Opinion

Blogs

Refugee hypocrisy

Australia spends a great deal of money and political energy getting around its commitment as a signatory of what's known as the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. That convention requires us to offer a safe place in our midst to refugees, and a refugee is described as a person who demonstrates that he is likely to be persecuted in his own country because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group.

The so-called Christmas Island solution is a blatant denial of at least the spirit of our commitment to the refugee convention, and while the Indonesian solution is not so clear cut it is hardly embracing our obligations.

There have been many cases of our denying the convention, and one that interested me especially followed the granting of asylum to 42 Papuans who arrived by canoe from the Indonesian province of West Papua in early 2006. I found Prime Minister Howard's reaction then amusing, if only because I had a mental picture of him realising with shock that there were several million more Papuans busily making canoes. "Do not imagine for a moment that we want you to come to Australia," he told them.

This week a senior Indonesian official quoted by Australian media reminded us of what the Oceanic Viking is all about when he said: "We have to be very strong in giving the message to the syndicates that Australia is a very tough country for them to enter and similarly Indonesia is not an easy country." We pay Indonesia to make it very tough. But why should Australia, a signatory country to the Geneva convention, want to make it very tough for refugees to get here?

The claim of 78 Tamils aboard the Oceanic Viking to refugee status is dubious, given that they have lived in Indonesia for five years and are leaving, by their own admission, to live in a rich country like Australia. There is also the fact that the Sri Lankan civil war has ended.

But individual boatloads and cases aside, Australia belittles itself by its use of escape clauses in and outright denial of the Geneva Refugee Convention. And given that we so often take the high moral ground, we mark ourselves as hypocrites.

Let us bring the farce to an end. We must admit that we no longer want to be bound by the refugee convention, and that will leave us free to develop a refugee policy that suits both our interests and our geographic position. First up, we can save a great many lives by stating unequivocally that we will not consider claims for asylum by anyone who arrives by boat. Should we?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 3/11/2009 5:08:00 PM | Comments (53)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

JC- Peter Costello agrees with you. Either fly them here to have their claims processed onshore or insist that entry claims must be made from another country. If they arrive by boat charge them with illegal entry and deport them. In the end it will be cheaper, safer and fairer to all concerned.

Posted by Directeur Sportif, 4/11/2009 9:19:32 AM

I suppose that extracting Australia from the refugee Convention would allow us to craft our own, more self interested policy regarding refugees & asylum seekers, particularly the 'claytons' asylum seekers like the 72 Tamils. Hopefully, and new policy would also be a responsible and comapssionalt one. There is an immigration policy and process in place for the Tamils and their ilk (people wanting to come to Australia because it's a wonderful, rich, secure place), and if they don't make the cut, that's too bad, but Australians shouldn't be made to feel reponsible for their lot in life. Harsh but true? I think that the means of transport is irrelevant. Circumstances should determine how people are classified : genuine refugees / asylum seekers, or immigrants (queue jumpers or otherwise). Maybe a very public and symbolic repatriation of a group (or several groups) of illegals would send a message : only those in genuine need will be treated as refugees. Others, fill in the forms and stand in line.

Posted by Abundance, 4/11/2009 9:23:06 AM

We seem to have missed the point all together with boat people that end up in distress at sea. When they give out a distress call and are then rescued they become survivors and should be taken to the closest port and be thankful that they have been saved. What I can see happening now is that shipping companies will be issuing directives to their captains to either try to ignore distress calls or give the area a miss in case their ship is tied up by all this crap that is going on. Already there is loss of life and who knows if this is the result of a few Tamils playing the Refugee card on the Oceanic Viking. I just hope that they are proud of themselves while they sit in safety when the Oceanic Viking could have been the ship that responded to the distress call of the latest victims of a sea disaster.

Posted by Les.w, 4/11/2009 9:35:25 AM

Let's be clear - the only people who get their knickers in a twist about the "rights" of assylum seekers are the loopy left. Don't believe me? Check out teflon Kev's dive in the opinion polls. Hippies and other ne'er-do-wells will bang on about "xenophobia" and "racism" and other mindless lefty bunk, the reality is that most people don't want 3rd world backward drek who torch their own boats and destroy their documentation living in their street. These clowns are a far cry from the enterprising and largely decent Vietnamese boat people who began arriving after the West failed to protect them from communist oppression in the 1970s. Send a clear message - no documentation, no processing - and don't even think about coming by boat or we'll send you back whence you came. The hippies are so clueless that they can't see how this whole thing plays right into the hands of the loopy right - neo-fascist parties in Europe are having a field day over the hordes of Muslims swarming into Italy, Germany, Spain, France, etc - even if they find it distasteful, elected officials ignore the will of the people at their peril. The viking clowns spent 5 years in Indonesia for God's sake!

Posted by Scott Hillard, 4/11/2009 9:50:09 AM

i do not like international laws or conventions. they are pointless. no one can police them and any country that signs into them is not really bound to anything. unless team america really exists. america #%$& yeh, here we are to save the mother %^$&ing day now.

Posted by catlicker, 4/11/2009 9:51:49 AM

A true refugee finds assylum in the closest safe country. People who can not make it to the closest safe country are in refugee camps awaiting processing and a place in a safe country like Australia. I have no problem with Refugees being taken in from these camps etc, but when a refugee passes through a safe country to get here, they are no longer a refugee, they are an economic assylum seeker, hence, and illegal enterant. Take the people on Australia's ship, they only want to come to Australia. That is not a true refugee. All economic assylum seekers should be turned around and not even be admitted for processing. If you want to come to Australia as a refugee, you go about it the right way. BUT in saying this, the appliocation process needs to be sped up to encourage people to do the right thing.

Posted by Nafe, 4/11/2009 10:05:47 AM

I would liken these boat people to being on par with people making an illegal home invasions. I have my house I have worked and paid for. I would resent any person/s walking down the street, after being deposited in the street by a beaten-up bus, then forcing their way into my house and demanding to be fed, clothed, given money, health benefits all of which I would have to pay out of my pocket. I would be all for helping those who I had invited into my house but not those who use emotional blackmail to bend me to their will. After listening to an radio interview with Shallow Burrows on Monday on this topic, I would assure her she does not speak for me, nor should she ever presume to do so.

Posted by MizJasper, 4/11/2009 10:06:18 AM

Almost a nobrainer JC. The journey is 2 dangerous and more will be lost in transit if we encourage it by default. (by default meaning we continue to recognise its legitamcy.) Saying all of that I feel a little like a heartless selfish narcissistic creature that cares little for people in great distress. If I were the person who had the duty of making it law to be enforced I think I would want to make make myself feel human again by going and working for these people at the start of their journey. A sustainable way of handling these people might be to provide training, tools and education at the start points over a number of years. Then as skilled contributing people they R able to improve conditions where they R. Then there R many places where they can contribute. Overtaxing a unwilling society that will not embrace radical change is a recipe for social mayhem. I'm reminded of stories where german families ( and many others) lived 4years,a family to a room after WW2. 20 million germans where expelled from eastern europe . That, the 60M that perished and the 6M holocast have some important lessons. One of the most important may be to not feel smug because we R lucky. cheers

Posted by notashrink, 4/11/2009 10:41:49 AM

Sharan Burrow is a sad old dyed in the wool socialist, an impotent relic from a bygone era. Like a Commodore 64 computer. Even the Labor party executive gives her a wide berth, beause they know she is a loose cannon and a liability. You are wise to treat her views with suspicion, MizJasper....beware the Jabberwock.

Posted by Abundance, 4/11/2009 10:46:17 AM

ntashrnk - R U strglng wth th wrd lmit?

Posted by Abundance, 4/11/2009 10:55:10 AM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next >