Anyone following Australian politics could not have missed Tony Abbott's take on homelessness. Larvatus Prodeo has updated us:
" I was in Canberra last week and had the opportunity to ask Opposition Leader Tony Abbott whether a government under his direction would continue with the Rudd government’s goal of halving homelessness by 2020. His answer was no.
In justifying his stance, Abbott quoted from the Gospel of Matthew: ”The poor will always be with us,” he said, and referred to the fact there is little a government can do for people who choose to be homeless."
While Senator George Brandis tells us Abbott "believes in a settled, rooted society of families and citizens living in stable communities bound together by the gossamer threads of voluntary association", it might be more apt to consider "there might be as Brutopian a streak in communitarian conservatism as anything to be found in Kevin Rudd’s portrait of neo-liberalism."
Frankly, if Abbott is a communitarian then Josef Stalin was just a misunderstood libertarian. This guy is about control by his type of alpha male and Australia would become a much uglier place under his stewardship. His brand of socio-religious patriarchy would determine social policy parameters. Be afraid, very afraid....
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Human rights in Australia - An Open Letter to Federal Labor
I have been a proud supporter of the ALP since 1972. I think the Rudd government is doing a great job responding to the GFC, but the current drift away from social equity as a guiding principle for public policy will see rusted on Labor supporters like me drift away from the party. At the time of the ACT school closures I wrote to the party about the risks of allowing econometrics to underpin public policy directions. You end up with outcomes skewed against the least advantaged. In the short term, it might appeal to yuppie ‘wannabees’ who sell their vote to the highest bidder, who distrust all governments, and who think public policy should be all about raising their disposable incomes, but you will alienate your base over the longer term, during a period when the right will be circling the wagons. The sudden spike in funds pouring into Coalition coffers should sound the warning.
It is clear Federal Labor is pitching to the so-called ‘aspirant’ mob in marginal seats who measure everything through the prism of ‘what is in it for me’, but it is a too cynical for me and I no longer want to be associated with the party. I expect Labor to stand for social justice and human rights and I’m afraid the drift away from these core values is corrosive and disillusioning. It is not just about being good managers of the economy, which I believe Labor is achieving with great aplomb. For example, the ABC 4 corners last night on the plight of carers for disabled in our society should make public policy makers hang their heads in collective shame! The Minister’s performance was weak and uninspiring.
Another great concern to me is the Deputy PM's strategy on school performance. The American school system is inferior in every way to our own, and that includes the NY paradigm. If you want to adapt lessons from successful countries look at the Finnish system. It is clear that the way to get improvements is through initiatives that genuinely support professional development, decent remuneration and other incentives, smaller class sizes and strategic mentoring of classroom teachers by the brightest and best of the teaching profession. Forget the corporate ‘Darwinism’ of the Americans. Facilitating comparative school performance information for public consumption is one of the most egregious scenarios I can contemplate.
A further example is Labor’s cynical approach to the indexation of APS and ADF retiree super pensions. From my perspective this is a broken undertaking with dire consequences for many families. Again, I detect a narrow econometric approach at work that fails to factor the cost-benefit of retirees under less economic duress, their contribution to voluntary social work and the downstream economic benefits of increased expenditure on goods and services and GST from their improved incomes. Get a grip...
It is clear Federal Labor is pitching to the so-called ‘aspirant’ mob in marginal seats who measure everything through the prism of ‘what is in it for me’, but it is a too cynical for me and I no longer want to be associated with the party. I expect Labor to stand for social justice and human rights and I’m afraid the drift away from these core values is corrosive and disillusioning. It is not just about being good managers of the economy, which I believe Labor is achieving with great aplomb. For example, the ABC 4 corners last night on the plight of carers for disabled in our society should make public policy makers hang their heads in collective shame! The Minister’s performance was weak and uninspiring.
Another great concern to me is the Deputy PM's strategy on school performance. The American school system is inferior in every way to our own, and that includes the NY paradigm. If you want to adapt lessons from successful countries look at the Finnish system. It is clear that the way to get improvements is through initiatives that genuinely support professional development, decent remuneration and other incentives, smaller class sizes and strategic mentoring of classroom teachers by the brightest and best of the teaching profession. Forget the corporate ‘Darwinism’ of the Americans. Facilitating comparative school performance information for public consumption is one of the most egregious scenarios I can contemplate.
A further example is Labor’s cynical approach to the indexation of APS and ADF retiree super pensions. From my perspective this is a broken undertaking with dire consequences for many families. Again, I detect a narrow econometric approach at work that fails to factor the cost-benefit of retirees under less economic duress, their contribution to voluntary social work and the downstream economic benefits of increased expenditure on goods and services and GST from their improved incomes. Get a grip...
Monday, February 01, 2010
Human rights in Australia - social darwinism raises its ugly head in 'my schools' website fiasco
Back in August 2009 I wrote the following to the Labor party on the apparent obsession of the Deputy PM with an American model of school performance management. Following is part of what I wrote:
"The American school system is inferior in every way to our own, and that includes the NY paradigm. If you want to adapt lessons from successful countries look at the Finnish system. It is clear that the way to get improvements is through initiatives that genuinely support professional development, decent remuneration and other incentives, smaller class sizes and strategic mentoring of classroom teachers by the brightest and best of the teaching profession. Forget the corporate ‘Darwinism’ of the Americans. Facilitating comparative school performance information for public consumption is one of the most egregious scenarios I can contemplate. Don't do it!"
Now, we have the 'my schools' website launched with glee by Julia Gillard. It is an unmitigated disgrace that will deepen social divisions in our society. The stigmatization of poor performing schools, the trumpet blowing by 'selective' schools, the idiotic lumping together of schools that have very little in common apart from some econometric number that exists in a parallel reality to real life. The unexpected negative consequences of this type of ham-fisted statistical measurement are too many to log here.
An article in today's SMH online 'National Times' is well worth a read. Here is part of what Jane Caro and Chris Bonnor have to say:
"So, if, as Gillard advises, there are any lazy teachers needing a kick up the proverbial, don't look for them in a government school. Clearly if the website is correct and government schools are, on average, outperforming many of their fee-charging equivalents, then government school teachers must be working very hard indeed, against the odds. They not only teach more students, they are given vastly less support to do so.
The urgent question is: how long can they maintain this performance in the face of such skewed staffing handicaps?
Some may point out that it may be private resources that are going into paying for this extra staffing in non-government schools, but that still raises the question of why we continue to generously publicly subsidize such well-endowed schools when so many government schools are doing it tough. Private funding drives divides between schools the world over but, as the My School website so tellingly points out, should it be the role of government to continue adding fuel through its funding policies?"
It will come as no surprise that the great majority of schools in Finland - one of the best performing countries in terms of education outcomes - are public funded. The public-private divide in Australia is harmful in terms of achieving social cohesion, particularly as so many private schools underpin an ethos of selective entitlement and economic elitism. The consequences of this type of education can be seen in the divisive and inequitable policies oft peddled by the graduates of such institutions.
For me, it beggars belief that the ALP has facilitated this social 'darwinist' clap-trap and it reflects poorly on its architects.
"The American school system is inferior in every way to our own, and that includes the NY paradigm. If you want to adapt lessons from successful countries look at the Finnish system. It is clear that the way to get improvements is through initiatives that genuinely support professional development, decent remuneration and other incentives, smaller class sizes and strategic mentoring of classroom teachers by the brightest and best of the teaching profession. Forget the corporate ‘Darwinism’ of the Americans. Facilitating comparative school performance information for public consumption is one of the most egregious scenarios I can contemplate. Don't do it!"
Now, we have the 'my schools' website launched with glee by Julia Gillard. It is an unmitigated disgrace that will deepen social divisions in our society. The stigmatization of poor performing schools, the trumpet blowing by 'selective' schools, the idiotic lumping together of schools that have very little in common apart from some econometric number that exists in a parallel reality to real life. The unexpected negative consequences of this type of ham-fisted statistical measurement are too many to log here.
An article in today's SMH online 'National Times' is well worth a read. Here is part of what Jane Caro and Chris Bonnor have to say:
"So, if, as Gillard advises, there are any lazy teachers needing a kick up the proverbial, don't look for them in a government school. Clearly if the website is correct and government schools are, on average, outperforming many of their fee-charging equivalents, then government school teachers must be working very hard indeed, against the odds. They not only teach more students, they are given vastly less support to do so.
The urgent question is: how long can they maintain this performance in the face of such skewed staffing handicaps?
Some may point out that it may be private resources that are going into paying for this extra staffing in non-government schools, but that still raises the question of why we continue to generously publicly subsidize such well-endowed schools when so many government schools are doing it tough. Private funding drives divides between schools the world over but, as the My School website so tellingly points out, should it be the role of government to continue adding fuel through its funding policies?"
It will come as no surprise that the great majority of schools in Finland - one of the best performing countries in terms of education outcomes - are public funded. The public-private divide in Australia is harmful in terms of achieving social cohesion, particularly as so many private schools underpin an ethos of selective entitlement and economic elitism. The consequences of this type of education can be seen in the divisive and inequitable policies oft peddled by the graduates of such institutions.
For me, it beggars belief that the ALP has facilitated this social 'darwinist' clap-trap and it reflects poorly on its architects.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Human rights in Australia - Australian of the Year gets it right on mandatory detention
It was encouraging to hear the new Australian of the year, Prof McGorry, say "immigration detention centres were factories for producing mental illness and mental disorder''.
They are and it is about time the ALP stopped pandering to right wing fear mongering on this subject and enabled Australia to meet its international refugee and human rights obligations.
Today's Essential Report has Labor slipping in the area of national security. The silly season produces some daft polling numbers and 2009-10 has been no exception. Add to this a relentless campaign by Abbott and the right wing media to beat the border security drum, and it is likely those members of the permanently credulous, in thrall to these distorted fear messages, will respond by getting behind Abbott and his fellow bandwagoners.
Howard tapped in to the credulity of many Australians with devastating effect. I know as I was one of the benighted public servants dragged into managing his Pacific Solution. The Murdoch press bang the ‘border security’ drum relentlessly, and commercial TV stations like CH7 profile people from ‘mysterious’ places on shows like ‘Border Security’. So, you get a woman wearing a hijab looking suspicious as her bag is searched by a customs officer! Never mind that the great bulk of nasty substance smuggling into this country is orchestrated by home-grown villains.
The numbers of refugees arriving by boats is minuscule compared with the experience of many European countries. It is a sad reflection on the state of our body politic and lack of self-assuredness that the fear messages gain traction but there it is.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Racism in Australia - Leader of the Opposition (Tony Abbott) reveals his true colours
After a bit of a lay off the latest tawdry attempt by Abbott to create a wedge on 'culture' and 'citizenship' has got my blogging goat up in arms. True to form (it was only a matter of time) Abbott has thrown away the dog whistle in favour of the megaphone.
On the eve of Australia Day he has sounded a call to arms for those in the community in thrall to notions of exclusivity, cultural entitlement and border protection. Faced with fairly ordinary polls, Abbott is doing what Howard and Turnbull did before him - press the 'alert and alarmed' buttons on boat people, cultural diversity and 'Australianess'. We have seen it all before - the 'reds under the beds' mantra of the 50s has been replaced with 'we will decide who comes to this country'. It would be laughable if it was'nt so ugly, with nasty consequences for those caught on the wrong side of what Abbott decrees makes a good Australian.
Following is a little of what he had to say in Melbourne on Friday, as reported by Alexander Kirk on the ABC:
"TONY ABBOTT: To the extent that it is, a celebration of our nation, Australia Day is necessarily a salute to an immigrant culture. What's curious then is the ambivalence that many Australians feel about immigration, even though it's so central to our national experience.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Tony Abbott invoked his former leader John Howard's famous 2001 utterance to argue the need for a tough approach to boat arrivals.
TONY ABBOTT: John Howard's declaration about Australians controlling who comes to his country resonated because it struck most people as self-evidently and robustly true.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: He accepts Australia's obligation to help people fearing for their lives.
TONY ABBOTT: But this has to be balanced against our obligation not to become a soft touch for everyone seeking a better life.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Opposition Leader has issued a challenge to those who argue Australia's a big country that can easily accommodate the asylum seekers who've come by boat.
TONY ABBOTT: The critics of border protection policy need to ask themselves, at what point would the size of any unauthorised influx become a concern. They further need to explain why it's better to wait for the problem to become worse before tackling it. A strong border protection policy is perfectly consistent with a large and inclusive immigration policy and in fact it's probably essential if the public is to be convinced that Australia's immigration policy is run by the Government rather than by people smugglers."
It seems the default position of the Coalition under the influence of Howard et al is to bang the fear and loathing drum at every opportunity. Bi-partisanship on such an important issue as immigration and cultural inclusiveness is impossible whilst a major political party sees populist opportunity in scaring people.
We can expect more of this nasty nonsense from Abbott as electoral defeat stares him in the face. Frankly, his ilk, extremist bully boys, need to be flushed regularly from the clearing chamber of mainstream politics, or, at the very least, confined to a narrow well-lit down-pipe that is frequently decontaminated.
I recall Abbott was a dab hand with a megaphone outside Fisher Library during our shared days at Sydney University. He was peddling a nasty message back then as well. How did a commentator in the know describe him the other day? I think it was something like 'B A Santamaria's terminator sent from the past' to whip us into shape. I think the Liberal Party would be wise to heed the ancient wisdom - be very careful what you wish for...and watch out for all those nasty migrant gangs (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), you know what I mean!
On the eve of Australia Day he has sounded a call to arms for those in the community in thrall to notions of exclusivity, cultural entitlement and border protection. Faced with fairly ordinary polls, Abbott is doing what Howard and Turnbull did before him - press the 'alert and alarmed' buttons on boat people, cultural diversity and 'Australianess'. We have seen it all before - the 'reds under the beds' mantra of the 50s has been replaced with 'we will decide who comes to this country'. It would be laughable if it was'nt so ugly, with nasty consequences for those caught on the wrong side of what Abbott decrees makes a good Australian.
Following is a little of what he had to say in Melbourne on Friday, as reported by Alexander Kirk on the ABC:
"TONY ABBOTT: To the extent that it is, a celebration of our nation, Australia Day is necessarily a salute to an immigrant culture. What's curious then is the ambivalence that many Australians feel about immigration, even though it's so central to our national experience.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Tony Abbott invoked his former leader John Howard's famous 2001 utterance to argue the need for a tough approach to boat arrivals.
TONY ABBOTT: John Howard's declaration about Australians controlling who comes to his country resonated because it struck most people as self-evidently and robustly true.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: He accepts Australia's obligation to help people fearing for their lives.
TONY ABBOTT: But this has to be balanced against our obligation not to become a soft touch for everyone seeking a better life.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Opposition Leader has issued a challenge to those who argue Australia's a big country that can easily accommodate the asylum seekers who've come by boat.
TONY ABBOTT: The critics of border protection policy need to ask themselves, at what point would the size of any unauthorised influx become a concern. They further need to explain why it's better to wait for the problem to become worse before tackling it. A strong border protection policy is perfectly consistent with a large and inclusive immigration policy and in fact it's probably essential if the public is to be convinced that Australia's immigration policy is run by the Government rather than by people smugglers."
It seems the default position of the Coalition under the influence of Howard et al is to bang the fear and loathing drum at every opportunity. Bi-partisanship on such an important issue as immigration and cultural inclusiveness is impossible whilst a major political party sees populist opportunity in scaring people.
We can expect more of this nasty nonsense from Abbott as electoral defeat stares him in the face. Frankly, his ilk, extremist bully boys, need to be flushed regularly from the clearing chamber of mainstream politics, or, at the very least, confined to a narrow well-lit down-pipe that is frequently decontaminated.
I recall Abbott was a dab hand with a megaphone outside Fisher Library during our shared days at Sydney University. He was peddling a nasty message back then as well. How did a commentator in the know describe him the other day? I think it was something like 'B A Santamaria's terminator sent from the past' to whip us into shape. I think the Liberal Party would be wise to heed the ancient wisdom - be very careful what you wish for...and watch out for all those nasty migrant gangs (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), you know what I mean!
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Human rights in Australia - open letter to Barnaby Joyce on saving the planet (the cutting edge human rights issue of our time)
I sent this email to Senator Joyce in August. Nothing has changed really!
"Dear Senator
One cannot fail to notice just how much air time is taken up with your posturing. It would be interesting to measure whether you or Senators Fielding or Xenophon get the most attention. I understand why the latter do what they do, because it’s tough to maintain a public profile in ‘single issue’ land.
I notice you have been trumpeting all the support you are getting in ‘virtual’ space on your position toward the CPRS. It may be so but believe me, in electorates where the demographics really count; you are one of the Rudd government’s biggest electoral assets. So, congratulations on ensuring your side of politics remain in opposition for quite a while to come – as it stands that is probably in the national interest. Your pugnacious smugness may go down well with certain of the private school ‘cockey’ crowd, but some of us find it a tad immature. I know where these attitudes were honed as I also went to one of those private bastions of ‘born to ruledom’!
The minimum temperature in Canberra last night was 12 degrees! It should be below 5 degrees. Plants that never flowered before late September now routinely come out in mid-August. The carbon paradigm (to use a much belaboured term) has to shift. In the end I would be very surprised if agriculture is in the mix as that would preclude a deal with India and China, and they must be brought to the table. If advanced economies like Australia are not prepared to model constructive change then the planet is frankly stuffed. Blind freddy can see climate change is a reality and that carbon emissions are a major component. If we do not get a bi-partisan position on climate change, history will not be kind to our generation.
Your line on a Rudd tax on everything as a reductionist critique of the ETS will no doubt resonate with your supporters, although I note the only government in recent times to put their hands in everyone’s pockets through the introduction of a new tax was Howard’s with his GST. I’m sure you think you are on a political winner with this glib line, but I suggest you spend too much time talking to the credulous converted. We need politicians to rise above sloganeering and to do the hard policy work to wring change."
Amongst all the hyperbole about 'thousands' of emails flooding in support of trashing the ETS, which is not that far removed from the policy the Coalition took to the last federal election, it will come as no surprise that Senator Joyce chose not to reply to this one.
"Dear Senator
One cannot fail to notice just how much air time is taken up with your posturing. It would be interesting to measure whether you or Senators Fielding or Xenophon get the most attention. I understand why the latter do what they do, because it’s tough to maintain a public profile in ‘single issue’ land.
I notice you have been trumpeting all the support you are getting in ‘virtual’ space on your position toward the CPRS. It may be so but believe me, in electorates where the demographics really count; you are one of the Rudd government’s biggest electoral assets. So, congratulations on ensuring your side of politics remain in opposition for quite a while to come – as it stands that is probably in the national interest. Your pugnacious smugness may go down well with certain of the private school ‘cockey’ crowd, but some of us find it a tad immature. I know where these attitudes were honed as I also went to one of those private bastions of ‘born to ruledom’!
The minimum temperature in Canberra last night was 12 degrees! It should be below 5 degrees. Plants that never flowered before late September now routinely come out in mid-August. The carbon paradigm (to use a much belaboured term) has to shift. In the end I would be very surprised if agriculture is in the mix as that would preclude a deal with India and China, and they must be brought to the table. If advanced economies like Australia are not prepared to model constructive change then the planet is frankly stuffed. Blind freddy can see climate change is a reality and that carbon emissions are a major component. If we do not get a bi-partisan position on climate change, history will not be kind to our generation.
Your line on a Rudd tax on everything as a reductionist critique of the ETS will no doubt resonate with your supporters, although I note the only government in recent times to put their hands in everyone’s pockets through the introduction of a new tax was Howard’s with his GST. I’m sure you think you are on a political winner with this glib line, but I suggest you spend too much time talking to the credulous converted. We need politicians to rise above sloganeering and to do the hard policy work to wring change."
Amongst all the hyperbole about 'thousands' of emails flooding in support of trashing the ETS, which is not that far removed from the policy the Coalition took to the last federal election, it will come as no surprise that Senator Joyce chose not to reply to this one.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Labor all at sea on asylum seekers - but an opportunity presents itself.
The ongoing tragedy of desperate people prepared to put their lives at risk in small boats is being played out as I write. It seems up to 11 people have lost their life in the latest sinking in our maritime rescue area. The 78 refusing to leave the customs vessel in Indonesia are threatening self-harm rather than return to the Indonesian 'refugee warehouse', which was part of the Howard solution.
Rudd is between a rock and hard place, politically speaking, as the Coalition and its conga line of fear mongers in the media whip up the refugee issue yet again. Many people are very prone to xenophobic responses on 'boat people', choosing to believe the fear drum beaten relentlessly by Turnbull, Stone, Andrews and Ruddock et al. There appears to be something in a large slice of the collective psyche that responds negatively to people arriving on boats. It is a sad reflection on our maturity and self-assuredness as a nation state but there it is!
The drum beat of division and exclusion is coming from many quarters. Half-baked commentary and so-called 'straw polls' are the bread & butter of shock jocks, Sky News and commercial TV shows like ACA. Even the ABC is getting in on the act to whip up division and confusion.
The issues surrounding the Australian vessel in Indonesia are complex and almost parenthetical to the broader issues surrounding asylum seekers. This situation involves protocols surrounding the duty of care under the law of the sea etc etc.
In terms of the broader issues as they apply to refugees, I have worked in this area so I know a bit about the subject. I was a member of the previous Prime Minister's task force on 'illegal immigration'.
The Coalition Govt turned itself inside out to leverage Indonesian support for the process of 'warehousing' asylum seekers in various parts of Indonesia. Unfortunately for Labor our erstwhile government did not bother to properly resource the UNHCR, the IOM or the Indonesian authorities in order to manage the processing of refugee claims humanely, efficiently and expeditiously.
Now that PM Rudd is looking to build on the Howard government approach, taking a more systematic and humane approach to the processing problem, elements within the Indonesian establishment are unhappy at the prospect. They have seen Australia dump the problem on their laps before, with little compensation and support.
Rudd has an opportunity to change the construct through the provision of adequate resources to the lead agencies and the Indonesian authorities. It is vital that a compassionate approach is taken to detention, enabling asylum seekers to retain their dignity and well-being whilst awaiting decisions on their future.
Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line. Opening a regional dialogue and developing a well-resourced multilateral approach, empowering all parties with a stake in a solution to this growing human crisis, would be a good start.
The current Newspoll might suggest that the drum beat is working for the purveyors of fear and division but the Government must develop a long term strategy that gets the body politic past this boat driven psychosis.
I found this piece on The Piping Shrike well-reasoned and informed. The writer concludes:
"What both Prime Ministers had in common was not only the encouragement of setting up international camps, but making a secret of them and presenting border protection as a unilateral policy of the Australian government. That is no longer possible. The Liberals know it, which is why they agreed with Labor to drop the measures in the first place, which even now they can’t argue should be restored. The conditions that allowed Fraser and Howard to get away with such a ruse are no longer there and so this government needs to politically neutralise an issue that has been so useful for past ones. There is one final striking thing about the Rudd media tour. He is the only one doing it. Because at the end of the day, he is probably the only one in the government who knows how."
Rudd is between a rock and hard place, politically speaking, as the Coalition and its conga line of fear mongers in the media whip up the refugee issue yet again. Many people are very prone to xenophobic responses on 'boat people', choosing to believe the fear drum beaten relentlessly by Turnbull, Stone, Andrews and Ruddock et al. There appears to be something in a large slice of the collective psyche that responds negatively to people arriving on boats. It is a sad reflection on our maturity and self-assuredness as a nation state but there it is!
The drum beat of division and exclusion is coming from many quarters. Half-baked commentary and so-called 'straw polls' are the bread & butter of shock jocks, Sky News and commercial TV shows like ACA. Even the ABC is getting in on the act to whip up division and confusion.
The issues surrounding the Australian vessel in Indonesia are complex and almost parenthetical to the broader issues surrounding asylum seekers. This situation involves protocols surrounding the duty of care under the law of the sea etc etc.
In terms of the broader issues as they apply to refugees, I have worked in this area so I know a bit about the subject. I was a member of the previous Prime Minister's task force on 'illegal immigration'.
The Coalition Govt turned itself inside out to leverage Indonesian support for the process of 'warehousing' asylum seekers in various parts of Indonesia. Unfortunately for Labor our erstwhile government did not bother to properly resource the UNHCR, the IOM or the Indonesian authorities in order to manage the processing of refugee claims humanely, efficiently and expeditiously.
Now that PM Rudd is looking to build on the Howard government approach, taking a more systematic and humane approach to the processing problem, elements within the Indonesian establishment are unhappy at the prospect. They have seen Australia dump the problem on their laps before, with little compensation and support.
Rudd has an opportunity to change the construct through the provision of adequate resources to the lead agencies and the Indonesian authorities. It is vital that a compassionate approach is taken to detention, enabling asylum seekers to retain their dignity and well-being whilst awaiting decisions on their future.
Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line. Opening a regional dialogue and developing a well-resourced multilateral approach, empowering all parties with a stake in a solution to this growing human crisis, would be a good start.
The current Newspoll might suggest that the drum beat is working for the purveyors of fear and division but the Government must develop a long term strategy that gets the body politic past this boat driven psychosis.
I found this piece on The Piping Shrike well-reasoned and informed. The writer concludes:
"What both Prime Ministers had in common was not only the encouragement of setting up international camps, but making a secret of them and presenting border protection as a unilateral policy of the Australian government. That is no longer possible. The Liberals know it, which is why they agreed with Labor to drop the measures in the first place, which even now they can’t argue should be restored. The conditions that allowed Fraser and Howard to get away with such a ruse are no longer there and so this government needs to politically neutralise an issue that has been so useful for past ones. There is one final striking thing about the Rudd media tour. He is the only one doing it. Because at the end of the day, he is probably the only one in the government who knows how."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Asylum seekers in Australia - Even the ABC beats the drum of division and exclusion!
I sent the following message to ABC Radio 666 Canberra this morning after their breakfast presenter thought it would be clever to run a straw poll on his program on what should happen to the Sri Lankans on the Australian customs vessel:
"I don't usually listen to Solly at breakfast as I find his simple minded pandering to the lowest common denominator a bit much to stomach - why ABC feels the need to compete with commercial talk back is beyond me. Our public broadcaster should be very careful with an incendiary issue such as asylum seekers. The drum beat of division and exclusion is coming from many quarters. Half-baked commentary and so-called 'straw polls' are the bread & butter of shock jocks, Sky News and low rent programs like ACA etc.
The issues surrounding the Australian vessel in Indonesia are complex and almost parenthetical to the broader issues surrounding asylum seekers.
I have worked in this area so I know a bit about the subject.
The Coalition Govt turned itself inside out to leverage Indonesian support for the idea of 'warehousing' asylum seekers in Lombok and other places. Unfortunately for Labor our erstwhile govt did not bother to properly resource the UNHCR and the IOM to manage the Indonesian processing of refugee claims humanely, efficiently and expeditiously.
Now that Rudd is looking to build on the Howard govt approach, taking a more systematic and humane approach to the processing problem, elements within the Indonesian establishment are unhappy at the prospect. They have seen Australia dump the problem on their laps before, but with little compensation and support.
Rudd has an opportunity to change the construct through adequate resourcing of the lead agencies and the Indonesian authorities. It is vital that a compassionate approach is taken to detention, enabling asylum seekers to retain their dignity and well-being whilst awaiting decisions on their future.
Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line."
You would think the ABC would demonstrate a bit more responsibility in this area, particularly given the presenter knew very little about the complex issues surrounding this current conundrum.
"I don't usually listen to Solly at breakfast as I find his simple minded pandering to the lowest common denominator a bit much to stomach - why ABC feels the need to compete with commercial talk back is beyond me. Our public broadcaster should be very careful with an incendiary issue such as asylum seekers. The drum beat of division and exclusion is coming from many quarters. Half-baked commentary and so-called 'straw polls' are the bread & butter of shock jocks, Sky News and low rent programs like ACA etc.
The issues surrounding the Australian vessel in Indonesia are complex and almost parenthetical to the broader issues surrounding asylum seekers.
I have worked in this area so I know a bit about the subject.
The Coalition Govt turned itself inside out to leverage Indonesian support for the idea of 'warehousing' asylum seekers in Lombok and other places. Unfortunately for Labor our erstwhile govt did not bother to properly resource the UNHCR and the IOM to manage the Indonesian processing of refugee claims humanely, efficiently and expeditiously.
Now that Rudd is looking to build on the Howard govt approach, taking a more systematic and humane approach to the processing problem, elements within the Indonesian establishment are unhappy at the prospect. They have seen Australia dump the problem on their laps before, but with little compensation and support.
Rudd has an opportunity to change the construct through adequate resourcing of the lead agencies and the Indonesian authorities. It is vital that a compassionate approach is taken to detention, enabling asylum seekers to retain their dignity and well-being whilst awaiting decisions on their future.
Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line."
You would think the ABC would demonstrate a bit more responsibility in this area, particularly given the presenter knew very little about the complex issues surrounding this current conundrum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)