Asylum seekers want to come to Australia. Australia is a big country. Other countries take in asylum seekers. Kevin Rudd said “The combined effects of this suspension and the changing circumstances in these two countries will mean that more asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan will be refused.” He said this as a means of defending the policy to stop processing refugees from Sir Lanka and Afghanistan for a period of up to 6 months.
Ostensibly, this is a way of deterring refugees coming to Australia. But if most of the people seeking asylum are genuine refugees, then surely a choice between savage war, lawless killings and bombings in their countries, and detention in Australia is a bit of a no brainer. So instead the policy just treats them like shit when they do get here.
But the main justification is what really confuses me. Immigration Minister Chris Evans pointed out that the policy decision is occurring as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is reviewing the guidelines. That is to say, they are suggesting that Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are no longer as dangerous as they once were. Yet we still have troops in Afghanistan. Fighting. Fighting the Taliban. Who are killing people. But it’s no longer dangerous. Ok.
I had a look at the Department of Foreign Affairs website, to see if their assessment rating fitted in with their policy decisions. It might surprise you:
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Sri_Lanka
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Afghanistan
Sri Lanka: “State of Emergency” and “attacks could occur anytime, anywhere in Sri Lanka.”
Afghanistan: “extremely dangerous security situation and the very high threat of terrorist attack.”
I don’t see how this is the right thing to do. Keeping people in detention for an unspecified period of time when they have done nothing wrong but to seek asylum here...pretty much sounds like evil to me.
So then, if I’m going to criticise this policy, what would I do? What can we do? It is true that Christmas Island is overflowing. But to me this means the government needs not to halt processing of asylum seekers, but to improve the system. Make it more efficient and humane.
It’s hard to believe that Australia’s government is actually incapable of processing refugees. According to The Age (10th April, 2010), around 2, 700 refugees arrived last year. Is it really impossible to have systems in place to deal with that amount? The number of people who immigrated to Australia last year was 171, 320 according to the government statistics here:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/visa-grants/migrant.htm
Everything I see only confirms the notion that politicians do very little. It’s funny, because in Australia we have a strong, almost stereotypical distrust of politicians. There’s a plethora of jokes about how two-faced and morally bankrupt politicians are. But the sad thing is that continually I seem to see that so many of them are.
Kevin Rudd was voted in for a number of reasons, and one of those was a commitment to bring about a humane response to asylum seekers. To see this coming out really makes me angry and sad. I don’t know which party I’ll vote for at the next election. It’s like choosing between two toys I don’t want:
Kevin Rudd!
NOW with new contrived, pompous apologies at the pull of a string! Adjusts glasses frequently! Claims to be a Christian, but with NEW XTREME backflip ability, enabling him to imprison traumatised people escaping from war and death!!!
NEW! Tony Abbott!
- Supercharged energised battery life!
- Equipped with two-face ability – able to pander to most audiences, adjusting views as necessary!*
*Disclaimer: Will not believe in climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment