In the Care of our Common Home

In October Bill Ray, The Anglican Bishop of North Queensland and Tim Harris, the Catholic Bishop of Townsville released a joint statement “In the Care of our Common Home: Sister Earth”. Recalling numerous past Christian leaders who have reminded us of our inter-connectedness with all of creation they say: “For Christians, this care for our common home is not an optional or secondary part of our daily living, rather it is “an essential part of our faith”. They go on to say that our dominion over the planet needs to be understood in the sense of “responsible stewardship” especially to future generations.

The Bishop’s statement also draws attention to “Laudato Si – On Care for our Common Home” – the document on the environment released by Pope Francis in June 2015. Laudato Si is not addressed to Catholics or Christians alone but to every person in the world – such is Pope Francis’s concern for a planet where we no longer respect Nature as a shared gift. Pope Francis uses these words to describe the deterioration of the planet “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth.” Pope Francis calls us to a new way of viewing creation as well as a new, simpler life style.

Issues highlighted in the  statement from the two Townsville-based Bishops include the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef due to climate change and threats to the Great Artesian Basin posed by proposed mega-mining developments in the Galilee Basin. Also singled out are the entrenched racism of many towards Indigenous people, increasing inequality in Australia, and the need to restore a moral compass in financial services and economic management.

The Bishops urge us to look critically at some of the modern myths in Australia today: “individualism, self centredness, self-absorption, progress that is unlimited, the unregulated market, competition and consumption as a remedy for all ills.”

The Bishop’s statement finishes with a call to action. The remind us of the words of Pope Francis in Laudato Si “In this day and age, unless Christians are revolutionaries, they are not Christians.” They challenge us to “turn around” the way we see nature, the way we care for Creation and its people, and to live more simply with less negative impact on the environment”.

To help all people of faith begin this process of “turning around”, this Saturday the workshop “Justice, Climate and Responding Ethically” will be held in Townsville. The workshop will be presented by Thea Ormerod and Tejopala Rawls from Australian religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC). This is a collaborative, multi-media workshop in which participants will explore what a faith-based, ethical response to global warming might look like in this time and place.

Thea Ormerod and Tejopala Rawls acknowledge that information about global warming can be overwhelming, so the workshop begins with acknowledging and validating our emotional responses. We will then explore the ethics of climate change, building a sense of our shared morality and values.

We will then hear some inspiring stories of people taking action, from local communities who have made their operations more sustainable to people collectively standing up for a better future for coming generations.

Understanding that Adani’s Carmichael mine project is a sensitive issue locally, Thea and Tejopala will share why and how ARRCC is standing against it. This will open the way for a facilitated dialogue firmly grounded in mutual respect.

About the presenters: Thea Ormerod is a practicing Catholic, semi-retired social worker, grandmother of seven and has been President of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change for ten years. She is a long-time social justice advocate and experienced workshop presenter.

Tejopala Rawls is an ordained Buddhist in the Triratna tradition, who has worked in the environmental movement for most of the past twenty years. He is a climate change leader within a worldwide Buddhist community.

The workshop takes place this Saturday 18 November from 10am to 3.30pm at the Conference Centre at the Mater Hospital.

Registration details and more information at https://www.facebook.com/events/142018559759648/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Young people make it look so easy

I was invited to participate in the Australian-ASEAN Youth Forum organised by the Asia Education Foundation and held at Kirwan High School on Friday 20 October.

The Australia-ASEAN Youth Forum brought together 65 students from four schools to discuss key issues facing Southeast Asia from the perspectives of  ASEAN member states and Australia. ASEAN member states are Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. Students worked together in teams of six, and their task was to represent their allocated country’s leaders in discussing three contemporary regional issues: refugees, climate change and trade.

IMG_4310.JPG
(Photo: Delegates address the opening plenary at the Australian-ASEAN Youth Forum)

In the first plenary session of the Forum, each team presented their allocated country’s position on the three issues. We then broke into three groups (two students from each country team per group) to debate ways to address these issues in more depth and try to reach mutually agreeable solutions through negotiation and consensus building. My role was to facilitate the Committee session on Refugee Issues.

As part of their presentation for the Refugee Committee discussion students were challenged to “walk in the shoes” of their allocated country. In preparing for my role I engaged in the same process and was surprised by what I discovered.

 

I was shocked to find that there are an estimated two million undocumented migrant workers in Malaysia with some sources suggesting that there might be as many as six million undocumented people resident in the country. Of these, there are 150,000 asylum seekers, refugees and stateless people registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This situation is tolerated by the government as it means that there is a vast pool of cheap labour available to Malaysian industry. The downside for the workers is that as they are undocumented, they are vulnerable to exploitation and other forms of human rights abuse.

Thailand faces a similar scenario to Malaysia – Thailand is home to an estimated 600,000 refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people.

Pressure Points

 

Faced with these overwhelming numbers Malaysia and Thailand must be amazed by the inability of the Australian Government to compassionately manage the estimated 30,000 people on bridging visas and the thousand or so incarcerated in off shore detention centres. The impression given by our Government and the popular media is that Australia is the only country in the region with a refugee problem. How far from the truth is that!

Myanmar is the main generator of refugees in our region. The UN estimates that 420,000 Rohingya have fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh in the last two months following persecution by the Burmese Army.  More than a million Rohingya now live in the countries in the region – mainly Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand. There has been strong condemnation of Myanmar’s policies from the UN and human rights NGOs but the ASEAN countries have not said much on the issue.

I was impressed by the approach taken by the delegates in the Refugee Committee. At the commencement of the session delegates agreed that the greatest human rights issue facing the region was the treatment of the Rohingya people by the Myanmar Government. There was division in the room as to how best address this issue. Malaysia wanted a strong condemnation of Myanmar’s policies from other ASEAN members while some other countries counselled a more cautious approach. As time was limited in the session, the decision was made to concentrate on issues where there was some prospect of agreement. Delegates also agreed to widen the focus to refugees, people seeking asylum and stateless people.

Each delegation was invited to nominate one issue of concern.

Philippines spoke first suggesting that there was a need for a regional approach to protecting refugees and people seeking asylum as there had been in the 1970s at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. Malaysia understandably expressed concern at the numbers of people seeking safety in their country.

All delegations agreed that member states needed to reassess their commitment to the 1951 Refugee Convention – currently of the ten ASEAN member countries, only Cambodia and Philippines are signatories. Other issues included the financial burden of caring for refugees and stateless people, the vulnerability of undocumented workers, and Australia’s fear of being overrun by people seeking asylum.

In the final session of the Forum, the five resolutions proposed by the Refugee Committee were adopted unanimously by the the member states and these are included below. I came away from the Forum convinced that if national leaders in the “real” world could find the compassion and empathy shown by these students, we might begin to address problems that at the moment appear to be insurmountable.

Refugee resolutions.JPG

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The “Game of Mates” is alive and well in Australia’s universities

On Tuesday 19 September, Brendan Edgeworth presented the Annual Social Justice lecture at James Cook University on the topic of “Poverty, Inequality and the Law in Australia”. Prof Edgeworth told us that on a range of indicators Australia is a much less equal place today in 2017 than it was in 1970.

How this has come about is explained in the recently released book  “Game of Mates: How favours bleed the nation” by Cameron Murray and Paul Frijters.

The first paragraph of the book reads “This is the story of how Australia became one of the most unequal societies in the Western world, while merely a generation ago it was one of the most equal. It is the story of how groups of “Mates” have come to dominate our corporate and political sectors, and managed to rob us, the Australian majority, of over half our wealth.”

The “Game of Mates” has worked very well for the leaders of Australia’s universities.  Back in 1970 everything was pretty well regulated. The Vice-Chancellor’s salary was at the high end of the professorial scale so the Vice-Chancellor would earn around three times the wage of the average worker. It is a bit different today. According to a recent article in The Australian Higher Ed section the average salary package of Australian Vice-Chancellors is now $890,000. Top of the list is Professor Michael Spence of Sydney University who receives a cool $1.4 million. The figures quoted in the article suggest that at most universities the package of the Vice-Chancellor is more than ten times the wage received by the average worker.

Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence
And the winner is … Professor Michael Spence on $1.4million! (Photo: The Australian)

Why is this so? Is it because the Michael Spences, Peter Hojs and Sandra Hardings of the current crop of VCs are much smarter and work much harder than their counterparts back in 1970? Possibly – but probably not. It has much more to do with the way remuneration packages are now determined for those fortunate enough to be at the top of tertiary institutions.

Down where most work, salaries are set by enterprise agreements that take months of wrangling over small increase to salaries and changes to conditions. At the top, the bargaining take place in a much more civilised way.

To show how it works, let’s look at the fictitious university –Neo Liberal University or NLU for short. NLU is governed by a council of 14 members headed by Chancellor Bob and the current Vice-Chancellor Susannah. The council meets every month, and once a year there is a council retreat held at a five star resort at some exotic location – they are all quite chummy. Susannah is appointed for a term of five years and her remuneration package is regularly reviewed. A committee of the Council consisting of Chancellor Bob, and members John, David and Gloria has the task of reviewing Susannah’s salary package.

A management consultant is appointed to carry out the review and to bring back a recommendation to the committee. The consultant reviews the financial position of the university and other relevant information, such as the remuneration packages paid to VCs of other universities and the packages paid to CEOs in government and the private sector. The consultant meets with Bob, John, David and Gloria and discusses her findings. A key exhibit is the the table of packages paid to the VCs of other universities, similar to the table in the article in “The Australian” above. The consultant asks where they see NLU based on its current performance.

Bob, John, David and Gloria look at each other and Bob nods wisely.

Bob says “Well on some indicators we are not doing well – but we are aspiring to be in the top 20% of universities in Australia so the remuneration paid to our chief executive certainly needs to reflect this”. The consultant suggests that this means the package needs to be set around the 80th percentile.  She explains that this is the salary level below which 80% of the current VC salary packages fall. “This would be around $1.1 million”, she says.

“That amounts to an increase of around 35% on the $800k that Susannah is currently paid” remarks John. “We spent most of our last Council meeting being told by the NLU Chief Financial Officer why the increase in salaries for NLU workers should not be any more than 8.2% over the next five years.”

NTEU rally
Photo: Meanwhile the workers struggle for wage increases through industrial action

They four of them and the consultant sit thinking for several moments. Bob says “Look we have been appointed to make the hard decisions – and you know the old saying if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. I move that Susannah’s remuneration for the next five years be set at $1.1million.” The consultant suggests that for public consumption, the motion could be that Susannah’s salary be maintained at 800k and that the extra 300k could be made up of benefits to be determined. A this suggestion they all brighten up and agree to Bob’s motion.

At the next Council meeting, the recommendation of the remuneration committee is accepted. Several days later Susannah is quizzed by the media about the increase in her package. She tells them that her salary is determined by an independent process.

This process works very well for the beneficiaries because all universities aspire to be in that top 20% and in recent years we have seen the salaries of Vice-Chancellors rise much more quickly than the workers at their universities. And it does not stop there because the levels of remuneration paid to the Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, and numerous others are based on the salary package paid to the Vice-Chancellor.

The “Game of Mates” rewards the senior managers of our universities very well. Too bad this mateship only extends to the top few rungs of the institution.

Game of mates

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Why we need to Stop Adani

Several weeks ago I was one of 150 plus people down at the Townsville Entertainment Centre delivering our StopAdani message to ALP members arriving for the ALP Queensland State Conference. Later that morning I met a friend who seeing my t-shirt, asked me why I wanted to Stop Adani. He said Adani is promising jobs and Townsville needs jobs at the moment. And what about all the taxes and royalties that the mining industry pays? Mining was a key part of the Queensland and Australian economy – Australia might have once ridden on the sheep’s back but now we depended on mining for our prosperity.

A good discussion ensued but I have since done some further research so I will better be able to answer his questions when next we meet.

The first thing I want to say that for me a major reason for opposing the Adani mine from proceeding is a moral one. Climate change is real. In December 2015 nations of the world came together in Paris and for the first time came up with a plan to keep global temperature increase to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. An important part of this plan is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and Australia for its part should not be contemplating allowing the development of what will be the country’s largest coal mine. This is reason enough to stop the Adani mine from proceeding.

What about jobs? The number of jobs promised by Adani is a moving feast. Initially the talk was all about 10,000 jobs and then came the Land Court hearing where Adani’s own expert witness Jerome Fahrer from ACIL Allen Consulting put the number of jobs created over the life of the Adani project at 1464. Adani spokesman Ron Watson has since criticised the economic model used by Fahrer and said it was a net figure and too conservative. Fahrer’s model took into account the fact that there are only a finite number of workers and more jobs in one place will mean less somewhere else.

Another factor that was not even considered in Adani’s  job calculations is the fact that global coal consumption is falling and a large new mine in the Galilee Basin will have a devastating impact on existing mines in central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. The net number of jobs produced by Adani is likely to be well below even the 1464 figure.

Jonathan Rooyen, a member of the Queensland Airports Board was recently criticised by Townsville Mayor Jenny Hill for opposing the Adani mine.  Mr Rooyen had said that there is no need for our governments to be contemplating spending billions of dollars on subsidies to Adani for a project that will provide less than a thousand direct jobs, will result in untold environmental damage, and cause economic hardship in other regional areas of Australia. As long as there is a few jobs for Townsville, Jenny Hill apparently does not care about the possible impact on employment in other parts of Australia.

What about the contribution of the coal mining industry to the Australian economy. Politicians and lobby groups like to tell us that coal mining is the backbone of the Australian economy. Richard Dennis in his must-read book “Econobabble” puts the contribution of the coal mining industry to the Australian economy in true perspective. He asks how can an industry that employs 40,000 out of a total 11.8million employed people in Australia be considered the backbone – this represents only 0.39% of the total work force. In comparison the manufacturing sector employs 870,000 and education 960,000.

And what about the contribution of the coal mining industry to our economy. Richard Dennis shows that the taxes and royalties paid by mining companies to all levels of government account for less than 5% of government revenue and this is the total amount paid not the net amount after all deducting all the subsidies they receive. The Queensland Government receives more from car registrations and speeding fines than it does from the coal industry.

And what about Adani – is Adani likely to go against the trend and become a major contributor to government revenue. Not if what we have seen so far is anything to go by. There are two Adani subsidiaries that operated in Australia in the 2014/15 Financial Year. The first is Adani Abbot Point whose Total income was $350,204,603. Its Taxable income was $0 and Tax paid also came to $0

Adani Minerals did a little better. Its total income was $135,934,900 and its Taxable income a paltry $131,098 (= 0.1% of total income) with Tax paid amounting to $39,329 (= 30.0% of taxable income).
To understand more about how Adani and other large corporations minimise their tax contributions, refer to this recently published article by Simon Foale in New Matilda.

These are some of the moral and economic reasons for opposing the Adani mine. Then there is the environmental damage that will result from the mine and the way in which Aboriginal traditional owners have been manipulated in an attempt to get their permission. The we need to add to that the shocking record of Adani described in the Adani Files.

All in all a pretty bleak picture of a company that we should not be involved with and a mine that should not go ahead.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is this really the end for the Great Barrier Reef?

Last Saturday the North Queensland Conservation Council hosted a screening of “Chasing Coral”, a recently released film that documents the disastrous bleaching events that have destroyed large areas of coral reef around the world. Following the film there was a panel discussion featuring John ”Charlie” Veron, Tony Fontes, a tourism operator from Airlie Beach and David Wachenfeld, the Director of Reef Recovery at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Charlie Veron, known by many as the godfather of the Great Barrier Reef, has spent forty years working on coral reefs identifying one third of the world’s known coral species. One very poignant moment came towards the end of the evening when in response to a question, Charlie said that if we continue to carry on in the way we are now, in fifteen years the Great Barrier Reef will be gone. In the past 15 years ocean temperatures have increased by one degree and we have had three major bleaching episodes – in 15 years the ocean temperature will have increased by at least one more degree and there is no way he can see the coral surviving. The silence was deafening.

The story of “Chasing Coral” began two years ago when underwater photographer Richard Veivers sent two photos to award winning documentary director Jeff Orlowski– one photo of live reef and a photo of the same reef taken several months later after a bleaching event. Both men had the same thought – if they could document the process of bleaching as it occurred, the dramatic impact might convince people around the world to take meaningful action on climate change before it is too late. They then went about recruiting a truly inspiring team to help them with their ambitious project.

The film begins with some interviews with coral reef researchers and beautiful photos of existing reef to help viewers understand the enormity of the danger facing the world’s coral reefs. We then follow the team as they set out to record the process of coral bleaching using time lapse photography. Towards the end of “Chasing Coral” we saw the impact of some of the photography recorded in the film on an audience at the 2016 International Symposium on Coral Reefs held in Hawaii.

Footage showing the before and after shots of coral bleaching had the audience in tears. The film had the same impact on the audience at Saturday’s screening. The audience last Saturday was young with most people being under thirty. Their questions came thick and fast – what could they do and was there any hope.

While Charlie Veron was pessimistic as already noted, he saw hope in the age of the audience and said that it was important that they do all they can to educate others about the reality of climate change and do all they can to save the reef. Tony Fontes still had hope and received thunderous applause when he said it was time to put a line in the sand – we need to go to our politicians and tell them if they are not committed to doing all they can to slow climate change, then we are not going to vote for them. He got more applause when he said we have to stop the Adani coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

David Wachenfeld saw hope in the Paris Climate accord. He said we need to be positive about the fact that for the first time ever the nations of the world have come together and agreed that we need a plan to limit increase in the earth’s temperature to less than two degrees. Panellists saw hope also in the uptake of renewable energy in countries everywhere. They also agreed that if Australian governments were serious about responding to the threat of climate change then allowing the Adani mine to proceed was definitely giving the wrong signal.

Those who saw the movie on Saturday would agree that it is essential that we get as many people as possible to view the movie. Good news is that you can subscribe to Netflix for one month for free to watch the movie as many times as you want. Encourage your friends who already have Netflix to invite their friends to a viewing

Let’s help the makers of the film achieve their vision of changing the way we all think about climate change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What happened to the boundless plains? What happened to sharing?

This week is celebrated in Australia as Refugee Week. It is a week for us to celebrate the contribution made to our community by those who have come to Australia as refugees.

RW banner

It is also a good time to reflect on our historical response to those who have come to our borders seeking refuge. We have got so used to the heinous deeds of recent Immigration ministers such as Dutton, Morrison and Ruddock that we forget that for most of our history Australia has a good record of welcoming and settling refugees.

Last week I was invited to give a pechakucha presentation in Townsville on Australia’s response to refugees since the end of the Second World War.

While shocking things are common in our world today, it is still difficult to imagine how people must have felt at the end of the Second World War. There was great relief that such a terrible event had finally ended – but there was also great dread that twenty one years after the war to end all wars, another even more destructive war had been allowed to happen. This sense of dread was heightened as photos of the horror of the Nazi death camps began to emerge.

2. Nazi death camp

This strong desire to protect human rights and to ensure that events such as the holocaust would never happen again resulted in the proclamation of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights in 1948. At the time, Australia showed leadership in the area of human rights and there was an Australian on the small drafting committee.

3. universal-declaration-human-rights
(Eleanor Roosevelt displays text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948)

At the end of World War 2, there were millions of displaced people from Eastern Europe needing resettlement in other countries. It was expected that once these people were resettled then the refugee crisis would be over. Sadly in the years following the end of the war, local conflicts erupted around the globe, resulting in more displaced people and more refugees. To protect these vulnerable people, the International Refugee Convention came into being in 1951 with 145 countries as signatories.

Back in Australia people were still is a state of shock that the country had almost been invaded during the war. The Government was convinced the only way to safeguard against future threat was to drastically increase the population by immigration. From 1947 Australia embarked on an ambitious immigration program aimed at an annual 2% increase in immigration. Populate or Perish was the slogan of post war governments of all political persuasions.

6. postwar migration
(Post war immigrants arriving in Australia)

In 1947 we still had the White Australia policy and the immigrants came from the United Kingdom and from Europe. Increasingly Australia looked to the displaced people from Eastern Europe to provide the people needed to build up our population. In the eight years from 1947 to 1955 more than 170,000 displaced people (refugees) came to settle in Australia. These people formed the majority of the work force on large post-war infrastructure projects such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme. During the 1950s and 1960s the level of immigration remained high.

The final vestiges of the White Australia policy were abolished by the Whitlam government in 1973. Soon after this was the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and in April 1976 the first Vietnamese refugee boat sailed into Darwin Harbour.

8. Vietnames boat Tu Do Darwin
(Vietnamese boat Tu Do (Freedom) arrives in Darwin Harbour 1976)

Many Australians were horrified by these uninvited visitors from SE Asia but the Fraser Government and the Labor opposition adopted a bipartisan approach and supported a regional solution to this refugee crisis. In the ten years following 1975 more than 150,000 people from Indo China – most of them refugees – settled in Australia.

The Fraser Government showed that Australia could meet its humanitarian obligations to provide refuge to people fleeing political persecution and safeguard national interests at the same time. This banner at Malcolm Fraser’s funeral last year shows the high regard held for Malcolm Fraser in the Vietnamese community.

9. Fraser tribute

For more than forty years since World War 2 there had been a bi-partisan approach from the Coalition and the Labor Party to immigration and settlement of refugees. In 2001 the terrorist attacks of September 11 coinciding with increase numbers of asylum seekers seeking to come to Australia by boat.

In August 2001 the Norwegian tanker MV Tampa picked up more than 400 asylum seekers from a sinking boat. When the vessel’s captain tried to enter Australian waters to unload his passengers, the Howard Government refused permission and ended up sending commandos to take charge of the vessel.

Tampa2

Howard’s actions earned him local electoral support but universal international condemnation. In the 2001 election campaign successfully exploited the concern in the Australian community about immigration to win victory in what previously had seemed to be an unwinnable election. It was at the launch of the 2001 campaign that he came up with his famous line – “we will decide who comes into Australia and the circumstances under which they come”.

16. John Howard

Since the 2001 both the Coalition and the Labor Party have maintained policies that have placed border protection above the human rights of people coming to Australia seeking refuge. In 2013 the Rudd Labor Government re-opened the Manus Island detention centre in 2013 – six years after it had been closed in 2007.

19. refugees welcome
(Photo taken at 2017 Walk for Justice for refugees in Townsville attended by 250 people)

But there are sign of hope. More and more Australians are realising that there are humane alternatives to current policies. In April this year thousands of Australians attended Palm Sunday rallies calling for compassionate and humane treatment of asylum seekers. In time we will come to see the past 15 or so years of inhumane policies towards refugees as an aberration from our country’s proud record of welcoming the stranger.

Follow this link to the pechakucha presentation.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Pathways to Protection or Persecution

In February this year I attended the Refugee Alternatives Conference held in Sydney and sponsored by the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA). One of the Highlights of the conference was the keynote address delivered Professor Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Gillian Triggs

She began by stating that the plight of the world’s 65 million refugees was one of the greatest human rights challenges we face. At a number of times during her speech she referred to a report released by the Human Rights Commission in September 2016 entitled “Pathways to Protection: A human rights-based response to the flight of asylum seekers by sea.’

Gillian Triggs shared that as President of the Human Rights Commission she is often asked the alternatives to offshore processing by people who know that what is happening on Manus Island and Nauru is wrong. In early 2016 the Human Rights Commission initiated a research project to canvass possible alternatives to third country processing in Nauru and Manus Island. The aim of the project was to identify options for responding to flight by sea which are consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations. The project employed a human-rights based approach to policy development.

“Pathways to Protection” is the report of this project and its findings are essential reading for those of us seeking to change public opinion in Australia on this contentious issue. The report is based on a series of consultations with people with expertise in the areas or refugee policy, human rights, international law and protection issues in the Asia-Pacific region.

Pathways to Protection

(Photo: Australian Human Rights Commission)

The summary of findings begins by making clear that the key driver of flight by sea towards Australia is the lack of effective protection for refugees and people seeking asylum in the Asia Pacific region. Once this is accepted then improving access to effective protection is the most effective and sustainable means of preventing flight by sea. This can only be achieved through cooperation and partnership with our regional neighbours.

Two core principles emerged from the research and consultation process which guided the Commission in identifying alternative options were:

  • The top priority of an alternative response should be enhancing protection for people fleeing persecution, in accordance with our international human rights obligations.
  • The focus of Australia’s policy response should shift from deterrence to prevention. Rather than seeking simply to discourage asylum seekers from embarking on dangerous journeys, an alternative response should aim to address the human rights violations which compel people undertake these journeys in the first place.

The report identifies two key obstacles that hamper Australia’s efforts to improve access to protection:

  • There are few effective mechanisms for cooperation on refugee protection issues among states in the Asia-Pacific region
  • There are limited opportunities for safe entry for people wishing to seek safe protection in Australia.

In the report a number of options are proposed that address the key driver of flight by sea through creating and enhancing pathways to protection. They seek to achieve this by facilitating access to safe migration options, improving protection for refugees and people seeking asylum who are living in the region, and building to more effective regional responses to refugee protection issues.

In September 2016 this report was released. Later that month Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull addressed the United Nations sponsored summit on refugees in New York that was hosted by US President Obama.

Turnbull at UN

In this speech Prime Minister Turnbull committed to maintain Australia’s refugee intake at 18,750 from 2018 onwards, and pledged to provide $130 million over the next three years to support global refugee programs.

Malcolm Turnbull should have stopped while he was ahead because he then went on to declare Australia’s border protection policy to be the “best in the world” and urged the international community to adopt the Australian model.

Professor Gillian Triggs had this to say about Turnbull’s address:
“At no time did the Prime Minister acknowledge the failure of his government to find viable, long-term settlement opportunities for refugees who continue to be held in dangerous and cruel conditions on the isolated islands of Manus and Nauru.
Hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers have now been in limbo for years, with no prospect of durable resettlement in Australia or elsewhere. Denying these men, women and children any certainty about their future continues to result in dire health outcomes.”(Pathways to Protection)

It is a tragic state of affairs that both the Government and ALP opposition are so intent on preserving the status quo that they are ignoring a report that shows us a pathway out of this human rights disaster that is continuing to destroy the lives of people who have come to us for protection.

The government has gone one step further – in November last year Malcolm Turnbull took the extraordinary step of declaring that the Government would not be renewing Gillian Triggs’ contact when it expires in July this year. Such is the cost of speaking the truth to a government who are quite happy to trample on the human rights of vulnerable people.

Post script:
Tell him he's dreamin
“Tell him he’s dreamin'” – the doubtless response if Dale Kerrigan from the Castle had been in Turnbull’s New York audience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment