Re the Manus and
Nauru detainees.
I would
like Mr Shorten to make two statements:
(1) That by a certain date in the not too
distant future the people detained in PNG and Nauru will no
longer be in those places (unless they freely choose to
stay), but in some country where they can make a living and
live safely with their human rights respected; if no third
country settlement can be found by that date, the remaining
former detainees will come to Australia.
This
would give the Australian government a limited time to make one
last effort to find third-country settlement, but it would
immediately remove the uncertainty that drives detainees to
depression and suicide.
(Technically
offshore detention ended long ago, http://www.naurugov.nr/government-information-office/media-release/no-more-detention-for-nauru-asylum-seekers.aspx.
Nauru detainees can roam the island, PNG detainees can live
anywhere they like in PNG. But in reality they are still in
detention without any end in sight.)
The
second statement is this:
(2) That
a Labor government will exit the 1951 Convention and negotiate
a new agreement on refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants with
Indonesia and other countries in our region.
(On exiting
the Convention see http://www.unhcr.org/4d934f5f9.pdf,
art.45.)
Many of the
contortions of Australian policy under Howard and since seem to
be an attempt to evade the 1951 convention while pretending to
observe it. It would be better to exit from it and deal with the
problems in an honest way. Regional solutions are needed, and
the fact that Australia has signed up to the 1951 Convention
while important countries in the region have not is an obstacle
to cooperation. Australia should get together with its
neighbours and work out a common approach (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action).
A new regional agreement must secure the
right to work, which according to the UN Declaration is a human
right, art. 23(1), http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Denial of this right compels displaced
people to move on, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA28/010/2010/en/. It is obviously better for
refugees/migrants to work for their living than to depend on
handouts.
People in refugee camps feel insecure
because their support may be cut off; that is one reason why
they move. A World Food Program announcement that food would run
out triggered the 2015 stampede to Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alan_Kurdi). See
https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-forced-make-deeper-cuts-food-assistance-syrian-refugees-due-lack-funding
These
two statements would be “captain’s calls”, but so were Ms
Gillard’s decision to reopen Nauru and Mr Rudd’s decree that
certain detainees would never come to Australia.
Both
statements are in line with recent statements by Mr Dutton,
which might make it somewhat more difficult for the Government
to run a scare campaign. Dutton does not believe that there are
any other countries likely to provide settlement for the
Manus-Nauru detainees, and he thinks Australia should withdraw
from the 1951 Convention.
“We continue
to talk to third countries, but let me tell you, there are very
few prospects, if any, on the horizon” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-asylum/australia-says-hundreds-likely-to-languish-in-pacific-camps-idUSKBN1I80LP
“I
think there is a need for like-minded countries to look at
whether a convention designed decades ago is relevant today.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/07/peter-dutton-says-like-minded-countries-should-rethink-un-refugee-convention
However, Mr
Shorten and other Labor MPs have consistently rejected the
suggestion to set an end-date to offshore detention. I have
gathered some of these statements on a webpage, http://members.iinet.net.au/~akilcull@homemail.com.au/Detention.html
(together with a justificatory statement by Mr Turnbull and my
critique). The Labor leaders’ statements include an interview
with Mr Shorten on Radio National, 31 July 2018, and a statement
by Mr Albanese, 10 July. In these statements it is taken as
beyond question that none of these people will ever come to
Australia. Therefore no date can be given, because no one can
say how long it will take to find third-country settlements
(though according to Mr Marles on 29 April, “there are enormous opportunities to
find arrangements with third countries … It wouldn’t require much wit”—it would
be easy but we can’t say how long it might take). Please read
the webpage and be reminded of what the Party’s spokespersons
have been saying, always following the same script. They need to
say something very different.
Labor’s
leaders deplore indefinite detention. (Shorten: “I
do not believe that indefinite detention should be the case.”)
“Indefinite” detention means detention without an end date.
Someone sentenced for a serious crime to ten years with a
non-parole of eight knows when at the latest their detention
will end. Australia’s offshore detainees—who have never been
accused or convicted of any crime and are not a danger to
anyone—don’t know when or whether their detention will end. Not
having a known end is what indefinite means. Politicians whose
position clearly implies indefinite detention can’t deplore
indefinite detention. “Never, ever will they come here”, plus
“We can’t say when they will go elsewhere”, equals indefinite
detention.
Mr Shorten
should announce an end date, setting a deadline for finding
third country settlement, acknowledging that if settlements
can’t be found by that date, then the remaining detainees must,
after all, come to Australia.
Would this be
political suicide? Imagine a voter who, at present, intends to
vote Labor, but if Labor brought the remaining detainees here
would switch to LNP or PHON. This voter agrees with Labor’s
position on a range of other issues (so at present intends to vote
Labor), and currently believes that on this issue Labor will never
change, but, if it did, would switch to the other side. Keeping
the detainees out matters to that voter more than the other issues
put together—“Labor is better on …W,X,Y, but if they add Z (they
never will!), I’ll vote PHON and preference LNP over Labor”. How
many such voters would there be? I would say: very few. Anyone who
feels so strongly against bringing the detainees here won’t feel
confident that Labor won’t change and will already be voting
Coalition.
On the other hand,
there is another set of voters, those who currently intend to vote
LNP but would switch to Labor if Labor adopted a humane policy
on refugees. It is hard to estimate how many of them there may
be. In the poll mentioned below, almost a quarter of LNP
respondents favoured “bring them here”.
And there
is a third set of voters, Greens voters and disillusioned Labor
voters who will not give a preference to Labor as long as it
holds its present position on the Manus and Nauru detainees. In
the Senate election voters no longer have to express a whole
range of preferences. Labor Senate candidates will not get
Greens preferences. Disillusioned Labor voters may cast an
informal vote. In elections for the House of Representatives
votes without preferences are informal, but in all but a few
seats (those in which Greens candidates have a chance) Greens
voters will vote informal rather than vote for either of the
major parties. Mr Beazley looked like a winner before Tampa but
lost because there was a spike in informal voting—many people
who usually voted Labor could not bring themselves to vote Labor
in that election because of Beazley’s capitulation on this
matter. See Nicholas Stuart, http://members.iinet.net.au/~akilcull@homemail.com.au/NicStuartInformalVoting.html.
Public opinion
polls don’t generally give information about what would cause
voters to switch, they merely provide a picture of how they would
vote if an election were held today; but a few polls do give
information about what voters think (though still not about what
might make them switch). In a Morgan Poll on 17-19 Feb. 2017 the
sample was asked: “Do you think
asylum-seekers on Manus Island and Nauru should be brought
here to Australia or not?”
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7159-asylum-seekers-nauru-manus-island-february-2017-201702222052
Sixty-eight percent of Labor voters answered Yes. Thus the
Labor leadership’s position was out-of-step with the views of two
thirds of Labor voters.
Some relevant polls
taken at the time of the last election:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/election-2016-vote-compass-asylum-seekers-immmigration/7493064
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/29/majority-of-australians-say-refugees-who-arrive-by-boat-should-be-let-in-poll-finds
On 3 May 2018 a Sky News ReachTel poll found
that “Half of all Australian voters support a 90-day limit on
holding asylum seekers in offshore detention on Manus Island and
Nauru. Just 30 per cent of people were against the idea....
Support and disapproval levels for the 90-day limit were the
same across Coalition and Labor voters”. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-5684929/Voters-limits-offshore-detention.html
Though the electoral
costs either way are probably not high, the Labor leaders’
present position does carry heavy longer-term
political costs. The fact that Labor
Parliamentarians are so much out of step with the views of Labor
party members and Labor voters on a humanitarian issue of major
importance makes the Parliamentary Labor party’s claim to stand
for humane values (fairness, equality, human rights, compassion,
generosity, etc.) sound hypocritical. The result of the
Labor-LNP “unity ticket” on Manus-Nauru will be increased
contempt for politicians, disillusionment with politics, further
hollowing-out of political parties, and loss of faith in
democracy. Both of the major political parties refuse in this
area to implement values many ethically concerned Australians
support, and a vote for a minor party can have no effect.
The fate of the Manus
and Nauru detainees will, and should, be a major topic at the
Party’s National Conference. Whatever the outcome at the
Conference, the Government will be able to run a scare campaign.
If Mr Shorten sticks to his present position, and perhaps even
defeats opponents (perhaps with the support of some big union),
that will not be enough to convince voters who say “Never” that
a future Labor government won’t eventually bring the detainees
here. The spectacle of division at the Conference will make them
think that sooner or later Labor’s position will change. Those
who say “Never” to the refugees will never vote Labor.
Best wishes,
John Kilcullen
5 August 2018
john.kilcullen@mq.edu.au