Labor, are you ready to clean up the coming asylum seeker trainwreck?
|
Version 0 of 1. Labor is all bleeding heart. It wants to “save lives at sea” and has swallowed the Abbott government’s prescription in a lifesaving attempt to do so. The commitment to towbacks at the weekend’s conference was adopted amid tears and gnashing of teeth. Related: 'Grab from the excuse bag' – how health firm IHMS tackled asylum seeker targets “We will not reopen the lethal seaway between Indonesia and Christmas Island,” Bill Shorten told the delegates, who received the information in silence. Current shadow spokesman Richard Marles said, “We must not be party to opening this journey again ... with the inevitable consequence that we will see a huge loss of life.” And tears welled in delegates’ eyes as former immigration minister Tony Burke told them of the drowning of a 10-week old baby on his watch, whose name he kept on a post-it note until the day he lost office. There are other elements to Labor’s new approach, including an increase in Australia’s refugee intake, an end to the intense secrecy surrounding on-water activities and the treatment of asylum seekers, and an independent oversight of detention centres. The motion to close offshore centres whose conditions were unsafe and inhumane, was defeated. It boils down to Sovereign Borders Lite, as Labor anguishes over morality and politics. What seems apparent is that border protection policies, strong or lite, will end up a trainwreck. It is likely that if Labor is in power within the next four or five years, or earlier, it will have to pick up the pieces. How would Labor repair the damage caused by the derogation of our international legal obligations and normative standards, and get us out of the pariah camp on refugees and asylum seekers? The cavalier thumbing of our nose at Indonesian sensitivities as we tow back boats is building a generation of enmity on the part of our neighbour – that will not be quickly fixed either. What if Indonesia responds in kind, and lets an armada of asylum seekers set sail for Australia in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the Australian Border Force? We would have no option but to rescue people at sea. The detention of people in cruel and degrading conditions cannot be sustained indefinitely. However the system breaks down, it’s something that will land on Labor’s plate when in government. Maybe it comes in the form of mountainous awards of damages or settlements from class actions; or ever more violent riots, deaths and destruction in the camps. Interestingly, in the United States, federal courts are ordering the release of “illegal immigrant” women and children found to be held in “deplorable” conditions. In the meantime, the bill for “stop the boats” becomes more burdensome with each passing year. We’ve seen contractors such as IHMS, that have hooked onto the public teat, under pressure to concoct results and play fast and loose with the rules in order to meet their commercial objectives. Then again, the policy would be in tatters if PNG or Nauru said enough is enough, our compliance will no longer be purchased. How would the government’s policy look if offshore processing camps were summarily shuttered by the locals? There was no sign at Labor’s conference that these and related issues were considered. The lynchpin of the current policy is not humanitarian, it is political: to use cruelty as a disincentive for people to get on boats. A consequence of that is that if people cannot escape because the route to Australia is blocked, they then face the prospect of being killed much closer to home - well out of our mind’s eye. At sea or on land, they are still dead. Daniel Webb from the Human Rights Law Centre reminds us that more asylum seekers have died on Manus Island than have been resettled as refugees. The moral fakery was laid bare when we got the “nope, nope, nope” response from the prime minister last May to boatloads of Rohingya helplessly floating around the Andaman Sea. His reaction to the plight of these people gave the lie that he was concerned about saving lives. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand had initially pushed their boats back and then, after there was publicity about the gravity of the situation, agreed to temporary settlement of around 7,000 of the 25,000 Rohingya who have taken to the seas this year. Many had died or were found in a starved and emaciated condition trying to cross the Bay of Bengal. Since the Abbott government was elected, Australia has taken just 25 of these genuine refugees for settlement. Labor was no better, only making vague noises about their plight. Shorten said Abbott’s approach is “disappointing” and there needs to be a regional resettlement approach. Marles descended into a vat of waffle on the subject. Asked why Australia was not giving at least temporary refuge to the Rohingya while our neighbours were, he said: Well because no one is suggesting that ... No one is requesting any kind of temporary settlement, so I think in that sense the debate in Australia has become a little confused. In terms of long-term resettlement, I mean that is a complex question ... Both the Coalition and Labor failed the litmus test on recognition of our international responsibility. Abbott’s main game has always been “stop the boats” by any means. His electioneering slogan was not “Save Lives at Sea”, possibly because it has four words, not three. Former ambassador Tony Kevin, in his book Reluctant Rescuers, questions whether Australia has been culpable in some instances for the loss of lives at sea. Others, more cynically, have suggested that deaths at sea were exploited to drive harsher domestic responses. Related: IHMS, the healthcare giant at the heart of Australia's asylum system – explainer In any event, the secrecy surrounding crypto-military “on-water” activities means that it impossible to know accurately if people are still drowning as a result of turn backs to Indonesian waters. This suits government policy down to a tee. If you don’t see it or hear about it, it hasn’t happened. Labor does seem to place more emphasis on regional cooperation with source countries. This can only be for the best; if people know they are part of a proper resettlement process, whether it be conducted in Indonesia, Malaysia or elsewhere, there is far less incentive to try their luck on boats. Yet, for either or both of our main political parties to play the “saving lives at sea” card, when their real mission is to tap into political support for sledgehammer policies to stop boat arrivals, is preposterous and mendacious. |