What has happened to this country?

by Julian Burnside | Jan 10, 2017 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

A concerned member of the public recently sent me a letter which, in my opinion, captures a large part of the problem Australia is still wrestling with: the problem of how we respond to people who are not the same as us.  Her letter includes this:

“Despite  the  challenges of nature  and distance and its relatively  small  population,  Australia has always had the opportunity to be the best and fairest nation in the world.

Resource rich and fuelled by determined folk, the country has produced ample to provide for all. Inheriting a tested system of law and growing a new expectation for fairness and democracy, the possibility that the country could mature into a relative utopia was always in reach.

 I was born in WA, grew up proudly Australian, worked in public service and as a self–employed businesswoman, married  and had children  who  I expected  would  have the  advantages  of  a generous, intelligent, compassionate and wealthy nation.

 How wrong was I? The blinkers are off and things have changed greatly over the past decade or so.

 The opportunistic swindling of funds from those who most need them, the persecution of the most vulnerable in our society and the utter torment inflicted on people seeking asylum – all perpetrated by our government in an immoral grab for votes and control and enabled by mainstream media  – have overtaken all efforts towards social conscience and benign leadership.

 What frightens me most is the sheer number of Australians   –  including members of my family, despite my efforts to enlighten  – who have fallen under the spell of disinformation.  Paranoia is rife and the ugly fear that others may be receiving ‘more’ at our expense is too easy to incite in a poorly educated (by design?) and insecure (also by design?) public.

 I’m no longer proud to be Australian.   I feel personally degraded by the inhumane treatment of refugees desperately seeking our help.  I go to bed each night and wake each morning with the burden of humiliation in my mind. Not just the humiliation of those in detention, but my own. How am I to deal with having this shame forced upon me by my own leaders? This may seem selfish, but I’m seriously concerned for the welfare of those detained on the islands and I know I’m not alone. It’s depressing to the point where the emotional and psychological impact on everyday Australians is apparent.  I was sad at Christmas and find it hard to be positive going into the new year.

 No amount of propaganda or deceit by government or media will assuage the guilt in anyone with an ounce of compassion, or the good sense to see the damaging consequences to the refugees and to Australia.  Many simply don’t see that if our government is comfortable treating human beings as disposable,  it won’t stop  with refugees, ethnic and indigenous people   –   it will extend  such ruthlessness to mainstream Australians too.  Think Centrelink and Medicare. …”

It is a sad thing when an Australian citizen no longer feels proud to be Australian.  Today’s politicians betray the country in various ways:

• they make up reasons for putting a ring of steel around the country
• they seek to avoid the obligations we voluntarily undertook when we signed the Refugees Convention
• They cause Australia to breach our obligations under the Convention Against Torture
• They cause Australia to breach our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
• They cause Australia to breach our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

No wonder Australians feel ashamed, when they cut through the political dishonesty peddled by people like Abbott, Morrison, Turnbull and Dutton.

Facing the fact that we are punishing people who have committed no offence is very painful.

Facing the fact that we are breaking our promises to the international community is very painful.

Facing the fact that we are behaving like a rogue state is very painful.

Facing the fact that we are behaving in ways which contradict our image of ourselves is very painful.

So all credit to Justine Pitcher for capturing the problem so well, and thanks to her for letting me quote her letter.  Join with her in expressing your disgust at our political “leaders” and what they are doing to trash this country’s character and reputation.

Lorengau hospital: your taxes at work (?!)

by Julian Burnside | Jan 10, 2017 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

The Australian government donated a new hospital to PNG at Lorengau on Manus, so the men held on Manus would receive “world-class treatment”. It was funded by AusAid.  See this photo claiming credit – but make sure to scroll down and see the photos of the appalling facilties at the hospital:

Here are pics of the hospital facilities. The long benches are the waiting rooms.
The maternity ward has foam on the floor for beds.

The dodgy US refugee deal

by Julian Burnside | Jan 6, 2017 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

When the agreement with the US was announced, the details were so meagre that it was hard to place much reliance on it.

Then Donald Trump was elected President of the USA and the deal looked even more speculative.

But now the realities of it are becoming apparent: it is being used by  PNG, Australia and the contractors to force people into Lorengau.

Here is the substance of a first-hand account:  All meetings with USA officials have to take place in Lorengau.  When asked Why, the management  of Broadspectrum said: “Uh, we don’t know.”  But maybe they do know the answer:  If residents move to Lorengau for US processing purposes and they are found either not suitable for USA standards or the USA pulls out of the deal, can residents return to the Centre? Answer: “No”

In other words , if they want to go to the USA they have to take an enormous risk and could be stuck in PNG forever. If they stay in the centre, they will not be eligible for resettlement in the USA.

More on anti-Islamic rants

by Julian Burnside | Nov 24, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

As mentioned before, a person who lives in Australia emails me regularly (at least a couple of times a week) ranting about Muslims.  Most of what follows was written in 2016.  At the end I have updated it in response to his emails of the past few weeks.  He is clearly having an unhappy, insecure life.  Some part of me feels sorry for him.  But my pity for him is dimmed when he advocates:

My response:

You are right: core Australian values do not include fire-bombing children, or bombing children at all, so we should not have taken part in invading Iraq.

Mistreating children is probably not consistent with core Australian values, so deliberately harming children by locking them up on Nauru is probably wrong.  And putting aside some of the nastiest episodes of white settlement in Australia, deliberate mistreatment of innocent people is probably not consistent with core Australian values, so locking up innocent boat people for years “as a deterrent to others” is probably not consistent with core Australian values.

And I would add that concentration camps and strafing people in boats (both of which measures you have advocated) are definitely not consistent with core Australian values.

In my view, the nearest we get to a core Australian value is the ideal of a fair go for everyone.  And (if I am feeling optimistic) I would say that core Australian values include the Golden principle.  It is one of the few, practically universal, philosophical precepts, captured in the Christian teaching: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  In its original Biblical expression it says: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”.

Described in the West as the Golden Rule, it is found in many religious and secular philosophies.  It is found in Brahmanism: “This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do nothing to others which would cause you pain if done to you”.   In Buddhism:   “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?”.    In Confucianism:  “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you”.   In Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself”.   And in Taoism:  “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss”.

The same principle has been advocated by secular philosophers, including Epictetus,  Plato,  Socrates,  Seneca  and  Immanuel Kant.

And also close to being a core Australian value is the Love Thy Neighbour principle.  I know you’re keen on that one, because you included it in an email to me.  It is mentioned in Leviticus 19, but Matthew gave it a useful twist which you may have overlooked.  You refer to Matthew 5.14.

It is worth reading Matthew 5.43-44:

“43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”

Although you quote the first part of Matthew 5.43, it seems that you add a qualification which the Christian bible would reject.  It seems you would say “Love thy neighbour (unless he is a Muslim)”.  That directly contradicts the very scripture you cite.

It seems that the “Love thy Neighbour” principle is central to Christian teaching (Matthew repeats it at 19.19 and at 22.39; Mark propounds it at 12.31 and says it is one of the two most important commandments (his word).  But in urging mistreatment of innocent (Muslim) people you betray that value.  How strange that you invoke a central Christian principle but urge people to traduce it.  I gather you are not a Christian.

But if you are a Christian, it might be worth asking yourself whether hypocrisy sits comfortably with anything you would identify as a core Australian value.

I imagine he will go to church next Sunday and pray for the souls of people he likes, and for the damnation of people he doesn’t like.  With Christians like him, who needs atheists?

And here’s more from him, just recently:

“Concentration Camps looking more attractive by the day” … he then cites an article in an English newspaper which reports that President Trump believes that torture works.  The article includes the following:

“President Donald Trump has declared that he believes torture works as his administration readies a sweeping review of how the United States conducts the war on terror.  It includes possible resumption of banned interrogation methods and reopening CIA-run “black site” prisons outside the United States.  In an interview with ABC News, Mr Trump said he would wage war against Islamic State militants with the singular goal of keeping the US safe. …”

The person who writes to me then comments: “Yes.  The Donald is following in the foot steps of Billy Hughes.
The nature of warfare has changed and so must the tactics to defeat the enemy where the
enemy has already landed.”

It is an alarming fact that our society is harbouring people like this man.  In my opinion, he is more dangerous than an Islamic militant.

Border Force making it harder to visit detention centres

by Julian Burnside | Nov 18, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

[Since first posting this, there have been more developments: see at the foot of the post]

I have received a number of reports about how absurdly difficult it is to visit people in immigration detention in Melbourne.  Bear in mind that the people held in immigration detention have not committed any offence: they are just held in detention for as long as it takes to consider their claim for refugee protection, or for as long as the goons at Border Force think it will take to break them, although they probably check with their boss, Peter Dutton, who has never really stopped being a brainless, heartless Queensland copper.

MITA is the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation at 120-150 Camp Rd, Broadmeadows (in Melbourne’s northern suburbs).

Here is a visitor’s account of the difficulties:

Every week we try to visit, there always seems to be a change in process and seemingly arbitrary tightening of the “rules” for admission to MITA.

This coincides of course with the background new migration legislation proposed, an ominous symptom of which was the deportation in the middle of the night of a man from MITA [recently]. We visited that day and noticed the subdued tone of the visiting centre – already reduced to a shadow of the freedom and hospitality it unto recently was allowed. For example, there are no comfortable chairs now, only spartan tables and strict policing of the number of seats allowed at those tables.

These are just some of the ever-tightening and dehumanizing regime we have witnessed. One positive is that our students have witnessed these things.

To cut a long story short, Border Force has now had to approve school visits. But even that wasn’t enough. We now have to print out a form every time, with the risk that we may not be let in, miss out, or undergo the mind-numbing, expanding logistical headaches of taking students to the centre. If we say they are 17 y.o., then they can be questioned. If they say they are 18, then we somehow have to get forms printed out for them to fill in and sign. Still no guarantee. If we miss out, we have to do it all again. The delays that Border Force makes makes us miss out. We have discerned that the detainees look forward to this contact and understand graciously the purpose of bringing (senior) students along. Normally we travel there in groups of 5-7.

The latest blockage I am sharing with you – emails from ABF. … When I finally organized the forms of visiting teachers, the email wouldn’t ge through, because the attachment was too large!

As I joke, with English teacher’s perspective: Kafka is alive and well at MITA and Border Force!

The above are just the tip of the iceberg of the creeping dehumanizing. For the detainees … it hardly bears contemplating…

I set our below some email exchanges between would-be visitors and Border Force.  For those whose minds go numb reading emails from Officialdom, the Border Force emails decode as something like this:

“We hate you and we hate that you are trying to bring comfort to the innocent people we lock up, so we are just going to fuck you around until you give up…”

An email chain between a teacher and Border Force to set up a visit by the teacher and some senior students in early November went like this:

Teacher to Border Force: I would like to request that the following people [named]… be permitted to visit [named detainees] on …November

Border Force to Teacher: In order to process your visit application the authorising delegate requires the following forms to be completed and submitted for each person attending … [asks if anyone is under 18]

Teacher to Border Force:  We have been visiting detention for the past 3 years with students.  I have always filled out this form on arrival.  I do not understand why this process is being added.  Particularly without warning.  Particularly when it means that we can not visit today.  We have permission from the Department of Immigration to visit.  We are not an official visitor. … Can I please have a telephone number that I can reach you on.

Teacher to Border Force: I have now spoken with Patrick Gallagher from Canberra.

I request the following please: an explanation of why we are an official visit.  I have copied in an email from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that clearly states that we are not an official visit.  I would like clarification.

I also seek clarification about why I can no longer visit the detention centre on my own.  I have done this often in the past, in addition to times that I have brought students to the detention centre and as I was planning to visit on this Thursday I would like to be able to do this.  MITA is not allowing me to book a visit.  Can you please clarify why this is occurring?  I would great appreciate your intervention here so that I can visit.

Border Force to Teacher: Under the current settings within the Immigration Detention Network, visits from organisations such as yours are categorised as official visits and must be treated as such.  There has been a significant amount of change within out Immigration Detention environment that explains the changes in the visits protocol since the attached 2014 email was written.

Here is an email from my colleague, to Border Force to set up a visit:

I would like to book a table of six for next Thursday 17th November, for the 6-8pm visit session:

AB (teacher – myself); CD (student); EF (student) 

GH (detainee); JK (detainee); LM (detainee) 

Could you kindly arrange this for us please?

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Here is the reply:

In order to process your visit application the authorising delegate requires the following forms to be completed and submitted by each visitor:

• A signed Serco Conditions of Entry form (available at: http://www.border.gov.au/Complyingwithyourobligations/Documents/visitor-conditions-of-entry.pdf)
• A signed Serco Visitor Application form (available at: http://www.border.gov.au/Complyingwithyourobligations/Documents/visitor-application.pdf)
• Can you please advise if there are any person’s under the age of 18 attending this visit?

Please note that we require at least seven days’ notice to process a visit application. Please send your visit request along with relevant completed forms to detention.visits@border.gov.au

For further information please go to http://www.border.gov.au/Busi/Comp/Immigration-detention/visiting-a-facility

Kind regards

I like the “Kind Regards”.  Somehow, any trace of kindness is completely absent.

Another person, who is a friend of my colleague, tried to set up a visit for members of her refugee support group.  She got this from Border Force:

I thank you for your email.

Under the current settings within the Immigration Detention Network, visits from organisations such as yours are categorised as official visits and must be treated as such.  There has been a significant amount of change within out Immigration Detention environment that explains the changes in the visits protocol since the attached 2014 email was written.

It appears that you are aware of the current visit request protocols that are in place setting out the requirements for you and your organisation to visit.  If you would like clarification re the process please advise and I will set out the procedures that need to be followed to accommodate your request. …

* * * * * * *

As noted above, there have been more developments since I first posted this.  I have received the following update:

…since you posted the blog, we have had more stuffing around. We have missed out now on several visits (for which our Year 12 students had been waiting all year for), the latest for both Thursday and Friday because of the absurd requests for yet more paperwork, yet more paperwork, yet more “processing time”, because we have to wait “7 days” to be processed…..yet we have to book 7 days in advance otherwise we will miss out on the limited number of tables available! We have to fill out virtually identical forms every time. It takes a lot of goodwill from fellow teachers, all of whom are already saddled with excessive workloads – not to mention paperwork and duty of care at this end whenever we cross the street, let alone go to MITA!!

It also needs to be stressed how much we bend over backwards to accommodate the protocols and processes, which literally are changing every week.

Our project, like [another teacher’s similar project], has a deep process of discernment and reflection behind it, as one would expect with our spiritual motivations for the visits to MITA. The decision to give moral support to our innocent friends locked up in the gulag (many of whom are profoundly affected mentally and emotionally but always put on their best, hospitable faces for our group, treating the students especially with graciousness) has not been taken lightly. As you saw, our language and diplomacy are a given. Occasionally, there is a gem of an individual staffer at MITA. They too are under incredible pressure from above – from the heartless Qld copper ultimately. But week to week, we experience knock backs for one procedural delay or another.

The latest experience this week was a “vetting” conversation with an official from Border Force. The person on the phone asked me about half a dozen questions….do we have links with other schools?….what’s the purpose of our visits….motives?…have you any projects a part of it…..(no projects, no agendas, just a friendly face and moral support)…have you any visitors under 18….we need to respect the privacy of our clients….how will you do that….etc. etc.This phone conversation, which involved the officer taking notes, came after we had already been given approval!!

Are we living is a dystopian, post-Brave New World imitation of normality?  Has the Donald J Trump tide swept across our shores already?

At least we should be grateful for dedicated teachers like AB and CD who are willing to keep on trying, despite all thepassive-aggressive resistance put up by bureaucrats.

Big Deal

by Julian Burnside | Nov 14, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Australia has announced an agreement with the US in relation to refugees presently held on Nauru and Manus.  In announcing the agreement, Prime Minister Turnbull and Immigration Minister Dutton were careful to avoid giving any significant detail of the arrangement.  For example, they did not say how many people would be accepted by the USA and they did not say on what terms refugees would be accepted by the USA.  They did say that the arrangement would not be available for anyone who arrives in Australia in the future seeking asylum.

It is sad that Mr Turnbull, who is a lawyer by training, is so ready to ignore the law, distort the facts and lie to the public in order to appease the right-wing of his party.  There is something pathetic about the sight of a Prime Minister, who is independently rich and successful, having to sacrifice his values in order to hold onto his job.  Mr Turnbull criticised Mr Shorten for rejecting the government’s proposed lifetime visa ban.   He said this was a mark of Mr Shorten yielding to the left wing of the Labor party: an odd charge to make, given that Mr Turnbull’s present stance is a mark of his capitulation to the hard-right of his own party and a betrayal of his personal standards of honesty and decency.

Turnbull and Dutton did not say whether the resettlement arrangement was contingent on Labor supporting the lifetime visa ban legislation presently before the Senate, although Turnbull criticised Labor for opposing it in the lower house.  It is difficult to understand why it would be contingent on a lifetime visa ban, unless the USA required it.  There is nothing to suggest that it has.

Prime Minister Turnbull made it clear that any detainee who does not accept resettlement in USA will have to return to their country of origin; and any detainee who has been assessed as a refugee and who does not accept resettlement in USA will probably have to remain in Nauru indefinitely.  Mr Turnbull announced that Australia is “in the final stages of negotiation with Nauru” to persuade it to offer 20 year visas.

The announcement on 13 November left a number of important questions unanswered. Without those questions being answered it is impossible to know whether this is a welcome development or an exercise in cynicism.

Turnbull and Dutton were not able to say whether the arrangement would still apply when Donald Trump is inaugurated as President in January.  President-elect Trump has expressed unequivocal anti-Muslim views: in late 2015 he called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

We need to know how many people will be offered resettlement.  We need to know whether Muslims will be accepted by USA as part of the arrangement. It is an important consideration, given Donald Trump’s express hostility to Muslims. If resettlement was offered to 5 non-Muslim refugees on Manus, the entire exercise would be exposed as a cynical attempt to defuse an increasingly embarrassing Australian policy.  If, on the other hand, the arrangement was available to all 1800 detainees on Nauru and Manus it would seem to be a welcome development.  So far, it’s too early to tell.

Mr Turnbull’s announcement was interesting in other ways.  He said:

“We have put in place the largest and most capable maritime surveillance and response fleet Australia has ever deployed.  Any people smuggling boats that attempt to reach  Australia will be intercepted  and turned back.  Australia’s border protection policy has not changed: it is resolute, it is unequivocal: those who seek to come to Australia with people smugglers will not be admitted to Australia.” and

“We have significantly reinforced the security of our borders”

These statements are interesting because they fall back on the old lie: that mistreatment of boat people is an exercise in “protecting” our borders.  He later referred to boat people who come to Australia “unlawfully”.  That is the other element of the government’s dishonesty about boat people.  People who arrive in Australia seeking to be protected from persecution do not break any law.  And we do not need to be protected from them.

Australia is a signatory to the Refugees Convention (1951).  It was the world’s response to the chilling fact that, during the 1930s, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were turned away from many countries where they sought a safe place to live.  An essential purpose of the Refugees Convention was to spread the load of refugee movement, so as to give substance to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which declares the right of every person to seek asylum in any  country they can reach. By taking steps to prevent asylum seekers reaching Australia, we are in effect denying that right.  By seeking to justify those steps with the language of “illegals” and “border protection” politicians like Turnbull and Dutton are denying that right by lying to the Australian public: they are seeking to persuade us that closing our borders to refugees is a laudable thing.  It is not laudable: it is heartless and dishonest.

Mr Turnbull also said:

“We anticipate that people smugglers will seek to use this agreement as a marketing opportunity to tempt vulnerable people onto this perilous sea journey”

This facile observation overlooks a basic fact about people-smuggling: it is wholly demand-driven.  Refugees do not need to be lured by the prospect of resettlement: they use people smugglers because the perils of the journey look less terrifying than the persecution they seek to escape.

Whether the deal happens or not, one thing remains clear: Mr Turnbull has sacrificed his intellect and his values to hold onto the prize of being PM.  It’s sad to watch.

News from Manus

by Julian Burnside | Nov 13, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

I have just received another report from Manus.  Here it is, in edited form to preserve the anonymity of people involved:

“In addition to declining mental health-we had an attempted suicide by hanging in October-a number of refugees suffering from serious medical health issues. Some refugees are being  taken to Port Moresby for medical treatment and stay away for 6 weeks or longer. Some of the treatments are very minor and would be classified as day surgery in Australia. For instance, one refugee had a cyst behind his ear. They removed the cyst, yet he stayed for another 5 weeks in Port Moresby. Then there is a waiting list for urgent cases who seem to drag on and on. It makes no sense. With their permission, I would like to inform you of the following four refugees who are suffering from physical ailments and who have been placed on the waiting list for surgery. Some have had ‘treatment’ in Port Moresby, to no avail.

AB from —  has issues with his knees and left wrist. In Port Moresby he was informed that he had a form of arthritis, however medications did not alleviate the pain. Later he was diagnosed as not suffering from this condition. He remains in pain, untreated.

CD is in fear of losing his left hand. It is discoloured and numb. He had botched surgery in Port Moresby.

EF has ‘blown up’ kidneys. In Port Moresby they looked at the wrong file and he was administered incorrect treatment. He is suffering from severe kidney pain and placed on the waiting list-again.

GH is suffering from intestinal issues which had been misdiagnosed in Port Moresby. Following his treatment his condition  is worse, and his medication is  affecting his kidneys. Nothing is being done to assist him.

Then there are a large number of refugees who suffered injuries during the February 2014 riots. The vast majority of these injuries have not been treated correctly, or not at all. Nearly three years later, their injuries continue to impact on their lives.”

(end of report)

Don’t forget, these people are suffering from conditions which result from their prolonged detention in Manus.  They were taken there by Australia against their will.  They did not break any law by trying to come to Australia to escape persecution.  We have mistreated them and broken them.

If you were in their shoes, how would you feel?

Oppose Lifetime Visa Ban

by Julian Burnside | Nov 11, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Here is my submission to the Senate enquiry on the MIGRATION Legislation AMENDMENT (Regional processing cohort) BILL 2016

The Bill relevantly inserts sub-section 46A(2AA)

The effect of that provision is to “prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals (UMAs) who were at least 18 years of age and were taken to a regional processing country after 19 July 2013 from making a valid application for an Australian visa”.

The Bill should be opposed, for the following reasons:

1. In the short term, it will operate to prevent people who are currently in a Regional Processing Centre, and who have been assessed as refugees, from being reunited with members of their immediate family who are presently living in the Australian community.  That is a result which most Australians would regard as needlessly harsh.  It would be unsafe to assume that the present Minister would exercise his discretion in favour of allowing the family to be reunited: he has previously refused to exercise his discretion in favour of a result which most people would regard as in keeping with Australian values.
2. In the medium to long term, it would mean that people presently in a Regional Processing Centre and who are assessed as refugees and who settle in (say) Canada or Sweden and rebuild their lives there will never be able to visit Australia for tourism, or business, or any other legitimate reason.  This has absurd and pointless possibilities:
   1. A person builds up a successful business in Canada and wants to visit business associates in Australia, but is not able to make a valid visa application;
   2. A person settles in another country and wins a Nobel Prize; or becomes eminent in some field, and is invited to visit Australia to give a lecture, but is not able to make a valid visa application.
3. The medium to long term effect is founded on a misconception.  It assumes that a person who has been held in misery for years at Australia’s direction and who makes a new life in another country will (if allowed to visit Australia) want to discard their new life and relocate to Australia.  It is difficult to understand this conceit: in my experience most refugees who have been held offshore for years and are forced to resettle in a third country do not share the Australian view that this is the best country in the world.  It contradicts ordinary human experience: relocating just once to a new culture is hard; to do it a second time (leaving one safe place to go to another safe place) seems unlikely.
4. This measure, which is ostensibly intended to send a message to people smugglers would have been unthinkable in Australia 25 years ago.  It can only be contemplated now because Australia has adopted a policy of undisguised cruelty to people who arrive here seeking protection.  International opinion does not hold us in high esteem: we have distinguished ourselves as cruel and selfish.  Australia’s suggested excuse for its harsh, deterrent policies is a pretended concern about refugees drowning, because of the indifference  of people smugglers.  This is a plausible, but false, reason.
   1. It is false because, if we deter people from escaping persecution and they are killed by their persecutors, they are still dead, just as if they had drowned.
   2. It is false because, if people try to escape persecution by heading towards Europe rather than Australia, and if they die in that attempt, they are still dead, just as if they had drowned.
   3. It is false because, if they  succeed in getting to Australia without drowning, we send them to Nauru or Manus where, after years of misery, they try to kill themselves – even children.  If they succeed in their self-harm attempts, they are still dead, just as if they had drowned.
   4. It is false because, if they succeed in getting to Australia without drowning, we abuse them and punish them.  All the psychiatric evidence demonstrates that prolonged detention of an innocent person is seriously damaging.  And they are innocent: they commit no offence by coming to Australia without a visa to seek protection from persecution.  Calling them “illegal” is false, even if it is politically effective.

It is time for the Senate to take a stand and say that our mindless cruelty has gone too far: it should not be allowed to go any further.  It is worth considering that Australia (because of its geography) has traditionally received very few refugees who arrive without prior permission.  Contrast our position with that of Jordan and Lebanon which, being adjacent to Syria, have received millions of Syrian refugees in recent years.  The purpose of the Refugees Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, was to spread the load of refugee movement so that the burden would not be born principally by countries adjacent to the source of refugees.  By our increasingly harsh policies, which are explicitly intended to deter boat people, we are contradicting the central purpose of the Refugees Convention.

A Grim Report from MITA

by Julian Burnside | Nov 6, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Melbourne Immigration Transit Accomodation at Broadmeadows (MITA) was the scene of another degrading episode.

Border Force was living down to its reputation if thereport is even partly true.  (Note: since this was first posted, the story was covered on 7 November 2016 in The Guardian Australia:

“Sad News Today.

In the early hours of the morning, people in detention at the Broadmeadows MITA Melbourne awoke to distressed cries in Avon Compound.

They saw a man dragged out of his bed in his underwear, handcuffed and dragged away by many guards.

They heard his cries and pleas not to be taken back to Nauru for about 40 minutes and then silence.

We have since found out that he was taken by an Air Force plane and flown to Brisbane and then Nauru.

The Dutton /Turnbull war on refugees is now resorting to the Air Force to secretly remove people in the dead of night.

This man’s case was on file but not yet lodged which meant that immigration were not required by the Court to notify his lawyers, 72 hours in advance. His lawyers were not notified.

This man was brought to Australia for surgery after suffering on Nauru for over a year. Even after the camp was opened he was in such pain that he was unable to leave the camp.

Finally he was brought to Australia for surgery and started to recover. He is a quiet, gentle man who always looked out for others.

This removal has created intense fear and distress across the camps as people are hearing the terrible news. People are literally terrified.

We are reassuring them that the 72 hour notification period still stands and that no one with this in place can be removed without a legal battle.”

The Human RightsLaw Centre has said that “forced deportation would terrify hundreds of refugees and people seeking asylum currently in the Australian community but still fearful of being sent back offshore.”

The HRLC is also of the understanding that this man had already been assessed as a refugee and was legally represented but was removed without any notice to him or his lawyers.

You can join us to keep updated on incidents as they occur. Visit: AUSTRALIAN WOMEN IN SUPPORT OF WOMEN ON NAURU  to join.”

More news from Manus

by Julian Burnside | Nov 2, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

A colleague has recently given me an update about things on Manus.  Note in particular that Australia is not the attraction: they just want safety and certainty.  Instead we mistreat them and grind them into despair.  We are crushing them.  Is this really what we want our politicians to do?  What has happened to Australia?

The spirits of everyone is very bad there is a lot of hopelessness there.     I was talking to a friend of ours and asked him did he know anyone elsewhere that could sponsor him for a visa.  He doesn’t have anyone anywhere else.    He just looked at me and said “I am going to die here”.  He is early 20’s

They have no faith in anything anymore including the court process.   Of course every time that the court process stalls it brings on those feelings again.

The reality is the hopelessness and boredom, they really feel like there is nothing left for them now.

Australia is in the process of building roads between the centre and Lorengau.    

A lot of the refugees don’t want to come to Australia: they just want to go somewhere and be safe.  Unfortunately it appears that Australia does not have any third country willing to take them.   

The Great Australian Lockout

by Julian Burnside | Oct 31, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Early yesterday, 30 October  2016, Malcolm Turnbull stood in front of the press and announced new policy that would impose a lifetime ban for people who came to Australia by boat, seeking protection. Senator Hanson immediately stated her full support.

Hanson’s support colours the proposal in a way that should make us careful: it’s like getting an approving nod from Donald Trump.

Let’s hope the ALP has the courage to act like an opposition, by opposing the legislation: there are many problems with the proposal.

First: it means that people who have family living in Australia on Temporary Protection Visas will never be able to see their families again.  There are men right now who are held on Manus who have wife and children living in Australia.  The problem is that the family members are on TPVs: that means that if ever they leave Australia they will not be allowed back.  these are people who we have recognised as refugees: people unable to return to their country of origin because of a well-founded fear of persecution.

The legislation, proposed by Turnbull, will break families apart permanently.  It would be deeply troubling if Labor supported it.

Second: it achieves nothing at all apart from intensifying the misery suffered already by people held in offshore detention, at vast (and pointless) cost to Australian taxpayers.

Third: it involves a fundamental contradiction of Australia’s obligations under a range of international humanitarian conventions.

The Refugees Convention (1951) was designed to help spread the burden of refugee movement, so that all civilized countries would help protect refugees, rather than leaving the burden to countries adjacent to trouble spots.

The Convention Against Torture  (1984) was designed to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  We already breach its provisions by the way we treat people in offshore detention.  The UN Special Rapporteur made findings against Australia in 2015, which the LNP government ignored.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) It is hard to imagine less humane treatment of a child than preventing the child from ever seeing one of its parents again.  We already breach the Convention by our mistreatment of children in Nauru detention.

Fourth: apparently the government does not even understand its own proposal.  As I write this, Barnaby Joyce is speaking to Raf Epstein on ABC radio.  He seeks to justify the measures by the desire to stop people drowning in their attempt to reach Australia.  It is hard to understand how anyone is saved by further mistreatment of people who have already risked their lives to get to Australia and have spent the last 3 years suffering on Manus or Nauru.  In addition, he referred to them as people who had come to Australia “Illegally”.  He is wrong: it is not an offence to get to Australia by boat seeking protection from persecution.

The big question is this: when LNP politicians like Barnaby Joyce, Peter Dutton, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison refer to boat people as “illegal” and refer to fending them off as “border protection” are they misinformed or are they lying to the public.

In my opinion, they are lying.

They have had 15 years (since Tampa) to notice that boat people are never prosecuted for the manner of their arrival (because it isn’t “illegal”).

They have had 15 years to notice that it has been stated publicly and often that boat people are not “illegal”.

They have had 15 years to seek legal advice on the question.

In my opinion, when Barnaby Joyce, Peter Dutton, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison refer to boat people as “illegal” they are lying.  They are lying to help hold onto power.  The public should never believe anything they say.

Frightening effect of Islamophobia

by Julian Burnside | Oct 22, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

It seems that a lot of Australians are frightened of Muslims.  this Islamophobia has been whipped up by politicians who ought to know better.

It is terrifying to see just how frightened people can react.  One Australian has been writing to me relentlessly urging that we establish concentration camps for Muslims!

Yes: concentration camps.  Here is a portion of a recent email from this person:

“What is wrong with Concentration Camps? They were good enough for a former Australian Prime Minister – Billy Hughes.

It is fantastic that of-shore Concentration Camps have been established to protect Australia from the Muslim Invasion.

More should be established on the Mainland to house Muslims that have been allowed into Australia and who pose a threat to the safety of other Australians.

Cicero would have fully supported Concentration Camps to protect the safety of the people. …”

I can do no better than quote something Helen Razer wrote:

“In a post earlier today that linked to an article written by me I incorrectly identified those who disdain Islam as “racist”.  I am sorry  about this. As you so deftly and cleverly remind me, “Islam is not a race”. You are, therefore, not a racist.

I didn’t mean to call you a racist.

I meant to call you – how can I put this? – history’s worst reflex.

I meant to call you the frail and fearful idiot who learned nothing of the lessons of 1933.

I meant to call you the descendent of Nazism.

I meant, much more kindly, to say that your belief that a little cultural difference is responsible for all the shit in your life is a product of an under-informed mind and an ugly spirit. …”

The idea that any person in the early 21st century could call for concentration camps is so shocking as to defy belief.  But the person who emailed me has sent me many emails in recent months arguing, repeatedly, that concentration camps for Muslims would be a good idea.  I prefer not to ask his attitude to Hitler, Nazism and anti-Semitism.

New restrictions at MITA

by Julian Burnside | Oct 1, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

I have just received the following report about arbitrary restrictions at MITA (Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation):

“Since I started visiting (just after the Border Force Act in July last year), the onshore detention regime has become increasingly prison-like, and this appears to be a directive from the DIBP (though nothing is ever confirmed).

I was visiting there on Thursday (September 28) and was told about the latest in a string of humiliating rules, which is that ‘detainees’  are no longer allowed to go to the toilet during visits.  On Thursday, several people were ‘allowed’ to go and return, but at last night’s visit, the guard it was enforced strictly and no one was allowed back to the visits room if they needed to go to the toilet.

I’m really just calling out the latest in a string of humiliating rules and can only echo a friend’s (Uniting Church Minister, Lisa-Stewart) FB post:

Many of us have adapted to the new rigidity relating to visiting, the most recent: clearing the centre between visits, which entails our friends being lined up like children to exit under guarded supervision. We smile and throw kisses and wave loving goodbyes to cover that humiliation.

Now, to add insult to grave injury, another layer of senseless bureaucracy has been imposed that serves no purpose other than to further humiliate our friends. 

From now on, our friends can not go to the toilet during our two hour visiting block. Well, they can, but if they do leave the centre to visit the toilet they are not permitted to return. Why? What purpose does this possibly serve?

Well, if you think I’m going to shut up about it Serco and Border Force, you can get stuffed. For more entertaining reading, read the rest of the rules, especially relating to property. Nothing spoils a birthday surprise more than having to submit a written request for your own present, get permission from not one, but two layers of bureaucracy : Serco AND Border Force, then ask your visitor, who has probably travelled afar to come and visit you in the only available afternoon visiting slots, to get there a bit earlier – 5-7 HOURS earlier to drop the present off. Assuming you get permission. Which I doubt.

Mad. Mad. Mad. And worse than that, cruel. I’ve attached an email sent out by Pamela Curr on Thursday night and a copy of the new rules. Lisa’s post points out the idiocy of the Property gifting rule, which appears solely designed to save Serco the inconvenience of processing visits and receiving Property at the same time. 

Like so many of the visiting rules, the toilet rule is clearly designed to make visits more difficult and unpleasant – for many people, a visit only happens once a week (if that) which is their only connection to each other (they can no longer apply to visit each other even though this was promised when they segregated MITA by gender and family status a few months ago) and to friends and supporters outside. Even Facebook access is now restricted.  …”

Shocking medical conditions on Manus

by Julian Burnside | Aug 6, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Peter Dutton MP, Malcolm Turnbull PM note this.  You are now fixed with knowledge of the fact that medical care for refugees on Manus and Nauru are appalling.  You will not be able to hide behind a pretence of not knowing about it, when the next person dies because of YOUR neglect.

Hamid Khazaiee, who had been held on Nauru,  died because of criminal neglect in the Immigration Department.  Scott Morrison pretended not to know.

Right now, another man held on Manus is suffering from blood poisoning and IHMS is doing nothing useful to save his life.  About six weeks ago he picked up a bad bacteria from somewhere and his tongue swelled up. The infection has now spread to the rest of his body. He appears to be developing a blood infection. He has become very ill over the last six weeks or so. He has lost weight and has several large weeping sores on his body, he can’t hold food down. He is running a temperature. He is weak and listless.  He says he feels like he is dying.

Here are some photographs.  Remember, this started as a swollen tongue:

Requests to evacuate him to Brisbane for proper treatment have been ignored.

IF THIS MAN DIES YOU, DUTTON and TURNBULL, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAY YOU DID NOT KNOW.

Human Rights Lawyer & Doctors: Medical Care for Refugees on Manus and Nauru ‘Medieval’

Adjunct Professor George Newhouse, Principal of the National Justice Project based in Sydney, said today that the medical facilities for refugees on both Manus Island and Nauru were a disgrace.
Commenting on an item in The Guardian*, Professor Newhouse said,

“The standard of medical care on both Manus and on Nauru is, in a word, medieval. And that is a disgraceful reflection on the Australian Government that funds them”, said Mr Newhouse.

“The National Justice Project, Newhouse’s not-for-profit human rights law centre in Sydney was being swamped by claims of delays and medical mismanagement of refugee health on Nauru, he said.

“We are investigating a death on Nauru which appears to have been caused by negligence and a delay in the Australian Governent approving a medical evacuation. We have dozens of cases of individuals and families suffering in pain without proper care or treatment.”

“We act for children with untreated autism being denied early intervention therapies and proper care. There are adolescent children whose arms are being deformed because they urgently require an adjustment to the plate which repaired a compound fracture in their arm. No child living in Australia would ever have to put up with such shocking treatment. So why are these kids, under the direct care of Australia, suffering like this?”

Refugee advocate Sally Thompson agreed that “The Australian Government is throwing $26 million at the Republic of Nauru Hospital and what have they got? Belatedly, they have 4 clean hospital beds, a lot of dirt, a CAT scan machine and very little medical continuity”.

“Australian doctors have recommended urgent treatment for ‘Breast Patient R’ but she has now been waiting 11 months. That is just one of many cases where medical care is chaotic and poorly administered”, she said.

Prof Newhouse and Ms Thompson have joined Doctors4Refugees in demanding that the cruelty and neglect of refugees ends immediately.

“These are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. They are under the direct care and responsibility of the Australian Government. And the way we treat them is shameful. It has to stop. Now,” said Prof Newhouse.

GP Barri Phatarfod, Convenor of Doctors for Refugees, agrees with Prof Newhouse that Patient R’s breast lump case is indeed the tip of a very large iceberg.

Today she said, “Doctors for Refugees is currently reviewing over 100 cases of medical concern in the immigration detention system.  Some of these cases involve prolonged delays for the recommended treatment: sometimes over years.

“Many are for serious issues (like the patient with the breast lump), which clearly would have been appropriately investigated 10 months ago were she anywhere in Australia.

“Several are for highly urgent cases such as traumatic head injuries following assaults – there have been a number of these on Nauru – when an MRI has not been performed.

“If doctors in Australia treated their patients with the same chaos, lack of follow-up and investigation many would be reported to the regulatory bodies.

“These 100 are only the cases that have been referred to us by the extensive volunteer advocacy networks. The more serious ones we often hear about only there is an adverse event”, added Dr Phatarfod.

“It is a complete untruth that the people in the offshore detention system are given medical treatment broadly comparable to that in the Australian communities.

Dr Phatarfod concluded, “Having worked in rural and remote communities from Alice Springs to Bourke, I know that no woman with a breast lump or the myriad of other potentially serious conditions that we see ever waits that long for the required investigation. And no Australian doctor, however junior, should have his or her request to medically transfer  a patient overridden by a government bureaucrat”.

Boat people: Deterrents

by Julian Burnside | Aug 5, 2016 | Asylum Seekers, Human Rights

Most Australians have trouble understanding what it means to put your life in the hands of a people smuggler, or why anyone would do it.  Try to imagine that you are a refugee: you are part of an ethnic minority in Afghanistan.  Your people have been the target of ethnic cleansing for more than a century. You have friends and family members who have been killed by Taliban snipers and suicide bombers.  You know children who were blown to bits when the Taliban used them as mine-sweepers. You know of the teenager who was forced back to Afghanistan from Nauru in 2002 and who was hunted down by the Taliban: when they found him in his village, they dragged him out of his house and threw him down the village well, and dropped a hand grenade in after him.

You have borrowed enough money to get to Australia: it is cheaper than getting to Europe or America.  With your family you make your way to Indonesia, passing through Muslim countries which do not offer protection because they have not signed the Refugees’ Convention.

In Indonesia you can go to the UNHCR and get  a card which vouches that you are a refugee, but it doesn’t mean much because the Indonesian government will jail you if they find you, and you aren’t allowed to work, and you can’t send your kids to school.  You will wait in the shadows until some country offers to resettle you.  It could take 10 or 20 years.

There is one line of escape: you can pay a people smuggler who will take you to Australia by boat.  It is dangerous, but it is a chance for freedom and safety, for you and for your kids.

Imagine yourself there.  What would you do?

What would most Australians do?  What would our political leaders do, if they were in that position? (Try asking them: they won’t tell you)

I know I would take the risk, and I suspect most Australians would do the same.  You know that if your luck runs out you could die trying to reach safety.  But if ISIL or the Taliban get you, you are just as dead as if you drown.

Most Australians don’t have to make these agonising choices but if we did, we would not be grateful to a government for cutting off our last line of escape.  But that is exactly what Australian politicians do.

We have a harsh system of offshore detention: we take boat people by force, against their will, and dump them on Nauru or Manus Island (Papua New Guinea).  This is said to be a deterrent.  When people die in offshore detention (they do) our politicians tell us those deaths are a necessary part of the deterrent.

The idea of deterrence is to make getting on a boat less attractive than the alternatives.  Take the example of a Hazara from Afghanistan (over the past 15 years, most boat people have been Hazaras from Afghanistan).  They get here by being taken through Pakistan then to Malaysia by plane and from Malaysia to Indonesia by plane.  Their travel papers are provided by the people smuggler, who takes them back again when they reach Indonesia.

If the journey is intercepted in Malaysia or Indonesia, they face the prospect of staying there for years or (more likely) decades until some country offers to resettle them.  Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia have not signed the Refugees Convention and will jail them if they are found.  They cannot work and cannot send their kids to school.  If they go back to Pakistan or Afghanistan, they face the real prospect of being killed by the Taliban.  Hazaras have been the target of ethnic cleansing for more than a century, but especially since the Taliban came on the scene a few decades ago.  Most Hazaras living in Afghanisan or Pakistan have friends and family members who have been killed by Taliban snipers and suicide bombers.  Most Hazaras know children who were blown to bits when the Taliban used them as mine-sweepers.

So, put broadly, the alternatives are a life of real fear and persecution in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or a life of fear and hopelessness in Malaysia or Indonesia.  When the alternative is a dangerous boat trip to a life of safety in Australia, only the timid will be deterred.

Getting on a boat and arriving in Australia to ask for protection is not an offence.  It is not illegal.  Boat people have not broken any law.  They are innocent people.  Calling them “illegal” is just a lie which dishonest politicians repeat in order to make cruelty look acceptable.  Chief among the dishonest politicians are Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, all of whom repeatedly called boat people “illegal”. They lie to us so they can get away with betraying the proclaimed Christian values.

Offshore detention involves this: we treat innocent people in such a way as to deter others from trying to get here for protection.  Specifically, they will be sent to Nauru (an independent republic, population 8000), or to Manus Island (part of Papua New Guinea).  There are two reasons for choosing these places.

• First, they are outside Australia, and the subtext is that when we send boat people there we will shut the door behind them. So we remove the promise of safety and protection and substitute an uncertain, uncomfortable future of waiting.   Substituting despair for hope is a pretty effective deterrent.
• Second, they are out of sight and difficult to get to.  Community support, which is so important to detainees in Australia, disappears. Refugee supporters are denied access to detainees in Nauru and Manus Island. This enhances the sense of despair of people sent there.

Years of isolation and uncertainty drive people to despair and misery: we have seen in Pacific Solution mark I, we have seen it in detention centres onshore and offshore; we are seeing it again in Pacific Solution mark II.  Perhaps someone has done some figures to see just how many years of despair are enough to deter people from having a shot at freedom and safety.  Presumably someone in a dark corner of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will do some figures, because it is fantastically expensive to deter people this way.  Because Manus and Nauru are remote places, it costs a lot to build the necessary infrastructure and it costs a lot maintain staff there.  Typically, it costs about 5 times as much per person per day to warehouse people on Nauru or Manus as it costs to detain them in an Australian detention centre.  So, in order to make Australia look less appealing than the Taliban, we will spend about $1600 per person per day during the time they are held on Nauru or Manus.  And if the ‘no advantage’ principle is applied, we will hold people for at least 5 years.  That comes to about $3 million for each person detained.  (Those who think boat people are just economic migrants might lobby government to offer them $1 million per person to go back where they came from.  If it worked, it would be a lot cheaper than what we are doing now).