National Times

Asylum seeker debate out of proportion

August 23, 2011

Opinion

Yesterday the full bench of the High Court began hearing a challenge to the Malaysian solution. The Greens hope David Manne and Debbie Mortimer, SC, and their legal team succeeds, not least because we do not want unaccompanied children to be expelled to a country where their rights cannot be guaranteed. It's not yet clear when the court will issue its ruling, but it could permanently derail the Gillard government's plans to export Australia's international obligations to give protection to countries including Malaysia and, possibly, Papua New Guinea.

The Greens and others, such as human rights groups, have for years lobbied against mandatory detention. We think there's a better way, one that's humane and compassionate, in handling some of the world's most vulnerable people. We do not support the policy of locking fragile people up as a first resort, when it clearly should the last thing we should do. Indeed, Australia is the only country in the world as signatory to the Refugee Convention that arbitrarily detains asylum seekers, contrary to what the convention suggests.

Whenever the major parties, or shock jocks for that matter, seek to attack asylum seekers and others who lack a voice, myself and the Greens will be there to stand up for them. We refuse to follow the ALP and Coalition in a race to the bottom.

I think the Australian electorate is sick of that competition. They're tired of both sides repeating the same mantras, using the same language — indeed the same policies — to confront what is a relatively small problem, compared with the volumes of people arriving on the EU's shores. The major parties' responses cost billions of dollars and damage lives unnecessarily.

Australians want alternatives to a policy of mandatory detention because it has failed to be a deterrent for people seeking our protection since it took effect in the early 1990s. They want their government to explore other paths, such as those outlined in the Centre for Policy Development's report A New Approach, Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees and Asylum Seekers released today.

They want their elected representatives to show results for policies to deal with Australia's ageing population, how to provide more affordable child care options, and a national dental health scheme. In addition to finally ensuring the future of a healthy Murray Darling Basin, they'd also like to see their parliament amend the Marriage Act, so same-sex couples can get married and formally celebrate their commitment to each other.

Everyday Australians are eager to see their government deliver a mining tax that fairly redistributes the wealth from the present boom so it is invested here and not sent overseas. They fear the proceeds risk being squandered instead of funding essential public transport and other infrastructure. And what about a sovereign wealth fund, which Treasury has supported, to invest in future generations?

The major parties have created these problems with immigration and asylum seeker policy, which serve their interests. But we can solve them all with practical measures and confront other challenges that the community would prefer we concentrate on.

twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

Comments

137 comments so far

Just what policies do the Greens have that would end the people smuggling trade? None. It is beyond argument that softening border protection results in thousands of boat arrivals.
The public has a right to see the money and resources allocated to humanitarian purposes is spent wisely and on those most in need. Part of this criteria must be those who have waited the longest, ie, those who don't jump the queue.

KK | Morwell - August 23, 2011, 7:09AM

But, but, but, if we close the detention centres, all those people will lose their jobs!

Won't someone please think of the unions!

jobs for the boys | Melbourne - August 23, 2011, 7:35AM

I'm dead against mandatory detention also. Either turn the boats around or give them a free flight (1st Class of course) back to where they came from. When are people going to get this new "Asylum Seeker" definition out of their heads and tell it like it is - "Illegal Immigrants". To be spending so much on them while our own aged and infirm go without is completely and totally disgusting. Vote Labor ever again - NO WAY.

Bernie Gee - August 23, 2011, 7:36AM

As a Greens senator how can you speak on behalf of the Australian people when you represent a minority party?
I have always found your communication style to be confrontational and argumentative. To think your views represent those of the everyday Australian is dellusional.

Realist | Sydney - August 23, 2011, 7:43AM

There should no compromise whatsoever on the Security and control of Australian borders. We must let the outside World know that Australia does not accept boatpeople. Otherwise in the period 2040 to 2060 when the World have a critical global crisis we can be swamped by a tsunami of boatpeople.

The fact there are higher percentages of children among recent boat arrivals show that we are being conned by the boatpeople and aided on by bleeding hearts in Australia.

There are three ways to deal with the children in the new boat arrivals. Firstly send them home to their parents or relatives. Secondly send them home to be cared by THEIR home Govts. Thirdly send them to Malaysia once the High Court has cleared the matter.

Dr B S Goh | Australian in Australia - August 23, 2011, 7:44AM

How about a compromise. We won't lock up anyone for whom Australia is the country of first asylum. Persecuted neighbours, come on down, but blow-ins from half a world away, not on your nellie! Get your people smugglers to find you somewhere closer to home.

M T Pockets - August 23, 2011, 7:50AM

Sarah, I disagree.

Children shouldn't be put on boats to risk the crossing to Australia from Indonesia. Your notion legitimizes this practice and put's them at risk.

10 year olds aren't carrying ten grand in cash to pay for their transport, they are therefore in company with known people most likely their parents or other family members. Your legitimising children being sundered from their families.

I suggest that you turn the focus instead to increasing Australia's humanitarian intake in the first instance. In the second instance, work with the other parties to improve conditions in the region for refugees. The hours that you have spent on behalf of several thousand people is at the expense of several million people.

I also think that you can put a value on human life. The health system does this all the time when evaluating who to sink their resources into (e.g. heart surgery on someone who is going to die shortly without it, vs shortening lifespan of people needing hip replacements when delaying their treatment for years). I do think it is better to accept 4000 people from Malaysia with their documents than 1000 people who have attempted to subvert the rules.

I fully sympathise with those who attempt to relocate from their initial haven and would no doubt attempt the same if in their situation. Nonetheless, we put laws in place that limit individual freedoms for the greater good.

pragmatist | Forrest Hill - August 23, 2011, 8:00AM

Sarah, I wish you'd stop using the media as your own personal advertisement platform for Green policy.

According to the last election result, 88% of Australians don't want your policies.

Dale | At my desk - August 23, 2011, 8:53AM

Once you cut out the fairy floss, the Green's better way is basically just to leave the keys in the door and abandon border protection all together. Its all just too hard.

SteveH. - August 23, 2011, 9:01AM

Sarah, there are genuine refugees and there are economic migrants who are rich enough to country shop. Most of the latter are usually Middle Eastern males who, as 4 Corners revealed, have been coached by Indonesian people smugglers in fabricating their story of alleged persecution. If they are genuine, they have a number of UN signatory countries much closer to home they claim asylum in.

These are the same people who have religious values that are antithetical to everything the Greens believe in. Why then do you welcome them with open arms?

James - August 23, 2011, 9:04AM

Show more comments

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account

Already a Fairfax Digital Member?

Fairfax Digital Member login

Simply log in below to start commenting on articles.

Not a member? Sign up for a free account.

Please check the following fields before continuing:

    Log into your account
    1. Account login is required. Unsure of your account login?

      Your account login

      Your account login will be one of two things. It will either be your email address, or it will be the username you entered when you first registered (e.g. JohnD).

      Still not sure of your account login? Have your account details emailed to you.

      Close

    2. Password is required. Forgotten your password?
    3. Cancel

    Make a comment

    You are logged in as (Log out)

    Please check the following fields before continuing:

    • Your security code is incorrect

    All information entered below may be published.

    1. Error: Please enter your screen name.
    2. Error: Please enter your comment.
    3. Please enter the code shown in the image.Reload new code
    4. I understand that submission of this comment is covered by the Conditions of Use by which I am bound. Commenting Rules You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

    Thank you. Your comment has been submitted for approval.

    Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

    Post another comment