ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE WELCOME IN THE ACT

Summary

Residents of the Capital Territory have demonstrated their commitment to asylum seekers and over many years and in many practical ways. They have been support in this by community leaders, the ACT Government and local media. This commitment, as in other parts of Australia, implies a belief that asylum seekers should be given a “fair go” in the Australian community, should not become scapegoats for wrongdoing by others, and do not deserve mistreatment or public vilification.

Text

Contrary to recent public statements by some political representatives, it is clear that asylum seekers and refugees are actually welcome in . The following is a brief summary of some of the ample evidence to support this argument.

Positive ACT Attitudes to Asylum Seekers Public opinion in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is generally positive towards refugees and asylum seekers, not unlike the positive attitudes found in many regional areas around Australia. The ACT Government has to some extent responded to these positive public attitudes to asylum seekers in initiatives it has taken in recent years. Opinion polls generally demonstrate clear ACT support for asylum seekers. In a 2016 “Vote Compass” poll conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), only 33% of ACT people supported the proposition that asylum seekers should be kept in detention while their claims are being considered. This was the lowest rate in all of Australia.1 Canberra’s media has also reacted favourably to the presence of asylum seekers and refugees in the ACT community. They carry reports on restaurants operated by Burmese immigrants, and other enterprises in Canberra suburbs carried out by

1 See the ABC Vote Compass website: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/election-2016-vote- compass-asylum-seekers-immmigration/7493064 refugees from Myanmar. support activities have also normally been publicised favourably by the Canberra Times. For example, the arrival of Syrian asylum seekers2, the creation of a “safe haven enterprise visa” arrangement for Canberra 3 The Canberra Times also regularly reported on success stories of refugees from Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or Burma/Myanmar, the restaurants they were running in Canberra, the food gardens they were planting around the ACT, the Mandalay Bus that sold take-away street food in local shopping centres. They also reported some employment success stories involving refugees. ACT media - including radio and television - also reported public demonstrations at Parliament House and at some embassies in support of refugees. They also publicise parliamentary considerations of refugee issues that might not have otherwise been reported.

As matters relating to asylum seekers came to be debated more vigorously in recent years, Canberra mass rallies and meetings have passed resolutions calling for closure of offshore detention centres, protection of whistle blowers who have worked in detention centres, access to asylum seekers in offshore processing centres for lawyers, Australian refugee advocates, international refugee agencies, media representatives and health workers, and expedited processing of asylum claims. Most of these mass gatherings were organised by the Refugee Action Committee Canberra Branch. Their stated goals were to ensure Australian law upholds human rights of asylum seekers, to ensure humane and dignified treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, to end deportation to places of torture, persecution and danger, to create a fair and just process for asylum applications, to support family reunion for refugees separated from their families, and to ensure a transparent and fair system for the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

Generally, community support for refugees in the ACT is consistently strong and positive.

2 http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/first-syrian-refugees-have-arrived-in-canberra- 20160511-gostlz.html

3 http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/150-of-canberras-resident-refugees-would-benefit-from- act-haven-push-20160515-govlti.html

ACT Government Initiatives Under the ACT Labor Party, the ACT Government some years ago set up a refugee support group with the title of RASH.4 The purpose of the committee was to coordinate efforts for support such identifying issues faced by asylum seekers, facilitating the provision and exchange of information, and contributing to the development of policy advice to the ACT government. Services included: interpretation services, overseas qualifications assessments, Australian citizenship issues, and facilitating access for community support. The ACT minister in charge was the then Minister for Community Services, Yvette Berry. In June 2015, Ms Berry announced that Canberra had been designated a “Refugee Welcome Zone”.5 In February 2016, in response to Australia-wide publicity about the plight of asylum seekers in Nauru and Manus Island, ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr urged Prime Minister Turnbull to let asylum seekers stay in ACT, echoing a similar offer made the previous day by the Victorian (ALP) Premier Daniel Andrews.6 In August 2016, Chief Minister Andrew Barr also announced that Canberra had been accepted into the “Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) Scheme” of the Federal Government.7 Community Based Initiatives

In recent years, Canberra refugee support groups have recommitted to a suite of activity to demonstrate their ongoing strong support for refugees, including making submissions to parliamentary inquiries. They have sought to mobilise

4 Standing for the “Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Humanitarian (RASH) Coordination Committee”. See ACT Government website: http://www.communityservices.act.gov.au/multicultural/services/rash_committee

5 See her ministerial announcement at: http://www.yvetteberry.com.au/australias_capital_city_officially_declared_a_refugee_welcome_zone

6 See ABC News online at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-08/andrew-barr-says-act-will-take- nauru-bound-asylum-seekers/7148094

7 See text at: http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/yvette-berry- mla-media-releases/2016/act-to-become-a-safe-haven-for-asylum-seekers grass-roots support for refuges and asylum seekers, hosting public screenings of films that give sympathetic treatment of refugees, such as the 2013 film by Heather Kirkpatrick "Mary Meets Mohammad". The most effective group recently has been the Refugee Action Committee (RAC), a nation-wide organisation whose very active Canberra Committee has been at the centre of most recent public campaigns around asylum seekers and refugees.

The Canberra Refugee Support group plays a role at the community level assisting refugees to settle in Canberra; it works with a wide range of refugee stakeholders, providing advocacy; and policy advice. Its activities include mentoring programs for refugees, financial support and scholarships, community engagement, and it also runs education programs for and about refugees. It raises money from its 250 members and the community and receives no government funding whatsoever. Canberra Refugee Support members work on a part-time basis in a voluntary capacity with no political or other affiliations.

The ACT Government set an example several years ago in sponsoring an autonomous refugee and asylum seeker support organisation, Companion House. Companion House is a non government community-based organisation, founded in 1989 to care for survivors of torture, trauma and human rights abuses who have sought refuge in Australia. At the community level, the main activist group, the Refugee Action Committee Canberra, was established in 2000. In recent years, it has focused on the issue of asylum seeker detention on Nauru and Manus Island and has sponsored numerous community activities, including a number of well-attended and well–publicised mass rallies at which as many as 3,000 people attended. Canberrans continue to attend RAC events in support of asylum seekers in large numbers. Also at the community level, a network has been established to “help house refugees in Canberra”. In addition, the Canberra Refugee Support group was set up in 1981 with the goal of “supporting the settlement of refugees in our National Capital”. This group continues to function.8

As opinion leaders, Canberra’s religious leaders have been prominent individually and collectively calling for acceptance of and better treatment of refugees. Their views have been reported regularly by the local media. They have been

8 See Refugee Action Committee website: https://www.facebook.com/Canberra-Refugee-Action- Committee-187859284629049/ prominent in the “Palm Sunday” rallies organised by the Refugee Action Group, which have usually included substantial participation by “faith” groups. Volunteers at church organisations such as the Refugee Resettlement Committee at St John the Apostle in Kippax, ACT are providing resettlement services without funding from government. (The Refugee Resettlement Committee is a not-for- profit Parish based organisation run by volunteers. It is politically independent and is not reliant on government aid. Running costs are met from funds raised within the community.) Support for asylum seekers is also evident in towns around Canberra, such as Young, where resettled Afghan refugees worked in an abbatoir. The grassroots asylum seeker support organisation, Rural Australians for Refugees, has branches in Bega, Braidwood, Cooma, Goulbourn, and Queanbeyan.

A Major Community Initiaitve: The SIEV X Memorial in Canberra An example of the sympathy Canberrans offered asylum seekers is the SIEV X memorial project in Weston Park, Yarralumla, the only memorial of its kind in Australia. (The SIEV X, or Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel no 10, sank in waters between Australia and in October 2001, resulting in the death by drowning of approximately 350 of its passengers, most of whom were believed to be asylum seekers.) In 2002 a nationwide student art collaboration to commemorate the Siev X asylum seeker drownings was announced. Every one of Australia’s three thousand secondary schools received a letter inviting art teachers to send student concepts for a national SIEVX memorial. The hundreds of artworks were exhibited in Pitt St Uniting Church, Sydney, on the third anniversary of the sinking. The 4th anniversary exhibition and service was at Canberra City Uniting Church. At this event, opened by then ACT Chief Minister , and filmed by TV news cameras, we announced the shape and form of the memorial we were to build. The design, by a fourteen-year-old Brisbane schoolboy Mitchell Donaldson, became the basis of the actual design, adapted because there were so many poles (353) that a procession of poles, incorporating the boat shape, was necessary to fit them in. In 2007, the sixth anniversary, permission to erect the temporary memorial for six weeks was granted by the ACT Government, and the Federal National Capital Authority. A group of supporters based in the Uniting Church, Canberra, but including many streams of belief and activism, drawn together by Steve Biddulph. Beth Gibbings was the project officer, and Rev. Rod Horsfield the co-founder and elder of the project. Dr Sue Anne Ware of the RMIT School of Landscape Architecture, who is an expert on memorial design and execution, helped in the planning and permission process.9

Likely ACT Attitudes to Essential Elements of Asylum Seeker Controls

ACT citizens are quite well informed about the issues involved in dealing with asylum seekers. They would see through many of the spurious arguments against acceptance of asylum seeker claims, would oppose treatment based on prejudice or discrimination, and would resist options that meant abuse or harm to detainees. They would place a premium on fairness under the law. They would also attach more weight to potential benefits that accompany accepting asylum seekers than to the purported costs or risks. They would not expect vague national security arguments to be used to delay or frustrate acceptable of asylum seekers.

While the theoretical chance of unauthorised arrivals by boats carrying asylum seekers remains, people in the ACT would realise that the real risks associated with such a prospect have probably been exaggerated. Even in the small number of undetected boat arrivals a few years ago, real control over the unauthorised entry of persons was never lost. Sovereignty over Australia's borders was never really threatened, and no damaging collateral consequences were ever reported. So justification of tighter official controls against the possible entry of unauthorised persons primarily represents a precautionary approach, and the proposition that any perception of weak Australian border controls was contrary to the national interest.

Combined with this is the reality that no nation, even an island like Australia, can exercise complete barriers against smuggling (of people or goods). ACT citizens would know that certain kinds of international cooperation - whether in

9 These notes are based on the Siev X project website. http://www.sievxmemorial.com/the- memorial.html

intelligence sharing or in practical jurisdiction over the maritime approaches - is required. Hopefully, in other words, people smugglers can be stopped at or near the point of departure. This is not really challenged, and over the years governments have set up a variety of means to achieve better coordination and cooperation. Unilateral declarations by any country or government do not necessarily assist in achieving such a goal, as they imply loss of confidence in cooperation and an intention to pursue alternative approaches. At worst, they might imply repudiation of the other country's authority or legal rights.

Historically, one approach that was employed successfully in Southeast Asia aimed at the interception of asylum seekers to allow a modicum of managed people movement and to achieve more predictability and better preparations in the relevant areas. The approach was the combination of regional detention in countries along the route, and regional processing and eventual resettlement under the supervision of the responsible international agencies. This worked reasonably well after the fall of Saigon in 1975, but it was the product of hard- won but effective international cooperation. Similar logical and soundly based cooperation should be achievable again, but it will require recognition of, and respect for, the sometimes differing interests involved. Regional processing centres work as long as the conditions in the centre are reasonable, and appropriate. Regional detention works as long as there are real prospects for resettlement, and the waiting time in the queue is not unreasonable. Three years is unreasonable, and can be seen as tantamount to indefinite detention, which is illegal under .

Some Questions

In recent times, Australian governments have often claimed to be targeting people smugglers, while in fact making asylum seekers the real victims of their policies. Yet asylum seekers have not broken any law in seeking to come to Australia by boat. This is because trying to travel by boat to seek asylum anywhere in the world does not violate any international law; and it does not violate Australian law, unless the asylum seekers have committed offences against some other Australian law. If they have broken any Australian law, they should be liable for prosecution; but they have not broken Australian laws, so they are not being charged with breaking any law.

So why should asylum seekers be made to pay the penalty of years of detention and isolation as if they had broken the law? Why should they be demonised and misrepresented? Why should they be vilified? Why should they be consistently stigmatised by representatives? Why should they be treated so inhumanely? Why should they be so wilfully denied the means to defend themselves? Why should their voices be silenced and so consistently doubted? Why aren't proper judicial processes followed so that their fate can be determined by the independent judges and arbiters of our laws and government policies? Asylum seekers are not necessarily innocent parties by any means, but many of those currently in these so-called processsing centres have not committed any crimes. Trevor Wilson