Blog Archives for September 2011
High Court decision presents an opportunity to start afresh
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 6th September 2011, 9:46am
by ParisLord in
Last week, the High Court brought some reality back to the increasingly negative debate on asylum seeker policy where both major parties beat up on already vulnerable people.
The full bench ruled 6-1 that the Gillard government could not proceed with its plans to expel people to Malaysia. It also decided the Immigration Minister, as the legal guardian, could not send unaccompanied children anywhere from Australia without proving it was in their best interests. I write from Christmas Island, where I hope to meet some of the 335 asylum seekers in legal limbo, whom Chris Bowen says will now have their protection claims assessed.
The victory of the legal team led by Debbie Mortimer SC and David Manne was an enormously positive one for several reasons. It showed people that there was a way of ensuring that voiceless asylum seekers who risked deportation would have their rights upheld. It also demonstrated the rule of law and that a decision by the executive could be challenged by another arm of government when the parliament's voice was silenced. The judiciary was able to decide on something which the government had refused to table in the parliament, despite the Malaysia people swap deal being condemned in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
The ruling reaffirmed the Greens' stance on off-shore assessments of asylum seekers which the party has been pushing since the 'Tampa' incident of 2001 - namely that Australia should not ignore its international obligations to give protection to people seeking our help. No matter how vocal the demands for mean-spirited action against asylum seekers, the Greens have always argued Australia should honour its requirements under the Refugee Convention. We have never seen the sense in flouting a document Australia helped draft. It also makes no economic sense to send asylum seekers to destinations in the Pacific or south-east Asia when it is far cheaper to assess their claims on the mainland. What the Coalition has been quiet about is that most of the people sent to Nauru or Manus Island under the so-called Pacific Solution were resettled in Australia anyway, after their claims for protection were proved. What a ludicrous waste of money by assessing their claims offshore.
If the definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting a different result, maintaining offshore processing and mandatory detention would fit that. The major parties claim offshore processing is a deterrent, but the facts prove otherwise. Mandatory detention has been in place since the early 1990s, and yet people still board boats or aircraft and apply for asylum when they reach Australia. Aside from causing unnecessary mental health damage, wasting billions of dollars maintaining an ineffective policy and denting our reputation for fairness and compassion internationally, what has been achieved?
The High Court has given the government the chance to start afresh. It could abandon offshore processing and reinstate what previously worked - onshore assessments, which is a popular and cheaper alternative. The government could also stop indefinite, mandatory detention as a first resort, and take the cheaper option of releasing people into the community after initial health and security checks. I have a bill before parliament which would achieve exactly that. It would also free all children from detention and impose a 30-day limit on detention.
The Greens hope the government seizes the opportunity to show leadership and ignore the taunting calls from the opposition to reopen Nauru. The changes could take effect today. But it requires a change of heart and the foresight to try a different, yet simpler and cheaper, immigration policy.
First published in The National Times on September 6, 2011.
Is our News Limited?
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 13th September 2011, 8:59am
by ParisLord in
In Britain, the phone-hacking scandal has put Rupert Murdoch's media empire under unprecedented scrutiny.
Questions are being asked about News Corporation's influence over British democracy - its capacity to make and break prime ministers and to set the policy agenda of the day.
In Australia, similar questions must also be asked. News Limited controls 70 per cent of our nation's print media, representing the greatest concentration of media ownership in the democratic world.
The question for politicians and the community in this context is whether this huge concentration of media ownership and dwindling diversity is in the public interest. We can all argue about what constitutes media bias and what doesn't, but with less and less diversity of media coverage and opportunities for journalists to dig deeper into an issue, proper scrutiny of policymakers of all stripes and persuasions is in fact limited.
The Greens have of course been very public in our desire for a real and robust media inquiry to examine the media landscape and the impact ownership make-up is having on quality journalism and the delivery of information to the broad and diverse Australian community.
The terms of reference for our proposed inquiry, which will look at how to make the complaints mechanism easier for the public, as well as issues of media concentration, will be voted on this week in Parliament.
The response from some sections of the media (namely News Limited) has been unsurprising. Of course it would prefer that no one was talking about it or questioning whether the shrinkage of media diversity is delivering the news and information our communities deserve and need.
Opponents to such an inquiry resort to arguing that it will kill off freedom of speech in Australia. Give us a break. Rather than some road to Damascus conversion of Murdoch's empire to freedom and transparency, the argument against such an inquiry is a strategy of the Right designed to keep the public nose and interest out of their business model.
No one is suggesting that journalists' work be vetted or censored, but we need to consider how ownership affects the news we all consume and how the public can raise issues of complaint when they believe they have been misled or misrepresented.
It is totally legitimate for there to be a public debate about the concentration of media ownership. The fact the News Limited press moved swiftly to slap this down, demonstrates precisely why we need this inquiry. Like any corporation, News Limited doesn't want any scrutiny of its domination of the market - it will always act to protect its commercial interests.
Rather than being about censoring journalists, a debate about media ownership is essential to protecting our democracy. With greater diversity of media ownership, comes the potential for greater diversity of views.
The flagship News Limited paper, The Australian, for instance has recently declared war on the Greens and wants to see my party "destroyed at the ballot box". This isn't some lunatic conspiracy theory; this is the self-declared agenda of the newspaper.
In his essay for The Quarterly, Robert Manne has highlighted the paper's ideological opposition in other areas, such as climate action and the mining tax and there is speculation News Limited wants to see a change of government. Tony Abbott's dismissal of the inquiry should be considered in this light.
In a media market dominated by one or two players, an agenda such as this can have a disproportionate influence on the politics of the nation. I suspect my blog today will annoy those pushing the News Limited agenda, and I expect to see their wrath for daring to question the status quo, but an inquiry that considers how more voices can be heard can only be good for democracy, allowing the people more participation rather than less.
First published in The National Times on September 13, 2011.
Both sides are wrong on refugees
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 20th September 2011, 7:48am
by ParisLord in
Who was it who told the Australian Parliament in August 2006: "This is a bad bill with no redeeming features"? Who went on to say: "The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia."
Why, none other than Chris Bowen, who is now Immigration Minister. Back then, he was speaking against the former Howard government's plan to take a tough stance against asylum seekers from West Papua who had paddled to Australia seeking our protection.
Had it passed, the bill would have meant people sent to Manus Island or Nauru under the Pacific Solution would never have been able to set foot in Australia.
Thankfully, the legislation was defeated after some principled Liberal MPs, like Petro Georgiou and Judy Moylan, crossed the floor during the vote.
Five years later, Mr Bowen is not speaking up for people who could make a contribution to the country. He is instead attempting to turn his back on asylum seekers who are seeking Australia's help by expelling them to Malaysia.
Rather than taking a step back to consider an alternative approach after the High Court's ruling last month which declared the people swap deal illegal, the Gillard government has taken the opposite position. The court reminded the government of its obligations under international law and pointed out that off-shore processing was contrary to the Refugee Convention.
Australians who had hoped the government would stand up against a 2011 policy with no redeeming features - the Malaysia swap deal - have been disappointed. The government missed its chance to save taxpayers billions of dollars, as well as lessen the chance of asylum seekers developing mental illnesses which their indefinite detention overseas causes.
The Prime Minister remains spooked by the Coalition and insists that appearing tough on asylum seekers will lead to better border protection. Labor is participating in an ugly bidding war to maintain the cruel policy of off-shore processing.
The loss of Labor's moral compass has allowed Tony Abbott to continue his sham campaign for human rights, arguing they won't be protected should the government carry out its asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia. This from a political grouping which sent unaccompanied children to Nauru and wants to repeat the policy.
Don't forget, it was a Coalition government under which asylum seekers sewed their lips together and caused other acts of self-harm in detention centres in Australia and Nauru. The bidding war shows contempt for our obligations toward people seeking our help and should be stopped.
Late on Friday last week the government issued new amendments to the Migration Act to circumvent the ruling of the High Court. These amendments were replaced on Monday by new ones.
Both drafts breach the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The changes mean the Immigration Minister of the day can simply decide in which country the government wishes to dump asylum seekers.
The government's amendments leave out any reference to natural justice, meaning no court will be able to decide whether a minister's decision was appropriate or lawful.
Despite Australia helping draft the Refugee Convention 60 years ago, the Gillard government appears doing everything it can to stain our proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need.
The Greens condemn the changes and will not be backing any of the amendments. Instead, the Greens will continue reminding both sides of politics of Australia's international obligations.
The Greens advocate what the majority of Australians want - the resumption of on-shore assessments of asylum seekers' claims, because that is the cheaper, humane and lawful option. They don't want to see last minute attempts by the government to water down Australia's obligations toward fragile people just to get its legislation passed.
First published in The National Times on September 20, 2011.
It won't happen overnight but it will happen
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 27th September 2011, 11:45am
by RobertSimms in
Last week Tasmania made history as the first state in Australia to pass a motion in favour of marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is testament to the power of social change that the last state to decriminalise homosexuality is now leading the way on positive law reform.
In 1997 Tasmania finally moved to amend the law so that homosexuality was no longer criminalised in that state. In just under 15 years, it seems the debate in Tasmania has moved full circle - from whether homosexuality is illegal to how we can give same-sex relationships the same legal and social status as other relationships. This is something that opponents of marriage reform should keep in mind.
We know that social views on a range of issues have changed dramatically in the past few decades. It's hard to believe that just over 40 years ago, the beautiful film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was considered taboo for featuring a relationship between a black man and a white woman. Today, we have a black president of the United States of America, something that seemed inconceivable, just 10 or 15 years ago, let alone when the film was released in 1967! Fifty years ago, women were discouraged from entering the workforce. Now we have a female prime minister and a host of female premiers and business leaders across the country.
Advertisement: Story continues below The message here is that social change does happen. Sometimes it takes a while, but once those initial small steps are taken it can gather its own momentum. The common thread that unites all of these examples is that in every instance there were people rallying against reform in the belief that this would mean the end of the world as they knew it. But the sky didn't fall in - the only thing that ended was the discrimination. Taking action against discrimination provides equal rights to all people and fair opportunities for happiness and success, irrespective of gender, sexuality, ethnicity or race. Surely that's a good thing.
The important thing is that legislators didn't let the naysayers who wanted to preserve the status quo dissuade them from action. They held their ground and kept pushing forward, with small victories along the way, finally delivering the ultimate prize.
The decision of the Tasmanian Parliament last week, is just another step in the road to equality for same sex couples. It's no longer a matter of if, but when, same-sex marriage will happen and one thing we can learn from Tasmania is that the time may be sooner than a lot of equality opponents would have us believe.
I've lodged a notice of motion in the Senate that will come to a vote on October 11 that acknowledges the Tasmanian Parliament's decision. I call on all my colleagues from across the Senate chamber to seize this historic opportunity and vote yes.
* First published on The National Times Online.
