruled that it contravened Austraia’s legal obligations as signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention - through refoulement, sending away asylum seekers without considering their claims. The principal of non-refoulement - "not driving back”- is an essential component of asylum and international refugee protection. A State may not return a person to a territory where they may be exposed to persecution.
The High Court ruling also raised questions of the legality of all off shore processing of asylum seekers. In response, the Labor government has now revived its plans to send asylum seekers to Malaysia, through amending the Migration Act. Unlike Australia, Malaysia is not signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Many commentators including former Liberal Prime Minister (1975-83), Malcolm Fraser have criticized the government’s proposal for not adequately considering the humanitarian implications of sending away vulnerable, traumatised people including unaccompanied children to countries that are not signatories of the UN Refugee Convention. Mr Fraser's government implemented policy thirty years ago in accordance with the Refugee Convention admitting almost sixty thousand Vietnamese refugees including 2059 'boat people' from Vietnam.
In an unusual ‘bi-partisan’ collaboration, Ms Gillard has been in discussions with Opposition leader Mr Tony Abbot, to devise a strategy to enable continued off-shore processing which they both support - albeit favouring different off shore centres. Today Ms Gillard said that Mr Abbott opposes her choice of Malaysia, she opposes his choice of Nauru, yet apparently they compromise over Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. As the Greens oppose offshore processing, the support of the Coalition is crucial to the government’s proposal passing through Senate.
Refugee action groups also condemned the Gillard government’s announcement.
“The Gillard government is following the long and dishonorable history of the Howard government changing refugee laws whenever courts found their actions to be unlawful,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.
“We hope Labor’s proposed amendments will be defeated in the Parliament, but the choice is not between Malaysia or Nauru. The government should drop all third country and offshore processing.”
Asylum seekers have been processed on shore in Australia for 46 of the 53 years since the Migration Act was introduced.
The Age/Nielsen online poll reported 53% of those surveyed said that asylum seekers should be processed onshore; other online newspaper polls have been varied.
Meanwhile the impasse that began with the Howard government's controversial introduction of offshore processing known as 'the Pacific solution', ten years ago, continues.
The ongoing controversy in Australia over allowing asylum seekers to land began with the Howard government's introduction of offshore processing known as 'the Pacific Solution', never challenged in court, but that would now likely be ruled "unlawful" given the High Court's ruling of the Malaysia Solution as unlawful.
Ten years later, the impasse continues. Plus ca change, plus ca meme change; the more things change, the more they stay the same?
The roulette wheel spins again, and with it spins in hope and dread, the lives and fates of untold refugees.
© Ruth Skilbeck, 2011
2 comments:
Power and change indeed. What is the point of the separation of powers? Howard even changed the borders in his incarnation of Evil. The constant use of 'the refugee issue' epitomizes Australia's use of fear and obsfucation throughout its history. What are they afraid of, those people we call leaders? Us, the citizens, i doubt it. Their use of fear to control the masses and contain the vulnerable recurrs over and over. The Howard yeas saw the beginning of a massive movement in support of refugees, will we see this again? Or does the society of control bolster itself by stealth, in increments, catching the good citizens in its web. There seem to be many reasons for direct action at present and this is surely one of them.
Immigration in all forms has always been a very sensitive issue in Australia! and still the story goes on...
Post a Comment