Take a Break from Asylum Law Debate for Refugee Art

Readers of this blog will know by now that I have been attempting to cover the latest wave of controversy  and events in Australia’s long-running public debate over asylum law and refugee policy that revolves around the key contested issues of onshore/offshore processing: whether or not asylum seekers arriving by boat are let into Australia to have their claims processed here - or whether they are sent to be ‘processed’ in a nearby country or Pacific Island; if they are processed here whether or not they are put into ‘mandatory detention’ (in effect a form of indefinite imprisonment whilst they await the processing of their claim which may take years); if they are accepted as legitimate refugees whether or not they are issued with Temporary Protection Visas - which allow the rights of refuge but only on a temporary basis denying the security of citizenship....Another key area is of course refugee children and how they should be treated. 

Those following these events in Australia will also know that the ‘resolution’ of the Asylum Law debate in Australia has been suspended over the parliamentary break. When Parliament resumes in two weeks time a vote will be held to determine whether the Labor government has sufficient support to pass its proposed amendment to the Migration Act to allow offshore processing of asylum seekers in Malaysia, commonly referred to as the ‘Malaysia Solution’ - which the Labor government has said repeatedly  is the way to ‘break the people smuggler business model,’  referring to the boats that ferry asylum seekers to Australia - for a sum of money - a dangerous voyage that has resulted in many shipwrecks and deaths at sea. This shows how desperate asylum seekers are to further risk their lives in their bid to save their lives from the situations of war and conflict and environmental disaster that they are fleeing from.

Meanwhile, for if you are in Sydney, there are two significant exhibitions of art by refugees now living in Australia that give a different view from the perspective of asylum seekers and refugees themselves, that you might like to visit in this lull, in the political ‘asylum law debate’ and that I shall discuss in my next blog entry.

The exhibitions are: 

 ‘Unsafe Haven: Hazaras in Afghanistan’ photographs by Abdul Karim Hekmat, a UTS graduate and former refugee from Afghanistan- who returned to his former homeland in the Hazaras regions in 2010 and documented his journey through photographs and text.  At the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Tower Foyer, Level 4, 15 Broadway, Ultimo. Dates:  5 September- 7 October 2011.

And: 

The Refugee Art Project at ICE Information and Cultural Exchange, 8 Victoria Road, Parramatta. Dates: 8 September- 29 September. 10-4pm Mon-Fri.

http://www.therefugeeartproject.com/upcomming/

I will discuss these exhibitions in a coming blog entry.

Refugee Roulette? Power and Change in Australia

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