Opinion

Moral asylum

Six years ago I argued in my column in The Herald that the Howard Government's monitoring of approaching boatloads of asylum seekers for security reasons showed that we had the capability to monitor these boats for moral reasons. Since we know these people are in danger and we have the ready means of ensuring them safe passage, we have a moral duty to oversee their safety.

Events at the weekend suggest that Australia has moved to this point. Those events were set in train by a simple phone call, a prospective asylum seeker's mobile phone call to Australian authorities. The call was made within Indonesia's search and rescue borders but it was, nevertheless, made to Australia. I suppose if you're shopping around for a better lifestyle you'll call Australia before Indonesia. The caller claimed the refugees' boat was in distress, and despite the fact that the boat was in Indonesian waters, and after the distress call was relayed to Indonesian authorities, an Australian Navy ship went to the boat's aid. There the HMAS Armidale found that the boat was not at risk, but its senior officers did determine later that because of a steering problem and absence of navigation equipment the boat was not seaworthy for a long journey to Australia. And so on Sunday night the 78 prospective asylum seekers were transferred to an Australian Customs ship.

Australia has been negotiating with Indonesia for that country to take the 78 passengers, as they were rescued, if that's the word, in Indonesian waters, but it is predictably difficult. So as easily as that we've reached the point where asylum seekers on a boat in Indonesian waters make a mobile phone call to Australia to tell us that they plan to head for Australia without navigation equipment and we send out navy to pick them up in case they get lost on the way!

Life would be easier for all if Australia accepted more enthusiastically its moral responsibility to do its utmost to ensure the safety of asylum seekers seeking to travel to Australia by leaky boat. We could check all their boats as they prepare to leave Indonesian waters, equip and provision the boats as required and escort them in convoy to Australia. To spare them the rigours of such a sea journey, we could fly children, women and the aged by chartered airliner to our shores. Since at least some of these people pay people smugglers $15,000, the escorted passage and chartered flights could be a significant earner of foreign currency.

What do you say?

And Australia no longer seems to question the bona fides of refugees who don't seek asylum in the first safe country. Do you?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 20/10/2009 3:29:00 PM | Comments (41)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

I noticed a report yesterday whereby illegal boat people alone are now costing Australians $650 million p.a. in benefits and payments. Why? we cant even properly look after our own. Hospitals are a prime example. It also begs the question, how could these people afford the $10K fee and how did they get to Indonesia in the first place? Unlike people waiting their turn around the world to come here who have proper background checks made, how can we be sure of the actual identity and background of these persons claiming to be political refugees?

Posted by MizJasper, 21/10/2009 9:15:30 AM, on The Herald

Of all lifes trageties refugees are unfolding globally as one of the worst. Does any one else remember the 1990 british show that looked into the future ? Ours was the northern massacare of illegal emmigrants. 3 or 4 miilion were shot, bombed and torpedoed trying to do a mass immegration from a disaster struck indonesia. We hypothetically defended our shores with deadly force. Never before has a true United Nations been necessary, despite the US and its accomplaces behaving like rogue states going to world war without the others we may still get a united nations that will be the only way that large issues can be addressed properly as best they can.

Posted by notashrink, 21/10/2009 9:38:14 AM, on The Herald

I totally agree that we (Australia) should do everything we can to help refugees get to safety, in Australia or elsewhere, especially if there are innocents on board the leaky boats. The corollary is that we should (must?) do all we can to eliminate the people smuggling industry, and we must send refugees home when it is safe. I, like many Australians, fear that refugees are simply migrants. We have channels and strategies for managing both.

Posted by Abundance, 21/10/2009 9:49:35 AM, on The Herald

i am inclined to give people that make this much effort to get here a chance to plead their case at least. the boats we send to help dont really cost anything because they would be running around training etc anyway.we should be helping genuine refugees, but who decides which are genuine? i dont envy the politicians working on this subject. they are on a hideing to nothing.

Posted by catl, 21/10/2009 9:52:18 AM, on The Herald

Well here we go. I was a big supporter of the Temporary Protection Visa's of the Howard Government. If these people are true refugees, they wouldn;t care about it as long as they are safe away from danger. And once the danger is passed, they get to go back home. Australia needs to be tough on Boarder protection not only to protect Australians from terrorism and letting in criminals, but for the boat peoples own protection. It is not safe for them to be on a leaky boat all the way accross the ocean. Also there are hundred and thousands, if not millions of real refugee's in camps waiting for assylum somewhere, who keep getting pushed down the list while these boats are comming. It is easy to be critical though without offering a solution. So here is my solution. 1. Australia and every other western country should fund the UN more so they can process Asylum seekers quicker in the refugee camps. 2. any person who does come here by boat still get processed on Christmas Island or Nuaru, and the only visa they can qualify for is a tempory protection Visa, and they are unable to access our welfare system. You have to make it hard for the boatpeople and easier anr quicker for refugees

Posted by Nafe, 21/10/2009 10:16:55 AM, on The Herald

How many safe countries are they allowed to pass through or by until they reach their country of choice?

Posted by stormbringer, 21/10/2009 10:17:05 AM, on The Herald

I agree. #1: More than 80%(or 85-90%) of all "illegal immigrants" are people who have come by plane and overstayed their visa. So the actual number of people who arrive "illegally" are very few. Less than a 1000 year for most of the past 20 years. #2: Australia takes in a lot less, a small fraction of what other countries take in. #3: Aust signed the "UN refugee conventio..." ... Most Refugees end up working very hard, and do the low-paid jobs that most of us wouldn't want to do. Many others study well and get better jobs. Thus contributing to our economy, etc. BTW, I am a Tamil from Sri Lanka. I lived half my life in SL, and from my own experience and through relatives still living in SL, I know the suffering of Tamils. Many Tamil people are being arrested by the Sinhalese Police & Army and imprisoned for months/years. Young Tamil girls are sexually abused or raped. Many Tamils have been brutally tortured also. This has been happening for over 30 years. The war in SL is now over and there is no more 'Tamil Tigers' in SL. WHY??? is the UN and other countries like Australia still allowing Sinhala-Sri_Lanka to continue it's 'slow genocide' of Tamils?

Posted by EezhaThamizhan, 21/10/2009 10:20:05 AM, on The Herald

If only Sri Lanka had an Oil reserve, Eezha....

Posted by crusty, 21/10/2009 10:57:45 AM, on The Herald

i wonder what would happen to my family, if for some reason in the future we were forced to flee australia. wouldnt we all hope that some country would take us in and provide a refuge?

Posted by senior sergeant smith, 21/10/2009 11:24:26 AM, on The Herald

Or chose to leave Australia.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 21/10/2009 11:53:01 AM

Crusty, i can't believe you still think that Bush went into Iraq for oil. The Us or the coalition have got no oil out of the war, all they and we have got is higher prices because of the supply disruption. The reasoning for the war was simply to do with a stratigic position to protect Israel. every one knows Sadam had weapons that could reach Israel and he was unstable enough to use them as he did not believe in Israels right to exist.

Posted by Nafe, 21/10/2009 11:27:55 AM, on The Herald

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next >