Prime Minister Julia Gillard has backed an independent report on asylum seekers, saying the government would move urgently to restart offshore processing on Manus Island and Nauru.
Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra this afternoon that the government would reintroduce its migration bill, with amendments, to the parliament tomorrow.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-backs-experts-asylum-seeker-report-20120813-24417.html#ixzz23PRAY7NY
• MEDIA STATEMENT
14 August 2012
Greens candidate for Denison, Anna Reynolds called on Andrew Wilkie to vote with the Greens to reject the Migration Legislation Amendment Legislation being introduced to Federal parliament today.
“Mr Wilkie represents an electorate that is very sympathetic to asylum seekers and he should reflect these views by voting with the Greens to reject the measures to bring back offshore processing.” said Ms Reynolds
“While Mr Wilkie voted for the Malaysia solution during the last debate on asylum seekers in June, I hope that Mr Wilkie will have had time to reconsider his stance,” said Ms Reynolds.
Ms Reynolds said that all of the groups with expertise in refugees and human rights are extremely disappointed by the quick political fix proposed by the Expert Panel. Refugee lawyer, David Manne recognised that all we would be doing if we pursue offshore processing in this way is sweeping the dangers from our doorstep to dangers elsewhere.
Amnesty International has said that are ”appalled” by the recommendations, which he likened to a return of the ”bad old days” of the ”wildly expensive” Pacific Solution.
Anna Reynolds
Greens Candidate for Denison
facebook.com/AnnaReynoldsForDenison
[email protected]
Authorised by Philip Cocker, 208 Elizabeth Street, Hobart
john Hayward
August 13, 2012 at 01:40
Signatories to the UN Refugee Convention are obliged to aid innocent people who are fleeing serious harm in their native lands. Making their exile so wretched that they would prefer the danger and misery they are fleeing is something you simply can’t do with any honour or dignity.
John Hayward
Simon Warriner
August 13, 2012 at 11:02
John, our government consistently sides with a country whose black, liberal, legally trained president sits down every Tuesday and decides who is on the target list for a drone attack the following week, in defiance of over 800 years of legal advancement from rule by tyranny.
Honour and dignity? If it ripped their gonads out with its bare hands they would not recognise it.
That same government, ours, then stands on the dias on ANZAC DAY and mouths the platitude “lest we forget”
Forget What? Honour and dignity?
David Obendorf
August 13, 2012 at 17:27
The Greens can stand their ground whilst the Liberals pass this stop gap border protection (not refuge-safeguarding) legislation.
World kaos is now throwing up some very difficult human rights issues like human transmigration escaping war, famine or political persecution; dificult public policy that divide humans will only continue as the progressive collapse of human systems to manage their destiny continues.
John Biggs
August 13, 2012 at 18:57
This policy is based on the assumptions:
(1) that there are regular and irregular means. But in the areas where most of the asylum seekers come from there is no regular queue. There are only people who feel it imperative for their own safety and that of family that they get out fast. The onyl was to stop them is to make conditions worse here than in Afganistan, Siri Lanka or wherever.
(2) that changes in Australian policy are going to be communicated and understood by those fleeing,
(3) that Australia isn’t somehow exempt from its obligations under the Geneva Convention.
Labor’s response shows just how principle-free the leadership now. Adapting to circumstances is one thing, but jettisoning a policy over night just to wedge LNP and lift your own polling is a disgrace.
That said, I can only hope that Labor (if not Gillard) will still beat Abbbott next election. Which only goes to show how corrupted we all have become if we hope that rank dishonesty and lack of humanity wins out!
At least the Greens come out of this with their integrity intact on this matter.
Andrew Wilkie MP
August 13, 2012 at 20:05
Unsurprisingly I will not support a return to the Howard-era Pacific Solution. During the last sitting week in June I was prepared to try and find a way through the political impasse over asylum seekers. But the Government-Opposition policy announced this week would put back in place a deeply unethical and arguably illegal regime for asylum seekers and is not something I can support.
Since the 2003 federal election I have consistently argued against offshore processing and only supported the Oakeshott Bill in June because the Government had the numbers, regardless of my vote, and because by doing what I did I was able to secure a 12-month sunset clause in the Bill. Subsequently I tried to have the Opposition Bill brought on for debate; not because I would have supported it, but because I was desperately trying to keep the Parliament sitting rather than going into a six week recess.
The Greens media release deliberately misrepresents my position regarding the Malaysia Solution. That’s disappointing, because some things should be well above political point scoring and asylum seeker policy is one of them.
davies
August 13, 2012 at 20:34
The current policy encourages people to make the perilous journey by boat. Since Labor got in around 1000 have drowned trying to get to Australia.
The Greens policy leads to men, women and children drowning. That is not a humanitarian policy. It is not a policy of integrity.
David Obendorf
August 13, 2012 at 23:30
Andrew [comment #6] – “The Greens media release deliberately misrepresents my position regarding the Malaysia Solution”.
Was that unexpected for you, Andrew? The Greens are a political party with a nominated candidate in Denison and they want to win the seat in 2014.
Mark
August 14, 2012 at 01:19
Ethical, humanitarian and legal treatment of asylum seekers is important to me, Mr Wilkie. It’s one of the issues that will determine who I vote for in the electorate of Denison. I’m glad to read that you will not support the Abbott-Gillard policy emerging this week.
But I’m also confused by how you’ve voted on this issue. How often will you vote for something that’s fundamentally opposed to your own position? In future votes, how often will you say to yourself, “I may as well vote for something I don’t believe in, because the government has the numbers anyway”?
Please don’t engage in this debate by complaining the Greens are misrepresenting your position. I want to know what you will stand for, and if the Greens share the same position as yours, then whether you will support it. And then actually vote for it in Parliament. As an Independent, it’s up to you how you vote, but that doesn’t absolve you from accountability to your electorate.
Andrew Wilkie MP
August 14, 2012 at 12:30
Mark at #9 I draw your attention to the second paragraph in my earlier post on this thread where I explained “because by doing what I did I was able to secure a 12-month sunset clause in the Bill.â€
You may also care to note my speech in the House of Representatives last night when I explained that “my concern to try and get such a safety net built into the Member for Lyne’s Bill was not without reason, because let us not forget that Greens Senator Hanson-Young agreed to support the Opposition amendment which would have cut out Malaysia, but ensured offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island, in return for an increase in the humanitarian intake to 20,000. With these sorts of deals being cut I was hardly going to miss an opportunity to let that Bill pass without a sunset clause forcing a review if I could help it.â€
lmxly
August 14, 2012 at 17:14
# 8 Wilkie says “The Greens media release deliberately misrepresents my position regarding the Malaysia Solution.” It doesn’t sound difficult to define his position, either way; by simply answering the questions – did Wilkie vote for the Malaysia solution or did he not? This is surely a question of fact, not political point scoring.
Having read the Expert Panel’s report, which they say must be implemented as complete package, not cherry picked by political interests, when are we going to see legislation – to take just three of the 22 recommendations – to increase the humanitarian intake to 20,000 a year; increase support to UNHCR in processing asylum claims in Indonesia and Malaysia; fund much needed research to remedy the paucity if evidence on asylum issues – which ensures that most debate is driven by opinion and prejudice rather than facts.
Let’s hoe that Wilkie, and the Greens, and most importantly, Labor steps up to deliver on all 22 of the Expert Panel’s recommendations
Anna Reynolds
August 14, 2012 at 21:51
Andrew there is nothing misleading about my statement that you voted for the Oakeshott Bill to reinstate the Malaysia solution – that’s simply what happened in Parliament on 28 June when you voted to support it. Your vote was the crucial one to get the Bill through the House of Representatives.
I understand that you were attempting to use your vote to include a sunset clause, but its my view that you made an error of judgement in your parliamentary tactics. What I am pleased to see is that this time around you have realised that the most logical route is to vote against the policies that you don’t agree with.
I do however need to pick you up on your false statement about Sarah Hanson-Young – there was no ‘deal’ done with the Opposition. This is an untrue rumour that was circulating several weeks ago and Andrew it is disappointing that you are continuing to promote it when it has no basis. Sarah and Christine addressed this at a media conference on 29 June that anyone can listen to hear http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/audio/senators-milne-hanson-young-press-conference-regional-assessment-asylum-seekers
cont …
Anna Reynolds
August 14, 2012 at 21:51
Cont …
Sarah Hanson-Young and Christine Milne were on the Multi-Party Reference Panel for the Expert Panel right throughout the winter break (along with Tony Windsor, Senator John Madigan and a range of ALP MPs). The Greens made a detailed submission to the Expert Panel see –
http://greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/australian_greens_submission_to_expert_panel_on_asylum_seekers.pdf.
Sarah, Christine and Adam Bandt have worked extremely hard during the last 6 weeks to promote the Greens proposals to protect asylum seekers and they have attended a range of meetings to promote our proposals to all parties and MPs. At no time did the Greens promote offshore processing in our package of proposals.
Posted by Anna Reynolds on 15/08/12 at 04:33 PM
Anna Reynolds
Greens Candidate for Denison
David Obendorf
August 14, 2012 at 22:12
Green bile now cometh forth, it’s a toxic-pit politics Aussie-style.
Seems there’s no love lost for a Green defector; looks like the political stalking has begun in earnest.
Only 15 months to the next federal election… please save us!
Andrew Wilkie MP
August 14, 2012 at 22:25
Thank you Anna for your posts at #12 and #13.
I was there with Senator Hanson-Young in the Opposition Members’ Lounge off to the side of the Chamber when she agreed to support the Opposition amendment in return for the promise of an increased humanitarian intake. While the Greens ultimately did not go down that path, presumably after Sarah had the opportunity to touch base with her party, the fact remains she did agree to it in the heat of the negotiating moment and there were a number of witnesses. Hence my concern that the amended Oakeshott Bill might have passed the Senate and my interest in ensuring a sunset clause was included.
Senator Milne was not in attendance at the meeting in the Opposition Members’ Lounge and her public explanation of the episode is inconsistent with the recollections of a number of witnesses.
Peter Henning
August 14, 2012 at 23:45
It’s interesting to see how Anna Reynolds is trying to manipulate things to undermine Andrew Wilkie’s credibility in his efforts to implement the policies he advocated to the electorate at the last federal election.
What she is doing is not merely a demonstration of self-serving opportunism, but an indictment of the unethical and dishonest tactics of the Greens, whose behaviour is increasingly resembling the attributes of an autocratic closed society.
It’s fascinating to watch this march of the Greens into the world of the past, into a world of rigid conformity, into a world of a warped and narrow sense of righteousness, defined so deferentially by an inability to examine themselves by reference to anything outside their bubble.
Peter Adams
August 15, 2012 at 14:07
In response to the thread here of Anna versus Andrew, here’s my two cents worth: I have been an avid supporter of the Greens for many years and support most nearly every policy they espouse. However, I think it is ethically and intellectually wrong for the Greens to be running a candidate in Denison against an extremely talented and useful ally to the Greens in Andrew Wilkie.
Yes, Anna is are a very capable candidate, but why split hairs? (And, please don’t anyone write back telling me of the “differences” between the Greens and Wilkie; I already know them.)
If the Greens are really interested in seeking change, work to unseat the Liberals and Labor in another electorate. How about putting energy into Lyons and go after Dick Adams?
I’ve given my share of time and money to the Greens, but I won’t be giving any money in the next election because, to me, the Greens are wasting my money on trying to unseat someone who is doing a great job for Denison and Tasmania.
James Williamson
August 15, 2012 at 20:05
What seems to be forgotten in this debate so far is the increase in the refugee quota from 13,000 to 20,000. That difference of seven thousand is almost precisely the number of asylum seekers that arrived here by boat in the last 12 months.
Dr Kevin Bonham
August 18, 2012 at 22:43
If someone was going to vote 1 Wilkie but running a Green causes them to vote 1 Reynolds 2 Wilkie, then the total primary vote for both candidates is no different, and [i]if Reynolds is eliminated first[/i] then it makes no difference to Wilkie’s position – he just gets a vote he would have got anyway. A Green plus Wilkie will get a higher number of primaries than Wilkie alone (unless perhaps they attack each other during the campaign) but most of the votes added will be votes that have been taken from other parties by the Green and that would return to those other parties as preferences when the Green was eliminated.
The way Wilkie [i]might[/i] gain votes out of a Green standing – but not many – is if someone who otherwise wouldn’t have voted formally at all (including for Wilkie) decides to vote because the Greens are running, and then preferences Wilkie.
The risk in a Green running as well as Wilkie is that if Wilkie polls poorly and the Green polls well, the Green might eliminate Wilkie. Since Wilkie’s preferences do not go as strongly to the Greens as the other way around, this could cause both of them to lose and could even elect a Liberal.
I do not think this risk is a large one at the moment; I believe the Greens will be fourth and Wilkie will outpoll them again.
Another reason for the Greens running is electoral funding. A party gets money for every vote over 4% that one of its candidates pulls. Even a token campaign in Denison is easy money that can be pumped into campaigning for more winnable seats elsewhere, including the Senate. So it’s not surprising the Greens are running – how hard remains to be seen.
Finally, many Greens don’t see Wilkie as an ally but as competition for a similar vote, and worse still, a splitter from their party. In the 1990s the Greens engaged in a savage turf war with the Democrats that sometimes resulted in neither party getting a Senate seat in cases where one or the other should have done so.