Without a great deal of fanfare, the new government has ended the shameful ‘Pacific solution’ under which refugees were held in offshore camps, located on the territory of neighbouring countries which the Australian government bullied and bribed into hosting them. Most of the refugees held at the Nauru camp have been allowed to settle in Australia.
Defenders of the Howard government can make whatever claims they like about this evil system, whether to say that it was justified by results or to claim that Labor’s policy isn’t really all that different. The fact remains that this was a cruel and brutal response to community panic; panic the government itself did a great deal to stir up, and even more to exploit politically. Those responsible, most notably Howard himself and Phillip Ruddock, will carry the stain of the Pacific solution to their graves and beyond.
John Quiggin 
I will call Godwin’s Law at this point. No more Nazi analogies or debates about them please.
“Yes, it is appropriate to end the policy now, but only because the policy was wildly successful in stoppong the boats coming in the first place.”
Yes, because obviously the repatriation of a couple of million Afghan refugees back to their homeland had nothing to do with it.
So if the Pacific solution prevented the arrival of refugee boats from Indonesia, the reversal of that policy should mean they’ll start arriving again.
Let’s wait six months and see if that happens.
If it doesn’t, I’m sure the policy’s defenders will acknowledge their error. Right?
“The SE Asian countries and Japan accept zero. But they are excused because we are dirty white racists who lack compassion and they are not.”
This is false.
Australia is one of the few countries that has a formal quots fro refugees. countries with no quota are widely described in the Australian media as accepting no refugees.
In practice, they accept ALL refugeees regardless of their number.
That’s why Thailand, one of the countries you claim accepts no refugees has hundreds of thousands of Burmese refugees living there.
“Hundreds of people were drowning in the passage accross the Indian Ocean but the liberal-Left did nothing because the asylum seekers were a politically useful constituency to use as a stick to beat Howard.
It was Howard who enforced strict rules of the sea and stopped this exploitative and dangerous practice. I daresay that being deterred and/or detained is better than being drowned.”
Just think how many more lives a few televised summary executions might have saved.
That’s not true Ian Gould. Thailand accepts refugees only for resettlement in third countries and its bills are paid by the UN. It gives none citizenship.
From memory a fair bit of work had been done to stop various countries form pushing boat people back out to sea and ending up on Australian shores – Indonesia being one such country.
To be a legitimate refugee you have to stop at the first country that come to and not travel half way around the world.
HC, it depends what you mean by “accepts”.
Yes, THailand doesn’t grant refugees citizenship, but it does provide sanctuary for 150,000 Burmese (many of whom have been there for a decade or more) and an indeterminate number of Hmong and other refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Granting refugees temporary visas has been Australian policy since at least the Hawke period and was greatly expanded under Howard.
“To be a legitimate refugee you have to stop at the first country that come to and not travel half way around the world.”
Unfortunately the UN disagrees with you.
A further thought on the “first country” argument:
Are you suggesting, for example, that Bosnian Serb refugees who fled across the border into Croatia should have stayed there? How about refugees from the Rwandan genocide who found themselves in the middle of war zones in Congo and Angola? how about refugees from the Hungarian uprising who had to cross through East Germany or Czechoslovakia to reach the west? Somalis forced into the Ogaden region of Ethiopia where there’s a war going on between the Ethiopian government and the local ethnic Somali majority?
The current international rules were put in place for a reason – the thousands of Jewish (and other)refugees from World War II Europe who were prevented from entering the Allied countries snd sent back to their deaths.
When people’s lives are at stake, I’d rather err on the side that’s less likely to get them killed.
Another example: starving North Koreans who make it to China should, presumably, hand themselves over to the Chinese government to be returned to North Korea for torture and execution.
I seem to have missed the loud international condemnation of China triggered by China repatriating refugees to torture and execution.
Essentially the definition of refugee is outlined in the 1951 Geneva Convention and has limitations which governments can further interpret.
One such limitation is that individuals fleeing from war or civil unrest are not classed as refugees.
A person needs to cross an international border between their home country into another state to be a refugee. If that state is a UN signatory that state must process the refugee. If the refugee later moves on to another country they may lose the title of refugee.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm
Perhaps because you weren’t looking (a two-second Google found hundreds like this).
But I think your implied defence of Howard’s policy as “no worse than that of a Communist dictatorship” pretty much sums up the whole case.
UNHCR data show China hosting about 300,000 refugees. So if they are forcibly repatriating some of them, it sounds as if their policy is very similar to that of the Howard government.
What on earth is the “liberal left?”
zoot
Ah, the Tampa (and other Pacific Solution) refugees were assessed according to Australian law. The fact that so many were accepted as bona fide refugees is testimony to the integrity of Australia’s policy, not a repudiation.
Katz
You would do well to learn the difference between ideological posturing and morality. 😉
John Greenfield, I think the Pacific solution refugees were assessed by UNHCR and we tried to pay NZ to take them or some of them.
An outcome of the Pacific Solution should have been to bring attention to one of the world’s most wretched examples of ‘statehood’; the 21 square kilometer post-colonial frankenstein that is Nauru.
Some 13,000 utterly aid-dependant islanders inhabit this tiny speck of wasteland, the world’s smallest ‘republic’, with absolutely no economy to speak of and an environment unique in its abject devestation. Phosphate mining has stripped the island down to a barren moonscape of dead dry bones, with the super-profits from this resource bonanza shared between Western mining interests and a corrupt local government. The money from the trust that had been set up for the country’s long post-phosphate economic death has been pissed away, unemployment is at 90 percent, and almost all Nauruans that work do so in the ‘national’ government. All necessities are imported; the waters surrounding the island contain no fish due to toxic mining runoff. The country’s main post-phosphate industry, money laundering, has been brought to an end under international pressure, leaving the hosting of Australia’s offshore refugee prisons as the only significant money-earner.
What a sad, upside down world it is, when this raped and plundered island’s whole economy is centred on the hugely expensive and callous punishment of a few hundred asylum-seekers whom the Howard government didn’t want to process on Australia own territory. What type of country is this, where aid to a dependent, helpless and ruined island is tied to the use of that island’s territory for some ‘deterrant’ infliction of cruelty? What sick minds there must be in government to bring about this sorry state of affairs. When the island drowns under rising sea levels, where will its fleeing people be incarcerated? Nauru is a tragic abomination.
zoot –
Having seen the detention centres at Woomera (empty) and Baxter (full), I can assure you that, like Auschwitz, the misery was designed into them.
JQ, I didn’t imply anything in post #61, please do not look for meanings which are not there.
There is no need to “imply” a defence of the Howard government actions. Not only is my defence real, it is supported by the rest of Australia. The population was NEVER going to vote for the ALP while it seemed that would result in the detention centres being thrown open.
Nice that some activists are condemning China. I should have been more specific, I seem to have missed the UNHCR, the UN secretary general, & heads of government.
We had to wait for 70 comments for some clown to mention Auschwitz. This is itself a heartening sign. The point all pro-refugee lobbyists steadfastly ignore is that the people arriving by boats were not refugees. I use the term in its common sense – not in some legalistic sense defined by a piece of paper Robert Menzies signed in 1951.
The boat folks arrive from Indonesia without papers. How do they get there? From Jakarta. How did they get there? By plane, at which point they had papers which they suubsequently ditched. That is why we treat those who arrive by plane differently. They are not trying to hide who they are because they at least believe they are genuine refugees. They also do not try to deliberately harm themselves to force the issue.
Closely related to this is the issue of closest port. The recent refugees from Sri Lanka are presumably Tamil. Have a look at a map and see how close the southern Indian province of Tamil Naidu is to Sri Lanka compared to Australia. The decision to choose Australia is an economic one, even though they may indeed be refugees at the point they leave their homeland.
We should accept PNG and Indonesian refugees arriving by boat, especially if they have papers. We should accept Afghans and Iraqi’s if they apply from Pakistan with papers. We should not throw boat people into harsh jails. They may be trying to trick their way into Australia but you can’t blame them for trying.
A legalistic interpretation of refugee conventions is never going to wash with the average punter – or with me. Howard was clever to run with the issue – especially since he is transparently correct that we should decide who is a refugee, not some UN convention from a bygone era. Thanks to all you shrill lobbyists for keeping the refugee issue on the front page and giving Howard the 2001 and 2004 elections.
SATP,
“my defence…….is supported the rest of Australia”??
Well, not by me. And not by plenty of others. I guess what you meant to say is that your views are supported by other Australians with the same views. Though I think JQ’s has nailed you, whether or not you meant to imply it, it’s clear your stance on asylum-seekers sits quite comfortably with China’s.
The paradox is that Australia’s OTT ‘national security’ response to asylum-seekers is only possible because the number of people arriving here is so very very small. And it always has been small, even before the ‘deterrent’ of the detention camps.
Michael, my stance was supported by enough people for the Howard Government to win at least two elections.
It is “clear” that I support the stance of the Chinese government? Hmm, the powers of perception used to deduce this are the same powers which say that controlling our borders is wrong?
But you are simply being obtuse, a not uncommon response from someone whose argument gets thrashed every time it sees the light of day.
Chris,
You ignore several relevant issues. Asylum-seekers are, do I actually have to say this, seeking asylum. Safety. In the example of Sri-Lanka, they won’t get that by going to India. That would simply swap a perilous existence in their home country for the same in another country where they wouldn’t even be citizens. There is no legal, or even common-sense, reason why asylum should only be sought in a neigbouring country. It’s ideal when possible, but it’s often not.
I’m glad you enjoyed Howards’ exploitation of vulnerable people. I don’t have as much respect, as you seem to, for people who seek political advantage in the suffering of others.
I was one of the “shrill” to whom you owe so much, but given the same situation again, I’d act no differently. I’ll opt for basic human decency over craven policital opportunism every time.
Chris Lloyd, You are quite wrong to think that these people were not refugees in the common sense of the word. Most of them were not refugees in the legalistic 1951 convention sense of the word – which, as pointed out at #62 does not include people fleeing from war or civil strife. In Australia’s case we only accept refugees in the legal sense. Other countries, mainly in Europe also accept people on ‘humanitarian grounds’ (e.g. the UK). That is, they recognise that these people are refugees in reality if not in legalese. The Australian government has not accepted people on ‘humanitarian grounds’ since at least 1982. This is probably one of the things that deters large numbers from trying to get here. They try to get into Europe instead.
There is also plenty of research demonstrating that if you become a refugee, life is likely to keep on going downhill. You can hardly blame people for wanting to avoid that. Suggesting that Sri Lankan Tamils go to sit out a couple of decades in a camp in India is like saying the poor deserve to be punished.
SATP,
What happended to your stance being supported “by the rest of Australia”? Now downgraded to just the relatively slim 2PP majority at election time? That’s at least a much more realistic assessment.
You clearly have much in common with the Chinese view on asylum-seekers – send ’em back. Given your previous liberty in claiming the support of “the rest of Australia” for your views, why not throw in China as well?
Michael
Ah, newsflash, there has been bipartan support for mandatory detention since it was first introduced to Australia by er, er, er, the Keating ALP government, particularly its Socialist Left immigration minister, Gerry Hand.
So how do you like them apples!?
Well put Melanie.
I don’t mean to pick on you Chris, but I’ve found over the years that people with strong anti-refugee/asylum-seeker views tend to have a very poor grasp of the facts around the issues, particularly the situation in Australia compared to the rest of the world.
Thanks John. Very well aware of that, which is why my views won’t change simply because there has been a change of Govt.
Refugee advocates will continue to press the Govt for changes to the current system. In fact, we may become even a bit more active given the perception that effecting change may be easier now than before.
Michael
No need. The Pacific Solution and Howard’s $1 billion check to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stopped the people smugglers a couple of years ago now. Time to move on.
So we’re going to dump the Pacific solution and keep on co-operating with Indonesia. If that works, we can take it that the concentration camps* weren’t needed.
* Since these were a British (or maybe Spanish) invention, I’m not violating Godwin in describing the government’s policies that way.
The fact that (as with so many of the bad policies of the outgoing government) this policy started under Keating is important to remember, though a bit inconvenient for those who want to represent PK as some kind of slimmer version of Phillip Adams.
jg
Keating’s vile race and ethnic politics were far too sleazy for that. Besides, Phillip Adams is a crank prattler, who never had the power or responsibilities of power, so who cares what he says?
If they want to come here, all they need to do is go to the same effort that the rest of us made – simply materialize inside an Aussie womb.
Why should those of us that did the hard yakka of being concieved in the developed world have to share our hard-earned prosperity with bludgers who only arrived because they went to great personal expense to migrate?
JG, don’t break out your champagne too soon. Last year there were 6,573 new asylum claims in Australia, just over half the number of 2001. World-wide the number of asylum seekers was down by about 30% on 2001. However the number of refugees has increased again…
JG,
It’s good to see that at least you can acknowledge that the ‘Pacific Solution’ and dentention centres had nothing to do with the reduced flow of asylum-seekers.
You’d also agree that we can be rid of them as they’re superfluous to requirements?
There is some confusion over the terms of refugee and asylum seeker, an asylum seeker is one who has yet to be classified as a refugee.
The UK has at least 10 detention centres, despite some of them being part of prisons they are called ‘accommodation centres’
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/ukpga_20020041_en_3#pt2-pb1-l1g16
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/prisoninformation/locateaprison/prison.asp?id=308,15,2,15,308,0
rog, where do you find confusion? The distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee is very clear in the UNHCR reports.
If someone turns up at the border and claims asylum you are legally obliged to receive the person and investigate the case. This is why ‘detention centres’ were set up, at Port Hedland in the first instance – although there are alternative options such as tagging which the UK has also used.
The UK system of “tag & release” during the refugee application process has shortcomings, the nature of which you can all guess.
Unlike the wonderful system here that locks people up in prison for 5 years for no particularly good reason.
Michael, The five years you refer to is caused by the lawyer industry appealing & appealing & so on at no expense to the asylum seeker.
Instead of the illegal arrival being deported immediately their claim is found to be bogus.
Haven’t you heard about Tony Tran?
Locked up for 5 years in immigation detention because of a DIMIA ‘stuff up’. His was just one of the ‘stuff ups’ that have occured due to the punative culture that infected DIMIA. And the rot started at the top.
“punative” culture eh?
Tony Tran arrived by leaky boat from Indonesia did he? Lost all his paperwork did he?
No, there is much to the Tony Tran story, but whatever there is to the Tony Tran story, it is no bearing on illegal surreptitious arrivals on the north coast.
That’s the pathetic part. Even with the right papers, this happens. Same Dept., same approach, same outcomes, courstesy of an overall tone best described as politically motivated paranoia.
* Since these were a British (or maybe Spanish) invention, I’m not violating Godwin in describing the government’s policies that way.
So why use the word?
Because you’re Godwining. Dishonestly.
Actually, the term “concentration camp” as applied to all but a small number of instances is usually employed incorrectly.
The term was created by the British to achieve in South Africa the precise purpose encompassed by the word “concentration”.
Whole Boer families and communities were concentrated geographically within compounds in order to deny their help to the Boer Commando.
Also implied by the British policy was the threat that if some individual Boer misbehaved then his family may be punished. The policy, therefore, attempted to pre-empt bad behaviour.
The primary target, therefore, of the policy were not the people within the compound, but rather those who were still free and who were deemed to pose a military threat to the British.
In that sense, the term “concentration camp” is somewhat apt in the context of the Pacific Solution. The people in Howard’s concentration camps were designed to pre-empt bad behaviour by persons contemplating an illegal entry into Australia by boats destined for certain Australian shorelines.
The inmates of Howard’s concentraiton camps were therefore being punished for infractions that had not occurred yet.
Nazi camps never played this function.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the word “Semitic” means any semitic peoples! So Palestinians can’t be “Anti-Semitic” because they are Semites!
Everyone reading this knows that the term “concentration camp”, in the minds of 99% of living people, conjures the image of Nazi death camps.
And that is why Quiggin and the other losers in this thread use the phrase, end of story.
Great to see the libertarian view represented so forcefully, Yobbo. Given the support for Nauru, Gitmo and so on you and others have expressed, I’ll be sure to call them “libertarian camps” from now on.
An apology to Captain Arne Rinnan, and some sort of Australian award (he’s won a few international ones), might also be an appropriate gesture.
It might be claimed that in politics you make your own luck, but surely one of Howard’s luckiest days came when Capt Rinnan sailed into view. The risk of turning back a leaky fishing vessel was that hundreds might drown – whereas the Tampa could be treated with appropriate disdain.
No danger of the MV Tampa sinking; Norway is not the sort of country to respond to the boarding of its ship with retaliatory air strikes; and a nice large deck area for a show of strength with SAS troops.
Shorter Yobbo: I always go with the first thing that enters my mind. Mmmm, hamburger!!!