Part 3: Arise Scott Morrison, Lord Sixwords of Cronulla!
Part 3 of George Venturini’s
piece cites The Green’s opposition to the draconian legislation Scott
Morrison introduced into Parliament in his final weeks as the Minister
for Immigration. You may wish to read/re-read Part 1 and Part 2 before proceeding.
Arise Scott John Morrison, Lord Sixwords of Cronulla!
But why Sixwords? Simple: Eine Sprache, ein Gezetz, ein Kultur – translated into ‘One Language, One Law, One Culture’ for the benefit of the ‘boys of Cronulla’, Morrison’s grand electors.
A Parliament, but what ‘democracy’?
The Parliamentary debate on the final text of the bill had been one
of the harshest and most anguished in a long time. Parliament was
bitterly divided.
Few members in the House of Representatives could and did speak
against the bill in good conscience, by having opposed it from the very
beginning.
Most comfortable, despite their anguish, were the Australian Greens
members of the Senate. They had the advantage of never having proposed
and organised the mis-treatment of asylum seekers as the so-called Labor
Party and the so-called Liberal Party, with its Country Party appendix,
had done for some twenty years at least.
The final debate on the bill got on the way at mid-afternoon of 4 December 2014.
First amongst the Greens to speak was Senator Milne. She said:
“On 5 April 2013 the now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who was the
opposition leader at the time, in a speech to his favourite
organisation, the Institute of Public Affairs – that is, the Rupert
Murdoch-Gina Rinehart think tank – said this: ‘Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you’ is the foundation of our justice. ‘Love
your neighbour as you love yourself’ is the foundation of our mercy.
That was our Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition,
and now this government is engaged in what I think will be regarded as
crimes against humanity because it is systematic abuse. It is not
one-off, not by any means: it is systematic and deliberate humiliation
and degradation of people, and a deliberate and systemic process to
destroy people’s mental health. … The fact that there are children
locked up in detention at all is a disgrace, and the minister has the
power right now to free all of those children and their families, but he
will not do it. He will not do it because he wants to treat those
children as pawns in a political game to try to get more power and to
get more disgraceful legislation through this parliament. What sort of a
person uses the fact that he has the power to keep children locked up
behind barbed wire in detention centres and decides to trade or not to
trade their freedom depending on whether he can get other people to
agree to give him more powers which are against international law?”
Further on:opposition leader at the time, in a speech to his favourite
organisation, the Institute of Public Affairs – that is, the Rupert
Murdoch-Gina Rinehart think tank – said this: ‘Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you’ is the foundation of our justice. ‘Love
your neighbour as you love yourself’ is the foundation of our mercy.
That was our Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition,
and now this government is engaged in what I think will be regarded as
crimes against humanity because it is systematic abuse. It is not
one-off, not by any means: it is systematic and deliberate humiliation
and degradation of people, and a deliberate and systemic process to
destroy people’s mental health. … The fact that there are children
locked up in detention at all is a disgrace, and the minister has the
power right now to free all of those children and their families, but he
will not do it. He will not do it because he wants to treat those
children as pawns in a political game to try to get more power and to
get more disgraceful legislation through this parliament. What sort of a
person uses the fact that he has the power to keep children locked up
behind barbed wire in detention centres and decides to trade or not to
trade their freedom depending on whether he can get other people to
agree to give him more powers which are against international law?”
“There are so many things wrong with this legislation that it is hard
to know where to begin. Schedule 6 provides that you can classify
children born in Australia to asylum seeker parents as unauthorised
maritime arrivals. No, they are not. They are babies born in Australia
on Australian soil, and they should be regarded in the same way as any
other child born here and be given their citizenship – their statehood.
What do you call this treatment of pregnant women? There are two
women on Nauru who are eight months pregnant. They had been classified
as genuine refugees and were settled as refugees on Nauru – not
criminals but settled refugees – but, because Australia has determined
to send people to Nauru, where, clearly, the medical facilities are not
good enough and these women had to be sent to Australia to have their
babies, they have been put in detention. They are eight months pregnant
and were put in detention, when they are settled refugees. I call that
disgraceful and grave humiliation of those people. It is degradation of
their human rights. They are settled refugees – they should be treated
with the respect that they deserve, not shoved into detention.
I want to talk first of all about the minister’s grab for power –
that is, the removal of judicial oversight of the use of maritime
powers.
The fact that this bill will amend the Maritime Powers Act and remove
judicial scrutiny of whether Australia complies with certain human
rights obligations, by removing a role for judges and removing a role
for the courts to invalidate government actions at sea, proves and
provides that the rules of natural justice do not apply to certain key
actions.
It suspends Australia’s international obligations in the context of
powers exercised under the Maritime Powers Act. This is the parliament
saying that it will exempt itself and its behaviour from the scrutiny of
the courts. This is absolutely shocking behaviour in international law
terms – we are abrogating our responsibilities under international law
just so this minister can do what he likes on behalf of his government.”
Senator Milne went on:to know where to begin. Schedule 6 provides that you can classify
children born in Australia to asylum seeker parents as unauthorised
maritime arrivals. No, they are not. They are babies born in Australia
on Australian soil, and they should be regarded in the same way as any
other child born here and be given their citizenship – their statehood.
What do you call this treatment of pregnant women? There are two
women on Nauru who are eight months pregnant. They had been classified
as genuine refugees and were settled as refugees on Nauru – not
criminals but settled refugees – but, because Australia has determined
to send people to Nauru, where, clearly, the medical facilities are not
good enough and these women had to be sent to Australia to have their
babies, they have been put in detention. They are eight months pregnant
and were put in detention, when they are settled refugees. I call that
disgraceful and grave humiliation of those people. It is degradation of
their human rights. They are settled refugees – they should be treated
with the respect that they deserve, not shoved into detention.
I want to talk first of all about the minister’s grab for power –
that is, the removal of judicial oversight of the use of maritime
powers.
The fact that this bill will amend the Maritime Powers Act and remove
judicial scrutiny of whether Australia complies with certain human
rights obligations, by removing a role for judges and removing a role
for the courts to invalidate government actions at sea, proves and
provides that the rules of natural justice do not apply to certain key
actions.
It suspends Australia’s international obligations in the context of
powers exercised under the Maritime Powers Act. This is the parliament
saying that it will exempt itself and its behaviour from the scrutiny of
the courts. This is absolutely shocking behaviour in international law
terms – we are abrogating our responsibilities under international law
just so this minister can do what he likes on behalf of his government.”
“The other thing that is appalling is that [the intended legislation]
is allowing for fast-tracking to occur. To make things worse, under
this fast-track process, applicants for protection visas will no longer
be entitled to have the merits of their claim reviewed by the Refugee
Review Tribunal. In some cases but not all they will be able to have
their case looked at by the immigration assessment authority, but it
will not involve any hearings where the applicant can set out their
claims and a decision will be made purely on the papers. Of course
everybody knows that for refugees and people seeking asylum that is
going to be virtually impossible. Many of them are already frightened of
the authorities because of the way they have had to leave the countries
they have been in. They will have no papers and no-one to justify or
prove or verify some of the things they are saying.
This is setting up a grossly unfair procedural process. And you are
knowingly doing it. It is beyond my understanding of how you continue to
use this Orwellian language. ‘Unauthorised maritime arrival’ – no,
person, people like you and I, people with parents, with children, with
brothers and sisters and families and hopes for a better future, people
who have had to leave Afghanistan, Hazaras who have had to leave because
they are being persecuted. And this government thinks it is fine to
turn them around at sea and send them back to Sri Lanka, for example,
where you know and I know that the Rajapaksa government is engaged in
crimes against humanity all the time, yet you appease them. You appease
the Rajapaksas. You know exactly what they are doing in Sri Lanka. You
know what they are doing to the Tamils. You know that the white vans
turn up and people disappear, yet you send asylum seekers back because
it suits you to do so and, what is more, you give to the Rajapaksa
regime some of the vessels which will better able them to intercept
people leaving or to return them.
You are more than happy to turn people around, to traumatise the Navy, for example, as we saw on the 7.30 Report this
week where people were horrified about what they have been expected to
do. They have been given no counselling or assistance even though they
are experiencing the humanity they feel about seeing the way these
people are being treated. There is the fact that anyone could say it
would be inconvenient for a refugee vessel to turn up on Australia Day,
‘So let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, let’s turn them around, let’s
push them back, let’s do what we like, let’s get rid of them because
they’re unauthorised maritime arrivals.’ No, they are people of whom the
Prime Minister has said, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.’ It is very clear that he does not believe that. The Prime
Minister would not have his own family treated in this way. He would not
have a child of his own family left stateless.
Every child has a right to a name and a nationality, a statehood. In
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child every child has a right to a
name and a nationality, yet you are taking that away from them.
You are saying: ‘That child will be stateless and, what’s more, we’re
not even calling a child a child; we’re just going to label them’ – in
Orwellian terms – ‘an “unauthorised maritime arrival.” ’
International law will catch up with this government. The
International Criminal Court was set up to look at systemic abuse by
governments around the world.”
Senator Ludlam, also of the Australian Greens, opened his speech with a bang: “[The bill] is the latest sordid chapter in a race to the bottom.”is allowing for fast-tracking to occur. To make things worse, under
this fast-track process, applicants for protection visas will no longer
be entitled to have the merits of their claim reviewed by the Refugee
Review Tribunal. In some cases but not all they will be able to have
their case looked at by the immigration assessment authority, but it
will not involve any hearings where the applicant can set out their
claims and a decision will be made purely on the papers. Of course
everybody knows that for refugees and people seeking asylum that is
going to be virtually impossible. Many of them are already frightened of
the authorities because of the way they have had to leave the countries
they have been in. They will have no papers and no-one to justify or
prove or verify some of the things they are saying.
This is setting up a grossly unfair procedural process. And you are
knowingly doing it. It is beyond my understanding of how you continue to
use this Orwellian language. ‘Unauthorised maritime arrival’ – no,
person, people like you and I, people with parents, with children, with
brothers and sisters and families and hopes for a better future, people
who have had to leave Afghanistan, Hazaras who have had to leave because
they are being persecuted. And this government thinks it is fine to
turn them around at sea and send them back to Sri Lanka, for example,
where you know and I know that the Rajapaksa government is engaged in
crimes against humanity all the time, yet you appease them. You appease
the Rajapaksas. You know exactly what they are doing in Sri Lanka. You
know what they are doing to the Tamils. You know that the white vans
turn up and people disappear, yet you send asylum seekers back because
it suits you to do so and, what is more, you give to the Rajapaksa
regime some of the vessels which will better able them to intercept
people leaving or to return them.
You are more than happy to turn people around, to traumatise the Navy, for example, as we saw on the 7.30 Report this
week where people were horrified about what they have been expected to
do. They have been given no counselling or assistance even though they
are experiencing the humanity they feel about seeing the way these
people are being treated. There is the fact that anyone could say it
would be inconvenient for a refugee vessel to turn up on Australia Day,
‘So let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, let’s turn them around, let’s
push them back, let’s do what we like, let’s get rid of them because
they’re unauthorised maritime arrivals.’ No, they are people of whom the
Prime Minister has said, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.’ It is very clear that he does not believe that. The Prime
Minister would not have his own family treated in this way. He would not
have a child of his own family left stateless.
Every child has a right to a name and a nationality, a statehood. In
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child every child has a right to a
name and a nationality, yet you are taking that away from them.
You are saying: ‘That child will be stateless and, what’s more, we’re
not even calling a child a child; we’re just going to label them’ – in
Orwellian terms – ‘an “unauthorised maritime arrival.” ’
International law will catch up with this government. The
International Criminal Court was set up to look at systemic abuse by
governments around the world.”
And he continued:
“ … many of us thought it would not come to this. Just when you think
this government cannot get any more vindictive in its treatment of
innocent families fleeing war and violence and just when you think this
government could not get any more sadistic, secretive and authoritarian
in its attitude towards some of the most vulnerable people in the world,
this government finds a way to surprise you.
So I am now beyond surprising. In truth, the ruination of Australia’s
arguably proud record of providing safe harbour to people seeking to
escape political or sectarian violence has been a long time coming and
there is no point in laying all of the blame at the feet of Minister
Scott Morrison. From the moment the ALP and the Liberal-National parties
settled their bipartisan consensus that henceforth Australian refugee
policy would rest on the principle of deterrence, a bill like the one we
are debating tonight was practically inevitable.
To deter people from fleeing the Iranian secret police, the medieval
violence of the Taliban, the horrors faced by the Rohingya in the
western part of Burma and the murderous repression that passes for
official state policy in Sri Lanka inevitably means your policy ends up
in a very dark place indeed. The United Nations has recognised this. The
Australian High Court has recognised this. Advocates who work face to
face with refugees fleeing the unfortunate circumstances that people
find themselves in, refugees themselves and advocates, like Amnesty
International, which keep an eye on the kinds of horrific situations
that people find themselves in around the world, have looked at
Australian government policy in recent years and found it extremely
wanting.
We have a bill tonight that will grant almost total impunity to
Minister Scott Morrison and whoever comes after him in the continued
process of the militarisation of a humanitarian crisis. … and I
genuinely fear for what powers this bill would grant an individual like
Minister Scott Morrison – his authoritarian tendencies when he thinks he
can score some kind of political point; brutalising people who already
have lost so much – and I genuinely fear what this will actually mean
for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the
front line.
The bill effectively will redefine the definition of refugee to be
whatever the minister of the day says it is. And although Mr Morrison
appears to be using hundreds of children who should never have been
detained in the first place as a bargaining chip – and, again, we see
the kind of compassion that I think has driven this debate for many
years. … The compassion that was felt by people right across the debate
was so callously manipulated, and, again, that is what is happening
tonight. The crossbenchers have been told that Minister Morrison will
trade off children behind razor wire – who should never have been put
there in the first place – as though they were poker chips in a
political negotiation. What kind of sociopath engages in a political
debate or a political negotiation using the lives of children who have
fled from Hazara lands in Afghanistan or from Sri Lanka ? It is very,
very hard to fathom how it could possibly have come to this. Those
children could be released tomorrow, irrespective of the outcome of this
debate tonight. That is what the Labor Party understands, it is what
the Greens understand, and I would urge the other crossbenchers – some
of whom have made their position clear and some of whom have not – to
rest with that consideration overnight, because that decision will be on
their conscience and on all of our consciences irrespective of which
way the vote goes when it is committed.
The bill effectively removes most references to the refugee
convention from Australia’s Migration Act. This is something that I am
not expecting will make the front pages of the papers tomorrow because
for whatever reason most Australians, through spending our lives in such
a fortunate part of the world, if we are lucky will not ever have to
think carefully about what human rights actually mean in the flesh or
what international humanitarian law actually means to families, to real
individuals. These things are seen by most of us, mediated through
television screens, happening to other people.
But these instruments were put there for a purpose. As I described
briefly earlier, they were put there so that nobody would ever have to
face what those of Jewish descent fleeing the horrors of Nazi Germany
had faced, or that the story of those fleeing Poland would never be
repeated. That is the flesh and blood behind these human rights
instruments that this government is so casually violating in the terms
outlined in this bill. What kind of legislator – what kind of leader;
what kind of politician – determines that the children of boat arrivals
who were born in Australia, in Australian hospitals, are nonetheless
unauthorised maritime arrivals ? It is bleak. It is not even ironic; it
is an incredibly black piece of legislation. And yet that is what this
bill does -newborn children are classified as unauthorised maritime
arrivals. How did it come to this degree of political dehumanisation?
Of course, there will be further debate on the amendments that are
outlined in this bill when we get to the committee stage, and further
amendments will shape the final form of the bill. I will leave comment
on those to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young, who has carried the
burden of government policies under the former government and under this
government as they have sought this race to the bottom – as governments
of both persuasion have sought to outdo each other in that deterrent
effect that would somehow make Australian government policy scarier than
the Taliban or the Iranian secret police.
We can talk about the high-level policy of lifting the humanitarian
intake and about the Greens’ safer pathways proposal, which would lift
the humanitarian intake to 30,000 to take the pressure off those people
who found themselves stranded in transit camps in Malaysia and
Indonesia. Under that proposal, out of that target of 30,000, we would
take 10,000 from those camps in our region, where people have been told
there is no queue. That is what creates the business model that the
people-smugglers exploit. Momentarily lapsing into the language adopted
by the coalition, if you want to smash that business model, remove the
incentive to climb onto a boat. Rather than making people more terrified
of the Australian government than they are of the Sri Lankan white
vans, offer them hope by offering them a chance at a safe harbour—you
might be in this camp for a period of time, but you will be safe while
you are here, and you will eventually be resettled. If you want to
dissolve the people-smugglers’ business model, that is how to do it. The
Greens propose an additional $70 million per year in emergency funding
for safe assessment centres in Indonesia to enable this kind of process
and to give people confidence that they will not be in these camps
forever while they wait for assessment and resettlement. We propose to
shut down all offshore detention in Nauru and [Papua New Guinea]. This
is not simply about getting children out of detention; it is about
getting all human beings out of detention.
There are many, many policy instruments if we simply set the racist
undertones of this debate aside, cease the race to the bottom – where we
try and terrify people out of fleeing military dictatorships and war
zones – and actually adopt a compassionate approach.”
But it was left to the Shadow Minister for Immigration, Senator this government cannot get any more vindictive in its treatment of
innocent families fleeing war and violence and just when you think this
government could not get any more sadistic, secretive and authoritarian
in its attitude towards some of the most vulnerable people in the world,
this government finds a way to surprise you.
So I am now beyond surprising. In truth, the ruination of Australia’s
arguably proud record of providing safe harbour to people seeking to
escape political or sectarian violence has been a long time coming and
there is no point in laying all of the blame at the feet of Minister
Scott Morrison. From the moment the ALP and the Liberal-National parties
settled their bipartisan consensus that henceforth Australian refugee
policy would rest on the principle of deterrence, a bill like the one we
are debating tonight was practically inevitable.
To deter people from fleeing the Iranian secret police, the medieval
violence of the Taliban, the horrors faced by the Rohingya in the
western part of Burma and the murderous repression that passes for
official state policy in Sri Lanka inevitably means your policy ends up
in a very dark place indeed. The United Nations has recognised this. The
Australian High Court has recognised this. Advocates who work face to
face with refugees fleeing the unfortunate circumstances that people
find themselves in, refugees themselves and advocates, like Amnesty
International, which keep an eye on the kinds of horrific situations
that people find themselves in around the world, have looked at
Australian government policy in recent years and found it extremely
wanting.
We have a bill tonight that will grant almost total impunity to
Minister Scott Morrison and whoever comes after him in the continued
process of the militarisation of a humanitarian crisis. … and I
genuinely fear for what powers this bill would grant an individual like
Minister Scott Morrison – his authoritarian tendencies when he thinks he
can score some kind of political point; brutalising people who already
have lost so much – and I genuinely fear what this will actually mean
for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the
front line.
The bill effectively will redefine the definition of refugee to be
whatever the minister of the day says it is. And although Mr Morrison
appears to be using hundreds of children who should never have been
detained in the first place as a bargaining chip – and, again, we see
the kind of compassion that I think has driven this debate for many
years. … The compassion that was felt by people right across the debate
was so callously manipulated, and, again, that is what is happening
tonight. The crossbenchers have been told that Minister Morrison will
trade off children behind razor wire – who should never have been put
there in the first place – as though they were poker chips in a
political negotiation. What kind of sociopath engages in a political
debate or a political negotiation using the lives of children who have
fled from Hazara lands in Afghanistan or from Sri Lanka ? It is very,
very hard to fathom how it could possibly have come to this. Those
children could be released tomorrow, irrespective of the outcome of this
debate tonight. That is what the Labor Party understands, it is what
the Greens understand, and I would urge the other crossbenchers – some
of whom have made their position clear and some of whom have not – to
rest with that consideration overnight, because that decision will be on
their conscience and on all of our consciences irrespective of which
way the vote goes when it is committed.
The bill effectively removes most references to the refugee
convention from Australia’s Migration Act. This is something that I am
not expecting will make the front pages of the papers tomorrow because
for whatever reason most Australians, through spending our lives in such
a fortunate part of the world, if we are lucky will not ever have to
think carefully about what human rights actually mean in the flesh or
what international humanitarian law actually means to families, to real
individuals. These things are seen by most of us, mediated through
television screens, happening to other people.
But these instruments were put there for a purpose. As I described
briefly earlier, they were put there so that nobody would ever have to
face what those of Jewish descent fleeing the horrors of Nazi Germany
had faced, or that the story of those fleeing Poland would never be
repeated. That is the flesh and blood behind these human rights
instruments that this government is so casually violating in the terms
outlined in this bill. What kind of legislator – what kind of leader;
what kind of politician – determines that the children of boat arrivals
who were born in Australia, in Australian hospitals, are nonetheless
unauthorised maritime arrivals ? It is bleak. It is not even ironic; it
is an incredibly black piece of legislation. And yet that is what this
bill does -newborn children are classified as unauthorised maritime
arrivals. How did it come to this degree of political dehumanisation?
Of course, there will be further debate on the amendments that are
outlined in this bill when we get to the committee stage, and further
amendments will shape the final form of the bill. I will leave comment
on those to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young, who has carried the
burden of government policies under the former government and under this
government as they have sought this race to the bottom – as governments
of both persuasion have sought to outdo each other in that deterrent
effect that would somehow make Australian government policy scarier than
the Taliban or the Iranian secret police.
We can talk about the high-level policy of lifting the humanitarian
intake and about the Greens’ safer pathways proposal, which would lift
the humanitarian intake to 30,000 to take the pressure off those people
who found themselves stranded in transit camps in Malaysia and
Indonesia. Under that proposal, out of that target of 30,000, we would
take 10,000 from those camps in our region, where people have been told
there is no queue. That is what creates the business model that the
people-smugglers exploit. Momentarily lapsing into the language adopted
by the coalition, if you want to smash that business model, remove the
incentive to climb onto a boat. Rather than making people more terrified
of the Australian government than they are of the Sri Lankan white
vans, offer them hope by offering them a chance at a safe harbour—you
might be in this camp for a period of time, but you will be safe while
you are here, and you will eventually be resettled. If you want to
dissolve the people-smugglers’ business model, that is how to do it. The
Greens propose an additional $70 million per year in emergency funding
for safe assessment centres in Indonesia to enable this kind of process
and to give people confidence that they will not be in these camps
forever while they wait for assessment and resettlement. We propose to
shut down all offshore detention in Nauru and [Papua New Guinea]. This
is not simply about getting children out of detention; it is about
getting all human beings out of detention.
There are many, many policy instruments if we simply set the racist
undertones of this debate aside, cease the race to the bottom – where we
try and terrify people out of fleeing military dictatorships and war
zones – and actually adopt a compassionate approach.”
Hanson-Young to place the final nail in the moral coffin of the Abbott
government. Rising to speak late in the evening, she began this way:
“I obviously have an awful lot of questions for the minister as well
in relation to how on earth the government thinks it is appropriate to
hold children as hostages in order to change fundamental pieces of
legislation to simply grant the minister more power for himself. I have
had many debates in this place over asylum seeker and refugee policy and
many of them have been pretty undignified, but I must say I have never
seen anything so appalling and abusive as I have seen in this place
tonight. We heard from Senator Muir, who said he felt he was in such a
difficult position – with a choice to vote for a bad bill or a terrible
bill, because he was told that, if he did not do what the government
wanted, the children would get it. He was told the only way to get these
children out of detention was to pass this bill and this package.
I have been saying for a number of weeks that the minister was using
children in detention as hostages – it was a figure of speech until
tonight. Tonight we saw children on Christmas Island being handed the
phone number of [an other crossbench senator, who might have been
undecided], and they were asked to call that number and beg that senator
to let them out. If that is not treating children as hostages, what is
it?
This minister has become one of the most sociopathic people in this
country. I want to give you the definition of a sociopath. It is
characterised by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards of
society, a master deceiver and manipulator, someone who will do whatever
it takes to get what he wants with no regard for consequences. Minister
Morrison is a sociopath who has held children as hostages in order to
grab the power he wants in this place tonight.
I do not blame [that senator]. I do not blame any of the members on
this crossbench. I do not even blame a number of the backbenchers of the
Liberal-National party who I know are appalled at where this
government’s policy is doing but I sure as hell blame Minister Morrison
and Tony Abbott. They have been desperate for months to get a win on
this issue. They have done everything they could to make it a hard moral
choice for people in this place. What is in this bill is not just
temporary protection visas, not just a new visa created to allow people
to work. We know there are seven schedules in this piece of legislation
and the majority of them do exactly the opposite of helping children and
their families resettle properly in this country.
Minister Morrison has held children in detention for months, children
he could have been released at any time. The conditions inside the
detention centre on Christmas Island are appalling. Children have been
abused. They have been raped and their parents have been raped. I am not
exaggerating. This is what the evidence has shown. Why did he not get
the children out when they started to be abused ? Why did he not let the
children out when they called, wrote and begged him to let them go to
school six months ago ? Why did he not let them out when the Human
Rights Commission said they are the most disgraceful conditions children
should ever be held in ? Why did he not let them out then ? Because he
was waiting for his prime time to use them as bargaining chips, as pawns
in his political play, to get legislation that he wanted through this
place which previously had no support in this chamber.
The amendments moved today by the minister do not improve the
substance of this bill. The amendments put forward in this piece of
legislation do not make any real difference to the use of those SHEVs or
those TPVs, despite what the crossbench has been told. There is no way
that somebody can honestly believe that there is a pathway to permanency
for any of the people in this 30,000 caseload backlog.”
Almost in tears, Senator Hanson-Young shouted:in relation to how on earth the government thinks it is appropriate to
hold children as hostages in order to change fundamental pieces of
legislation to simply grant the minister more power for himself. I have
had many debates in this place over asylum seeker and refugee policy and
many of them have been pretty undignified, but I must say I have never
seen anything so appalling and abusive as I have seen in this place
tonight. We heard from Senator Muir, who said he felt he was in such a
difficult position – with a choice to vote for a bad bill or a terrible
bill, because he was told that, if he did not do what the government
wanted, the children would get it. He was told the only way to get these
children out of detention was to pass this bill and this package.
I have been saying for a number of weeks that the minister was using
children in detention as hostages – it was a figure of speech until
tonight. Tonight we saw children on Christmas Island being handed the
phone number of [an other crossbench senator, who might have been
undecided], and they were asked to call that number and beg that senator
to let them out. If that is not treating children as hostages, what is
it?
This minister has become one of the most sociopathic people in this
country. I want to give you the definition of a sociopath. It is
characterised by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards of
society, a master deceiver and manipulator, someone who will do whatever
it takes to get what he wants with no regard for consequences. Minister
Morrison is a sociopath who has held children as hostages in order to
grab the power he wants in this place tonight.
I do not blame [that senator]. I do not blame any of the members on
this crossbench. I do not even blame a number of the backbenchers of the
Liberal-National party who I know are appalled at where this
government’s policy is doing but I sure as hell blame Minister Morrison
and Tony Abbott. They have been desperate for months to get a win on
this issue. They have done everything they could to make it a hard moral
choice for people in this place. What is in this bill is not just
temporary protection visas, not just a new visa created to allow people
to work. We know there are seven schedules in this piece of legislation
and the majority of them do exactly the opposite of helping children and
their families resettle properly in this country.
Minister Morrison has held children in detention for months, children
he could have been released at any time. The conditions inside the
detention centre on Christmas Island are appalling. Children have been
abused. They have been raped and their parents have been raped. I am not
exaggerating. This is what the evidence has shown. Why did he not get
the children out when they started to be abused ? Why did he not let the
children out when they called, wrote and begged him to let them go to
school six months ago ? Why did he not let them out when the Human
Rights Commission said they are the most disgraceful conditions children
should ever be held in ? Why did he not let them out then ? Because he
was waiting for his prime time to use them as bargaining chips, as pawns
in his political play, to get legislation that he wanted through this
place which previously had no support in this chamber.
The amendments moved today by the minister do not improve the
substance of this bill. The amendments put forward in this piece of
legislation do not make any real difference to the use of those SHEVs or
those TPVs, despite what the crossbench has been told. There is no way
that somebody can honestly believe that there is a pathway to permanency
for any of the people in this 30,000 caseload backlog.”
“I want those kids off Christmas Island. I want the kids off Nauru. I
want the people out of detention on Manus Island. But I do not believe
in setting 30,000 people up to fail, giving them false hope that they
will get their refugee claims assessed fairly – which they will not,
because schedules 4 and 5 scrap their ability to ever have their claims
assessed fairly – and pretending that somehow there is a pathway to
permanency when the minister has said himself that it is going to be a
‘very high bar to get there and good luck to them.’ These people are
being sold false hope, and who did the final deal but a distraught,
broken, abused child on Christmas Island, down the telephone to a
compassionate senator who wanted to do the right thing. This minister
has not just used children as a bargaining chip. He has sold them a
false dream once more.”
Coming towards the end of her intervention, Senator Hanson-Young concluded:want the people out of detention on Manus Island. But I do not believe
in setting 30,000 people up to fail, giving them false hope that they
will get their refugee claims assessed fairly – which they will not,
because schedules 4 and 5 scrap their ability to ever have their claims
assessed fairly – and pretending that somehow there is a pathway to
permanency when the minister has said himself that it is going to be a
‘very high bar to get there and good luck to them.’ These people are
being sold false hope, and who did the final deal but a distraught,
broken, abused child on Christmas Island, down the telephone to a
compassionate senator who wanted to do the right thing. This minister
has not just used children as a bargaining chip. He has sold them a
false dream once more.”
“We know that when you strip away the ability to have a genuine
appeal process, to have cases reviewed, you risk 60 per cent of
applications being marked as wrong. Sixty per cent of the children on
Christmas Island tonight who will come to Australia will never be given a
visa under this legislation. It does not matter how compromising or
willing we are to try to move on and give people some form of temporary
visa or a SHEV. The reality is, the statistics tell us and past history
and evidence show us that if this assessment process is changed the way
the minister wants it changed, 60 per cent of those children are never
even going to be given a temporary protection visa. This minister is not
just a sociopath, not just grabber of power for himself who is prepared
to take everything and use children to get it; he has sold senators in
this place who are trying to do the right thing a lie. Sociopaths are
masters and deceivers and manipulators. That is what we have seen here
tonight, colleagues. That is exactly what we have seen here tonight.
I have looked through the amendments. There ain’t no family reunion
in here. We heard that people would be able to have a pathway to
permanency. Well it is not in there, and it will not be in there for the
majority of people we apparently must do this for to get them off the
island. Why didn’t the minister act to get those children out of
detention when he was told that the conditions were damaging them –
months ago? Why has he spent months attacking [the President of the
Human Right Commission] for standing up and saying these kids needed to
be off the island and out of detention ? Why didn’t he act then ?
Because he was desperate to keep his chips in his pocket for exactly
this occasion. Who would have been on the end of that phone call,
distressed and crying, if he had already taken all the children out? I
am appalled. Many people in this country tonight would be appalled.
Using children as hostages is never okay, and only a sociopath would do
it.”
To be continued . . .appeal process, to have cases reviewed, you risk 60 per cent of
applications being marked as wrong. Sixty per cent of the children on
Christmas Island tonight who will come to Australia will never be given a
visa under this legislation. It does not matter how compromising or
willing we are to try to move on and give people some form of temporary
visa or a SHEV. The reality is, the statistics tell us and past history
and evidence show us that if this assessment process is changed the way
the minister wants it changed, 60 per cent of those children are never
even going to be given a temporary protection visa. This minister is not
just a sociopath, not just grabber of power for himself who is prepared
to take everything and use children to get it; he has sold senators in
this place who are trying to do the right thing a lie. Sociopaths are
masters and deceivers and manipulators. That is what we have seen here
tonight, colleagues. That is exactly what we have seen here tonight.
I have looked through the amendments. There ain’t no family reunion
in here. We heard that people would be able to have a pathway to
permanency. Well it is not in there, and it will not be in there for the
majority of people we apparently must do this for to get them off the
island. Why didn’t the minister act to get those children out of
detention when he was told that the conditions were damaging them –
months ago? Why has he spent months attacking [the President of the
Human Right Commission] for standing up and saying these kids needed to
be off the island and out of detention ? Why didn’t he act then ?
Because he was desperate to keep his chips in his pocket for exactly
this occasion. Who would have been on the end of that phone call,
distressed and crying, if he had already taken all the children out? I
am appalled. Many people in this country tonight would be appalled.
Using children as hostages is never okay, and only a sociopath would do
it.”
Dr. George Venturini has devoted sixty
years to the study, practice, teaching, writing and administering of law
in four continents. He is the author of eight books and about 100
articles and essays for learned periodicals and conferences. Since his
‘retirement’ Dr. Venturini has been Senior Associate in the School of
Political and Social Inquiry at Monash; he is also an Adjunct Professor
at the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University, Melbourne.
He may be reached at George.Venturini@bigpond.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment