This week three Christian leaders publicly expressed distress at the deaths of more asylum seekers trying to reach Australian shores. This is an expected response to a terrible tragedy, but what was not expected was the support for offshore processing that went with it. Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall and Jim Wallace, director of the Australian Christian Lobby, all spoke of their support for offshore processing and a desire to see both sides of government working together to prevent further tragic deaths at sea.
It is a departure from the usual statements made by Christian leaders about Australia needing to treat people humanely, respecting the inherent dignity of each person. Or is it? The inherent dignity of each person is currently being compromised as unseaworthy vessels fail in open water and more deaths of asylum seekers are tallied. Compared to deaths at sea, these Christian leaders appear to be suggesting that it would be more humane to implement offshore processing than to continue to witness people risking their own lives and their children’s lives for their future.
What is sadly missing in the myriad comments about people smugglers and Australia’s refugee and asylum policy is that the core outcome of any policy on managing asylum seekers should be to keep people safe. Lack of safe and secure conditions is what drives people to move on, while enhancing safety or safe conditions gives people more options to consider than risky travel to countries like Australia. Processing asylum seekers claims under the convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the administrative part of what should be a wider focus on building and improving humane and safe conditions across the region.
This broader focus may be an explanation for why there has been a change of heart by some Christian leaders on the matter of offshore processing. None indicated in their statements that asylum seekers should not be treated humanely if they do reach Australia but all implied that to keep people safe, other options need to be considered including offshore processing.
Of course the ultimate question is what offshore processing could look like in order to achieve this safety. While there were few faith-based bodies that submitted to the inquiry into the agreement between Australia and Malaysia on the transfer of asylum seekers to Australia, it was clear at the time of the release of the agreement document that several Christian leaders were not supportive of the plan. Catholic priest Father Frank Brennan called it more “ruthless” than Nauru and Uniting Church president Alistair Macrae welcomed the High Court dumping of the Malaysian agreement with the words: “The Uniting Church has been opposed to the arrangement with Malaysia which treated people like commodities.”
Clearly these comments reflected their belief that the Malaysian model would not keep people safe or uphold the inherent dignity of those to be transferred.
Other challenges arise when discussing Nauru or PNG as sites for processing asylum seekers, not the least of which include conditions in both countries. But overall, narrowing the discussion of offshore processing to one or two sites, limits what could be a broader more creative discussion on what offshore processing and a regional solution could look like.
Inevitably this must be done in collaboration with countries in the region. Australia cannot compel other countries to sign conventions, implement legislation nor build reception centres without serious and sustained dialogue. The Bali process was established in 2002, initially to focus on people smuggling, trafficking and other related transnational crimes and now has protection as part of its focus.
There are 43 states and territories in the Asia-Pacific region involved in the process and it is an opportunity for building better regional solutions. However, this avenue would be slow and could take years before a comprehensive plan can be implemented. Hence the more speedy focus on offshore processing in one or two locations.
If safety is the aim of any discussion about a policy to manage asylum seekers either coming to Australia or more broadly in the region, then it makes sense that any offshore processing component should involve secure and humane conditions, contribute to expanding safe conditions across the region and have a view to being incorporated into a longer-term strategy for the region.
Anything else would constitute Australia burden shifting, not burden sharing with the many countries who host far more asylum seekers than we do across the region.
*Caz Coleman is former director of the Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project and a member of the Council for Immigration Services and Status Resolution advising the Minister for Immigration. Opinions expressed are her own.
Off shore processing according to Labor or the Coalition? Or having more people in Indonesia from UNHCR etc who can process claims in that country or Malaysia. While these two countries insist, that asylum seekers have no rights, including rights to humane treatment, I’d be against it totally. It’s ludicrous! Fancy Pell and Wallace showing their ‘concern’ in this manner? I’m disappointed with Aspinall – I expected better from him!
People who were sent to Nauru or Mannus Island suffered all sorts of illnesses and diseases, including malaria and mental illnesses. Remember the young man who was alone on Mannus Island at the cost of thousands per day? Or those on Nauru who eventually ended up in Australia and/or NZ anyway? We’re still providing medical support via psychologists/psychiatrists for these people.
I find the outpouring of ‘concern and distress’ by the politicians and now these three over the deaths of asylum seekers outrageous. Not one word re why these people feel that their only hope is to flee their homeland – in too many cases from our actions there! This has been the worst year for Afghanistan civilian deaths. We don’t speak out against the US drones, bombs or automatic weapons used, all we do is demonise them when they land here – by boat!
If we want people to stay in their homeland, we should desist being part of their reason for leaving! Anything less is contemptible and outrageous! These people don’t give a fig about human beings, just ‘the problem’? I find them despicable – and so will many others!
We should also spend more money assisting our neighbouring countries to process people quickly – not years like now! We are all responsible for the events in their countries, even if it’s only by remaining silent while the US causes death and misery in our name!
You could find 50 Christian leaders who would quickly disagree with these three men. Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall and Jim Wallace, – three very, very conservative Christian leaders. Not all Catholics like what Mr Pell says. Not all Anglicans agree with Mr Aspinall. And absolutely, most Protestants do not agree with Mr Wallace who really should not be listed on the same line as the other two for prominence, respect, or influence. (The other two are at least full time life long churchmen. Mr Wallace was a General in the army, and is now a lobbyist!)
It was good to see the article begin to note some other leaders late in the article, who would disagree with these men.
Talk with the Uniting Church; the Salvation Army; many progressive Catholics and Anglicans; and so many others…. articles like this can give a distorted impression of what the Christian church is saying about refugees.
I don’t begrudge any one the right to speak up and share their thoughts and opinions. But for goodness sake, don’t assume that three very conservative voices represent more people than they do.
LIZ45 – spot on!
Hi Jim. I tell myself on a regular basis to just butt out of this disgusting display of ugliness, but then I think of those who are suffering and have to remain engaged. Abbott and his colleagues will NEVER do anything productive or humane as they make so much political bs out of their racist policies. They’ve even been caught out documenting how ‘the boats’ help their cause. If 1,000 people drowned in one go, neither major parties would shift! It’s just disgusting!
What did they do about SIEV X -either then or since? Not a thing! It was the ordinary people like you and I, and those who work with asylum seekers like Julian Burnside and his artist wife Kate Durham? who created a monument in their name, or took part in ceremonies of love and support. Howard wouldn’t even release their names – Kate found out!
Julian and Kate take asylum seekers into their home while they get established or have medical care etc. No fanfare, they don’t talk about it, they just get on with it. A close friend of mine(within walking distance) does the same thing – has done so for several years now. I’ve met some of the young men and they’re just a delight to know – these young men were unaccompanied minors or just adults – their stories are heartrending. They repay her by doing the cooking for our get to-gethers etc – which is an experience I can assure you. She’s their Australian ‘mum’! Amazing woman!
I do not know how politicians can look their children in the eyes and carry on like they do. I could not! It would appear, that little kids with dark skin and eyes(and little to no english) are not as worthy as anglo kids. It doesn’t seem to matter how they suffer! Incredible isn’t it?
It would seem that Australia has billions to spend on offshore processing, but not enough to house people properly, so that parents can nurture and love their own kids – like the rest of us do! Lining up for nappies, food or the pill? Even sanitary requisites for women – how degrading is that?
Thanks Liz
Perhaps grass roots action is really the only way left to us at the moment.
More power to your friends and others like them.