This past week the Federal Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, agreed to grant asylum to 72 Sri Lankan refugees - but, not to allow them into Australia, but rather to cast around the world for for them to go to another country. So, in the meantime, they languish on far-away desolate Nauru.
The decision is a disgrace, appalling and immoral - especially coming from a Minister who so openly professes Christian values. Is it not part of the Roman Catholic's faith to show compassion? Clearly not for Andrews.
The Age, editorialises very much to the point on the subject:
"What kind of country has Australia become? This is the question Australians again have to ask themselves in the wake of the Federal Government's disturbing decision to deny 72 Sri Lankans, who have been found to be genuine refugees, the right to settle in Australia. What the Government has granted this group of Tamil men is the right to languish on Nauru Island until the Government finds another country willing to assume Australia's international and moral obligations to accept and resettle them.
The men are in for a long and possibly fruitless wait. According to the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, only about 4 per cent of asylum seekers processed on Nauru and Manus Island have been accepted by other countries. This sad, paltry figure is testament to the fact that other countries are reluctant to accept people they consider, with justification, to be Australia's responsibility. And, if past experience is any indicator, these refugees also face a traumatic life in detention, a life characterised by isolation and mental illness.
Wednesday's decision is troubling, but not surprising. In February, the Howard Government foreshadowed this hardened stance prohibiting unauthorised arrivals from settling in Australia even when they had been found to be genuine refugees. Like the temporary protection visa, it is a tool being used by the Government to deter unknown people, often in unsafe boats, from arriving in Australia without a visa at a time when matters of border security are of obvious concern to many Australians. While, in the Government's terms, the policy has been successful, the question remains at what cost to Australia's international and moral standing? The Government also holds the firm view that unauthorised arrivals are "queue jumpers" and that those who aspire to be accepted into Australia should follow the correct channels and complete the necessary paperwork. While this is entirely appropriate in an ideal world, some people, such as those fleeing the chaos of the brutal internicine conflict in Sri Lanka, may not have the opportunity to line up in the proper queue."
The decision is a disgrace, appalling and immoral - especially coming from a Minister who so openly professes Christian values. Is it not part of the Roman Catholic's faith to show compassion? Clearly not for Andrews.
The Age, editorialises very much to the point on the subject:
"What kind of country has Australia become? This is the question Australians again have to ask themselves in the wake of the Federal Government's disturbing decision to deny 72 Sri Lankans, who have been found to be genuine refugees, the right to settle in Australia. What the Government has granted this group of Tamil men is the right to languish on Nauru Island until the Government finds another country willing to assume Australia's international and moral obligations to accept and resettle them.
The men are in for a long and possibly fruitless wait. According to the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, only about 4 per cent of asylum seekers processed on Nauru and Manus Island have been accepted by other countries. This sad, paltry figure is testament to the fact that other countries are reluctant to accept people they consider, with justification, to be Australia's responsibility. And, if past experience is any indicator, these refugees also face a traumatic life in detention, a life characterised by isolation and mental illness.
Wednesday's decision is troubling, but not surprising. In February, the Howard Government foreshadowed this hardened stance prohibiting unauthorised arrivals from settling in Australia even when they had been found to be genuine refugees. Like the temporary protection visa, it is a tool being used by the Government to deter unknown people, often in unsafe boats, from arriving in Australia without a visa at a time when matters of border security are of obvious concern to many Australians. While, in the Government's terms, the policy has been successful, the question remains at what cost to Australia's international and moral standing? The Government also holds the firm view that unauthorised arrivals are "queue jumpers" and that those who aspire to be accepted into Australia should follow the correct channels and complete the necessary paperwork. While this is entirely appropriate in an ideal world, some people, such as those fleeing the chaos of the brutal internicine conflict in Sri Lanka, may not have the opportunity to line up in the proper queue."
Comments