Labor’s Richard Marles is just a watered down version of Scott Morrison
I went along to an asylum seeker forum at Gosford Anglican Parish,
last night. Hosted by the awesome Father Rod Bower, MCd by Labor’s
Senator Deborah O’Neill, with special guest speaker, Labor’s Shadow
Immigration Minister, Richard Marles.
I was nervous when I arrived. When I left, I was furious! Here’s why…
Marles made just 7 points
Despite talking a lot, and very well, Marles made just 7 points:
- Liberal is worse than Labor
- Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm
- Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia
- Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here
- Our detention centres need to be run better
- Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation
- Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea
Let’s take a look at each of these points individually…
Liberal is worse than Labor
No arguments here. They’re definitely worse. They reduced our total
refugee intake quota from 20,000 under Labor to 13,750. They’re turning
boats back (in breach of international law and Indonesia’s sovereignty).
They haven’t processed a single claim for an asylum seeker in offshore
detention since taking office (more than a year ago). They’re trying to change Australia’s law so it’s less bound by international law. And they’re trying to introduce temporary visas.
But let’s be clear. Labor are no angels. They introduced offshore detention, under Gillard. And they want it retained.
Labor believes in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm
What’s compassionate about locking up people who are fleeing murder,
torture, wrongful imprisonment and other forms of persecution? What’s
fair about that (remember, it breaches international law)? Or generous?
And no harm? Seriously?! According to The Age,
the organisation contracted to provide medical services in detention
centres (International Health and Medical Services) reported that:
About half the asylum seekers in detention on Manus
Island and Nauru are suffering from significant depression, stress or
anxiety, according to clinical assessments… specialists blame the
“detention environment” rather than the adequacy of services for the
worsening mental health of detainees.”
Then of course there’s their physical health to consider. Detainees
are imprisoned in squalid conditions, without adequate access to
appropriate healthcare. And people are dying, for God’s sake!
Sure, Marles says he thinks the centres should be run better, but
almost in the same breath he said we can’t guarantee the safety of
asylum seekers kept in detention.
It’s clear that Labor doesn’t believe in compassion, fairness, generosity and no harm. It’s just more hypocrisy.
Any genuine refugees currently in offshore detention should be resettled in Australia
Marles clearly said this last night. And I completely agree. But I don’t believe him at all. In fact, he said exactly the opposite back in April, when discussing the possibility that some refugees from Manus Island might have to be resettled in Australia:
Nothing would be more detrimental to Australia’s strategy to reducing the flow of boats from Indonesia than that.”
Not very convincing, Richard.
Australia is faced with a “cohort” of 7 million refugees who want asylum here
First things first. 7 million refugees are NOT trying to seek asylum
in Australia. Yes, there are approximately 7 millions refugees seeking
permanent asylum in another country, and yes, I’m sure many/most/all
would love that country to be Australia. But only a very small handful
of them have the means to get here or are trying to.
So to suggest that our asylum seeker responsibilities must be
considered in the context of 7 million people who need our help is
disingenuous. There are other countries who also resettle refugees. It’s
a shared international load.
Now… “Cohort”… WTF?! According to Merriam-Webster, here’s the definition of ‘cohort’:
a: one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion
b: a group of warriors or soldiers
c: band, group
d: a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class
membership) in common in a demographic study <a cohort of premedical
students>”
Notice that the first 2 definitions are military, implying
aggression, military might, strategy and conquering tendencies? Even the
third implies at least some of internal coordination and planning. Only
the very last definition is that of a group of individuals sharing some
arbitrary quality (and thus only the last is appropriate).
This use of language is disingenuous and deliberately inflammatory.
Asylum seekers are not a military division attempting to conquer
Australia. They’re scared, desperate people, fleeing persecution in
their home countries.
EDIT: A few people on Google+ have questioned my
criticism of the word ‘cohort’. They say it’s quite commonly used to
describe groups of people (e.g. students by year or subject, or in
science to mean a common group with similar characteristics). So my
criticism may be more a reflection of me than of his meaning and agenda.
Maybe. To me, it stood out like a sore thumb, so I’m not convinced
enough to remove the discussion about it.
Our detention centres need to be run better
Yes! Yes they do. On this, Marles and I agree. But were they run
better under Labor? (Remember it was Gillard who re-introduced offshore
processing on Nauru and Manus.) Well, according to this Parliamentary paper from September 2012 (while Labor was in office), things were pretty grim back then too:
The main issues of concern expressed by many stakeholders
regarding the ‘Pacific Solution’ revolved around the conditions of the
offshore processing centres; the lack of independent scrutiny; the
mental health impacts on those held in the centres; and the lengthy
periods of time that many asylum seekers spent on Nauru and Manus Island
while their claims were being processed.
The conditions on Nauru and Manus Island attracted a great deal of
criticism at the time from refugee advocates and other stakeholders,
including many parliamentarians.[19] The report of the inquiry into A
Certain Maritime Incident outlined many of these concerns and noted that
the Nauru site initially lacked water, sanitation and electricity with
asylum seekers housed under harsh conditions. Evidence to the Select
Committee suggested that the facilities on Manus were a slight
improvement on those in Nauru; however, several asylum seekers
contracted malaria.[20]
Several witnesses to the Committee also expressed concern about the
lack of independent scrutiny, difficulty in obtaining access to the
facilities and an apparent lack of access to legal advice for detainees.
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights told the Committee that when they
sought to send a team of lawyers to Nauru to provide legal advice to
asylum seekers the Nauruan Government refused them visas.[21] In 2002,
the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC—formerly HREOC) also
requested permission to inspect the facilities on Nauru and Manus Island
in Papua New Guinea as part of its National Inquiry into Children in
Immigration Detention, but the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) ‘reiterated its position
that the HREOC Act did not have extra-territorial effect and declined to
assist the Inquiry with these visits’.”
Maybe Marles means ‘better than both Liberal and Labor have done it’.
But he certainly didn’t say that (indeed, in the context of his
Liberal-slamming, it was clear that’s not what he meant).
Detention centres ARE a deterrent, but they’re not based on deprivation
Marles agreed with Father Rod Bower that mandatory detention is used
as a deterrent. But he denied it was based on deprivation. So let’s look
at the definition of deprivation:
1: the state of being deprived : privation; especially : removal from an office, dignity, or benefice
2: an act or instance of depriving : loss
Imprisoning asylum seekers for doing no more than exercising their
fundamental human rights is depriving them of freedom and dignity. It’s
laughable (although not funny) to argue detention centres are not about
deprivation. By definition, that’s exactly what they’re about.
Mandatory detention is the only way to save lives at sea
Many times during the night, Marles positioned mandatory detention as both a solution to deaths at sea and the only solution to deaths at sea. This argument is false and disingenuous on three fronts…
Firstly, there’s no verifiable evidence to support the argument that
mandatory detention policies deter asylum seekers from trying to reach
Australia. When Howard introduced it in 2001, the numbers were already dropping.
Plus, the introduction of the Pacific Solution (Sept 2001) coincided
with the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (Oct 2001).
Leading up to this point, Afghanistan had been one of our major sources
of asylum seekers (17% in 2001-01).
Also, from 2001 to 2002 there was a 45% drop in refugee numbers
worldwide. And when Gillard re-introduced it in 2012, it didn’t
immediately slow the boats as Marles claimed last night. In fact, the number of boat more than doubled.
Secondly, even if (and it’s a big ‘if’) mandatory detention does
deter would-be asylum seekers, is that something to be proud of? Sure,
that might reduce the deaths at our doorstep, but do they just
go somewhere else to die? Do they just attempt some other dangerous
journey? Or a journey to some other dangerous country? Or do they just
stay home and get murdered by their persecutors? Marles dismissed these
claims last night as absolutely untrue, but he didn’t supply any
verifiable evidence, nor has anyone else supplied any that I’m aware of.
Note that Marles also misleadingly positioned people who suggest our
mandatory detention policy might simply cause asylum seekers to die
elsewhere. He said people who argue this don’t believe deaths at sea are
Australia’s responsibility. Again, disingenuous. Deaths at sea are our
responsibility. But so too are deaths caused elsewhere by our policies.
And finally, to suggest that mandatory detention is the only solution
to deaths at sea is patently absurd. The government spends billions on
mandatory detention, with Labor’s blessing ($10b since 2007). If
putting innocent people in jail is the only solution they could buy
with $10b, they’re definitely the wrong people for the job.
What about rescuing people at sea? What about processing people in
Indonesia? And in the long term, what about diplomatic solutions to
reduce the actual number of refugees (rather than military operations to
increase them)?
On refugees, as on most things, Labor is just a watered-down version of Liberal
On my way home from the forum, I called my wife, and told her I
shouldn’t have gone. But this morning, I’m glad I did. It reinforced for
me how Labor is now just a watered-down version of Liberal. How their
politicians are hypocritical, manipulative, disingenuous, evasive and
dangerous. More importantly, it strengthened my resolve to campaign for
better alternatives.
Liberal and Labor have passed their use-by date. Australia deserves better.
No comments:
Post a Comment