DOCSLIB.ORG

Myths, Facts and Solutions 1 Asylum Seeker Resource Centre

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Myths, Facts and Solutions 1 Asylum Seeker Resource Centre MYTHS, FACTS AND SOLutions 1 ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE WWW.ASRC.ORG.AU Asylum seekers and refugees myths FACTS + solutions 2 Myths, FACTS AND SOLUTIONS Asylum Seeker Resource Centre 12 Batman Street West Melbourne, Vic. 3003 Telephone +61 3 9326 6066 www.asrc.org.au Design zirka&wolf. www.zirkawolf.com MYTHS, FACTS AND SOLutions 3 MYTHS AND FACTS MYTH 1 Asylum seekers are ‘illegal immigrants’ .........................................................4 MYTH 2 People who arrive by boat are not ‘genuine refugees’. .5 MYTH 3 Asylum seekers have only themselves to blame for lengthy detention because they lodge endless appeals ....................................................................7 MYTH 4 When asylum seekers destroy their documentation they are cheating the system ..................8 MYTH 5 Boat arrivals might be terrorists or pose other security risks. .9 MYTH 6 Boat people are queue jumpers; they take the place of refugees patiently waiting in overseas camps .....................................................................11 MYTH 7 Asylum seekers don’t use the proper channels — they come via ‘the back door’ ...................13 MYTH 8 Asylum seekers are ‘country shoppers’; they could have stopped at safe places along the way. 15 MYTH 9 Asylum seekers are ‘cashed up’ and ‘choose’ to come here. .16 MYTH 10 People smugglers are ‘evil’ and the ‘vilest form of human life’. .17 MYTH 11 Australia is losing control over its borders ......................................................19 MYTH 12 If we are too ‘soft’ there will be a flood of asylum seekers .......................................21 MYTH 13 Offshore processing is the solution to boat arrivals .............................................23 MYTH 14 Onshore asylum seekers only need temporary protection visas ..................................24 MYTH 15 Charity begins at home; we can’t priviledge asylum seekers over ‘our own’ disadvantaged .........26 MYTH 16 Refugees will strain our economy and threaten ‘our way of life’ ..................................28 SOLUTIONS SOLUTION 1 End mandatory detention ....................................................................30 SOLUTION 2 Adopt community processing as the norm .....................................................31 SOLUTION 3 Equitably share the internationl refugee burden ................................................33 SOLUTION 4 Invest in a serious regional protection framework. 34 SOLUTION 5 Provide alternative legal pathways to seek asylum. .35 SOLUTION 6 Take serious action to prevent deaths at sea ...................................................36 SOLUTION 7 Recognise there is no final ‘solution’ ...........................................................38 FURTHER READING REFERENCES 4 Myths, FACTS AND SOLUTIONS MYTH 1 ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' Asylum seekers are not immigrants. Immigrants leave The Government’s policy of detaining unauthorised by choice and are able to return home at any time. asylum seekers is not evidence of criminality: detention Asylum seekers leave because they are forced to for is justified on administrative and not punitive grounds.6 fear of persecution and cannot return due to that In other words, asylum seekers who arrive without a fear. Historically, the majority of asylum seekers arrive visa are detained for identity, security and health checks in Australia by plane holding a valid tourist, work or and to prevent absconding while their legal status is study visa.1 resolved, rather than as a punishment for breaking the law. However, the conditions endured by asylum Yet, even those asylum seekers who enter Australia seekers during long-term detention have been proven without a valid visa by sea or plane are not illegal. to cause a great deal of physical and mental anguish They are permitted to enter without prior authorisation which is tantamount to punishment. This is unjustifiable, because this right is protected by Article 31 of the 1951 especially since it is unnecessary and counterproductive Refugee Convention which recognises they have good and there are viable cheaper arrangements available 2 cause for entering without a visa. Like a speeding (see Solution 2). ambulance, asylum seekers are exempt from the usual application of the law because they are in an There is nothing wrong in doing whatever you can emergency situation. Furthermore, no offence under to secure freedom and there is nothing illegal about Australian law criminalises the act of arriving in Australia seeking asylum. without a valid visa for the purposes of seeking asylum.3 This is true even if asylum seekers travel through a transit country before reaching Australia as UNHCR’s Geneva Expert Roundtable long ago clarified.4 The phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ is therefore highly misleading. Given this, the Australian Press Council, responsible for promoting good standards of media practice, released a set of advisory guidelines for media reporting on asylum seekers which state that, “great care must be taken to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in terms that are likely to be inaccurate or unfair... if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour... terms such as ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘illegals’ may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice... The risk of breach can usually be avoided by using a term such as ‘asylum seekers’.”5 MYTHS, FACTS AND SOLutions 5 MYTH 2 ‘BoAt people’ are noT 'GENUINE REFUGEES' There is no such thing as a ‘genuine’ or ‘non-genuine’ The refugee status determination process includes refugee. Either you are a refugee with the legal right of not just a primary assessment with DIAC but also protection or you are not a refugee at all. In any case, a secondary review process with a relatively more the allegation that boat arrivals are not genuine in their independent tribunal, followed by the possibility for appeals for protection from persecution is untrue. In any appeal to the Federal Court and also the Minister of one year since the late 1990s, between 70 and 97 per Immigration. As mentioned above, history indicates that cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat have been found at the end of the refugee status determination process, to be refugees and granted protection. The average in including appeals, the vast majority of boat arrivals are recent years is closer to 90 per cent.7 found to be in need of protection. The most recent immigration data shows that 88 per The most recent statistics from DIAC reinforce this cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the fact. In financial year 2010–2011, 74 per cent of failed 2009–2010 financial year, including those initially rejected protection visa applicants at the primary stage were at the primary stage, are now deemed refugees (see overturned upon independent review. In the last quarter Figure 1). 68 per cent of those arriving in 2010–2011 have of 2011, the overturn rate increased to 79.3 per cent, also been found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. including a 74.2 per cent overturn rate for Iranians (see Half of this later group is still awaiting a review of their Figure 3). These figures do not include further appeals decision and, given the high overturn rate, the final to the Federal Court or the Minister of Immigration percentage is likely to be much higher (see Figure 2). which could result in even higher final overturn rates. High rejection rates at the primary level are not unusual. From time to time, the media quotes high rejection For example, in 2001–2002, the Department’s error rate rates of boat arrivals at the primary stage to give the was 62% when assessing Afghan claims and 87% for impression that asylum seekers are not ‘genuine’. In 2011, Iraqi claims.10 there was much media attention around the fact that 50% of Afghan asylum seekers had been rejected by Given the lack of integrity in the refugee status the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).8 determination process (see Myth 3), the biggest concern In 2012, the focus has shifted to Iranians who have now is not that some asylum seekers might slip through the overtaken Afghans as the largest cohort of maritime system illegitimately but the risk that those who are arrivals.9 There are many reasons why higher than usual genuine in their claims could be denied protection. In rejection rates appear from time to time at the primary the past Australia has deported asylum seekers back stage, largely resulting from the fact that DIAC is not an to dangerous situations where they have subsequently independent body (see myth 3). In any case, the focus on been killed – including children.11 the primary rejection rate is misleading. 6 Myths, FACTS AND SOLUTIONS Figure 1: Status of boat arrivals who arrived in 2009-10 % of post primary Final caseload Number Primary Primary Primary Final Refusals Overhand granted (POst REVIEW Citizenship of IMSa Grants refusals Grant Rate Grants OUtcOME) (review) visas Afghanistan 2968 1600 1354 54.2% 2598 220 71 89.9% Sri Lanka 835 469 270 62.0% 517 91 22 82.1% Stateless 601 341 256 57.1% 530 52 10 89.5% Iraq 345 176 168 51.2% 287 53 2 83.9% Iran 329 132 182 42.0% 254 33 15 84.1% Other 149 83 58 58.9% 105 24 8 77.8% Total 5227 2801 2296 55% 4291 473 128 87.8% Figure 2: Status of boat arrivals who arrived in 2010-11 % of post primary Final caseload Number Primary Primary Primary Final Refusals Overhand granted (POst REVIEW Citizenship of IMSa Grants refusals Grant Rate Grants OUtcOME) (review) visas Afghanistan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNHCR Observations on the New Plan for Immigration Policy Statement of the Government of the United Kingdom
    UNHCR Observations on the New Plan for Immigration policy statement of the Government of the United Kingdom May 2021 Main observations 1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) appreciates the opportunity to provide observations on the New Plan for Immigration policy statement presented by HM Government to Parliament on 24 March 2021 (“Plan”).1 UNHCR’s direct interest in the Plan emanates from its mandate and responsibility for supervising international conventions for the protection of refugees2 as well as its longstanding work in the United Kingdom (“UK”). 2. The scope of the Plan is broad, comprising over 40 suggested changes to UK laws, policies and procedures concerning immigration and asylum matters. UNHCR’s observations relate to the text of the Plan as publicly released on 24 March 2021. A Global Britain needs an asylum policy matching its international obligations 3. UNHCR wishes at the outset to acknowledge the UK’s contribution as a humanitarian donor and global champion for the refugee cause. Such a global role must be matched with a commensurate domestic asylum policy that abides by the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“1951 Convention”). The UK was among the core group of States that drafted the 1951 Convention and was among the first to sign and ratify it, taking a leadership role in giving effect to refugee protection. 4. UNHCR encourages the UK to continue to display such leadership and maintain the broader perspective on its role in working together with UNHCR and the global community of States to find solutions to the refugee problem.3 The international refugee protection system, underpinned by the 1951 Convention, has withstood the test of time and it remains a collective responsibility to uphold and safeguard it.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Information, Truth and the Media
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Online University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities 2008 Freedom of information, truth and the media David Blackall University of Wollongong, [email protected] Seth Tenkate Australian Lawyers Alliance Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers Recommended Citation Blackall, David and Tenkate, Seth, "Freedom of information, truth and the media" (2008). Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers. 58. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/58 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Freedom of information, truth and the media Abstract Much of the evidence from the 2002 Senate Select Committee inquiry into a 'Certain Maritime Incident' must be viewed as inconclusive, as most of the critical information was kept secret. A number of federal government departments and agencies refused to reveal to committee hearings most of their critical information on intelligence relating to border protection, asylumseekers, people-smugglers, double agents and a tragic boat sinking. The final Senate eporr t stated that much of the intelligence material has been heavily censored and as a consequence, gaps exist in the intelligence picture on the tragic sinking of the boat named SIEV X. Publication Details Blackall, D. R. & Tenkate, S., Freedom of information, truth and the media, Precedent, 2008, 89, 31-34. This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/58 Much of the evidence from the Freedom of 2002 Senate Select Committee inquiry into a ‘Certain Maritime information, truth Incident’1 must be viewed as inconclusive, as most of the critical information was kept secret.
    [Show full text]
  • Asylum in Australia: 'Operation Sovereign Borders' And
    Asylum in Australia: ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ and International Law Joyce Chia,* Jane McAdam** and Kate Purcell*** I. Introduction On 18 September 2013, the day the Australian Coalition government was sworn into office, a new border protection policy took effect. Termed ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ (OSB), it is based on the premise that Australia is facing a ‘border protection crisis’ that ‘requires the discipline and focus of a targeted military operation’.1 As a military-led operation, the government maintains a high degree of secrecy about its activities, which include intercepting and turning back asylum seeker boats. From early 2012 until mid-2013, there was a considerable increase in the number of asylum seekers seeking to reach Australia by boat — both in terms of total numbers (over 35,000 between January 2012 and July 2013) and intensity (over 3,000 arrivals per month between March and July 2013). Although these numbers remained very small in global terms (representing just three to four per cent of total asylum applications), 2 and 88 per cent of them were found to be refugees or otherwise in need of international protection,3 the unauthorised arrival of asylum seekers became one of the key political issues in the 2013 federal election. Playing upon generally poor community understandings about forced migration and common anxieties about ‘the uninvited’, terrorism, and security, politicians on both sides had championed increasingly draconian deterrence mechanisms — even when couched in the ostensibly humanitarian language of ‘saving lives at sea’.4 It was in this context that OSB was developed. This article begins by examining the background to OSB and what is known about its practical operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Detention in Australia: a New Beginning Is the First of Three Reports by This Committee on Immigration Detention Policy in Australia
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning Criteria for release from immigration detention First report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia Joint Standing Committee on Migration December 2008 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 ISBN 978-0-642-79127-6 (Printed version) ISBN 978-0-642-79128-3 (HTML version) Cover design by Lisa McDonald, House of Representatives Printing and Publishing Office Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................vii Membership of the Committee ..........................................................................................................xiii Terms of reference.............................................................................................................................xv List of abbreviations .........................................................................................................................xvii List of recommendations ...................................................................................................................xix THE REPORT 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Referral of the inquiry............................................................................................................... 1 The immigration detention context ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
    Submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Submission on laws, policies and practice affecting migrants, refugees and citizens from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds January 2021 Sydney Centre for International Law The University of Sydney Law School Building (F10) Camperdown Campus, The University of Sydney NSW 2006 [email protected] With Macquarie Law School Social Justice Clinic About the Sydney Centre for International Law The Sydney Centre for International Law (SCIL) was established in 2003 as a centre of excellence in research and teaching in international law. The centre fosters innovative, interdisciplinary scholarship across the international legal field, and also provides an avenue for the public to access international legal expertise. It operates within the University of Sydney Law School, building upon its well-recognised history of strength in this area. This submission was prepared by the following SCIL interns under the supervision and with the assistance of SCIL Director Professor Mary Crock. Parts 1 – 3; Part 10 Sarah Charak*; Wendy Chen*; Angus Chen*; Sherry Xueyi Jin; John McCrorie*; Leah Park; Rachel Sun*; Emma Louise Tirabosco;* Siobhan Walsh; Frank Gang Yang. Parts 4 - 6 Freya Appleford*; Sarah Charak; Angus Chen; Jake Jerogin*; Emma Kench*; Maxine McHugh; Miranda Hutchenson; Anton Nguyen*; Alexandra Touw; Jiann Yap; Alan Zheng*; Kevin Zou*; Part 7 Jess Mitchell*; Anisha Gunawardhana*; Part 8 Mary Crock; Olivia Morris; Part 9 Mary Crock with Macquarie University Law School Social Justice Clinic and the National Justice Project– Associate Professor Daniel Ghezelbash; Thomas Boyes, Sarah Croake, Jemy Ma; and Sara Hakim* (as a volunteer at the National Justice Project).
    [Show full text]
  • Project Safecom News and Updates Monday, 4 May 2015
    Project SafeCom News and Updates Monday, 4 May 2015 Subscribe and become a member here: http://www.safecom.org.au/ref-member.htm 1. Labour exploitation, slave-like conditions found on farms supplying biggest supermarkets 2. 'Prosecutions should stop': Auschwitz survivor angers co-plaintiffs 3. ASIO Act could conceal ‘torture, murder by agents’ 4. Tony Abbott's Indigenous 'lifestyle choices' remark smacks of racism, says UN rapporteur 5. Bruce Haigh: Bali Nine pair ‘victims’ of ‘flawed relationship’ with Indonesia 6. Bali 9: our selective compassion has come undone 7. Bali 9 executions: Abbott government backflipped on AFP death penalty directive 8. Chan and Sukumaran execution 'illegal', but Indonesia ignores Australia again 9. Australia expelling Iranian sheikh violated human rights, UN body finds 10. The Saturday Paper: Factions jockeying over key ALP policies 11. Right to freedom of speech cannot breach employment contract 12. Australia Blasted For 'Paying Cambodia To Take Refugees Off Its Hands' 13. Nauru opposition says Facebook shut down 14. Nauru's ban on Facebook angers opposition and refugee advocates 15. MEDIA RELEASE: Refugees say NO to Cambodia 16. MEDIA RELEASE: Immigration turns screws on Manus refugees to force transfers 17. Boy with autism who faces deportation hand-delivers letter to Peter Dutton 18. Townsville boy with autism writes to Immigration Minister asking not be deported 19. New bridging visa for autistic boy and mother, with deportation to be reviewed 20. Immigration, Customs and Border Protection staff move
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry Into The
    Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act By Angus Francisi Introduction This submission focuses on the first term of reference of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act. In particular, this submission focuses on the administration and operation of the detention and removal powers of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘MA’). The Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon cases highlight the failure of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘DIMIA’) to properly administer the detention and removal powers found in the MA. According to Mick Palmer, the head of the government initiated inquiry into the detention of Cornelia Rau, this is a result of inadequate training, insufficient internal controls, lack of management oversight and review, a failure of co-ordination between Federal, State and non-government agencies, as well as a culture within the compliance and detention sections of DIMIA that is ‘overly self-protective and defensive’.ii The Palmer Report unearthed what has laid stagnant on the surface of earlier public inquiries into the operation of the MA: an attitude within government that the powers to detain and remove unlawful non-citizens are wide and unfettered. This attitude is evident in the way in which the detention and removal powers in the MA are often exercised without due regard or concern for the individual subject to those powers. This position is unlikely to change, even if, as inquiry head Mick Palmer recommended, effective personnel and cultural change takes place within DIMIA.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia Has an Appalling History of Mismanagement of Welfare Issues Relating to People Detained in Its Immigration Centres
    Macquarie Law Journal (2005) Vol 5 81 CONTRACTUALISM, EXCLUSION AND ‘MADNESS’ IN AUSTRALIA’S ‘OUTSOURCED WASTELANDS’ ∗ LYNDA CROWLEY-CYR I INTRODUCTION Australia has an appalling history of mismanagement of welfare issues relating to people detained in its immigration centres. How is this possible in the ‘lucky country’ where Australians pride themselves on mateship and giving everyone ‘a fair go’? Theories of contemporary contractualism1 offer one possible explanation. Most concepts of the state2 assume statehood involves certain functions. This article deals with the way that different facets of the state - especially its market, fortress and security facets - have fused together to manage ‘wasted lives’3 in detention centres in Australia. This fusion of the state has converted ‘illegal outsiders’ (asylum seekers and refugees) into ‘rightless’ homines sacri.4 My intention is to use contemporary contractualism as the lens through which we can consider how the state has failed to discharge its obligations to detainees under its care. Contemporary contractualism is an ideology that legitimates exclusion by limiting its process to the purchase of outputs rather than the delivery of outcomes.5 This is a ∗ LLB (QUT), LLM (JCU), James Cook University. This article is based on a paper presented at the British Criminology Conference, Leeds, 12-14 July 2005. My special thanks to Professor Paul Havemann and Carole Caple for their invaluable assistance in the development of the ideas in this article. 1 I use the term ‘contemporary contractualism’ here to refer to transactions that can appear contractual in nature but that do not necessarily draw on the principles of contract law as traditionally understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Letter from Former Australian Ambassadors to Prime Minister
    open letter from former Australian diplomats to Prime Minister Scott Morrison The Hon Scott Morrison MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Prime Minister We are a group of former Australian diplomats who have served our country around the world. We write because of our real concern about the course the US Trump administration appears to be taking in relation to Israel and its conflict with the Palestinian people. For decades since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, Australia has sought to play a supportive role in the international community’s efforts to steer Israel and the Palestinians towards a just and enduring peaceful settlement. We have rightly supported the rights of all states in the region, including Israel, to live in peace and security; and embraced the rights of the Palestinian people to self- determination. The Oslo peace process, begun in 1993, made early encouraging progress towards a settlement and established the foundations for agreement between the two sides. The process was largely guided by the United States through the expert contributions of many notable capable State Department officials and others. Key issues which were always going to be difficult to resolve – but none of which is inherently insoluble - were the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ right of return, and Israeli settlements. What was lacking – and is now obvious to us all – is that Israel simply has not been prepared to entertain the notion of the existence of a viable independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Nor has it shown any interest in accepting that Jerusalem would become the shared capital of two countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Serious Allegations of Abuse, Self-Harm and Neglect of Asylum
    The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre April 2017 Commonwealth of Australia 2017 ISBN 978-1-76010-563-1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. This document was produced by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee secretariat and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. ii Members of the committee Members Senator Louise Pratt (ALP, WA) (Chair) Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald (LNP, QLD) (Deputy Chair) Senator Patrick Dodson (ALP, WA) Senator David Fawcett (LP, SA) to replace Senator Linda Reynolds from 15.02.2017 Senator Nick McKim (AG, TAS) Senator Murray Watt (ALP, QLD) Former member Senator Linda Reynolds (LP, WA) until 15.02.2017 Participating member Senator Derryn Hinch (DHJP, VIC) Secretariat Ms Toni Matulick, Committee Secretary Ms Pothida Youhorn, Principal Research Officer Ms Charlotte Fletcher, Senior Research Officer Mr Nicholas Craft, Senior Research Officer Ms Jo-Anne Holmes, Administrative Officer Suite S1.61 Telephone: (02) 6277 3560 Parliament House Fax: (02) 6277 5794 CANBERRA ACT 2600 Email: [email protected] iii Chair's foreword Australia's policy of offshore processing has been the subject of a number of Senate inquiries. These inquires have been highly critical of many aspects of the Regional Processing Centre (RPC) policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 133650 133650.Pdf (409.6Kb)
    (This is a version of an article with the same title published in Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol 23, no 5, 2009, pp. 575-595.) Still from Lucky Miles © Sam Oster / Silvertrace, 2007. Reprinted with permission. Introduction: Heterochronotopes of Exception and the Frontiers and Faultlines of Citizenship Suvendrini Perera and Jon Stratton Department of Cultural Studies, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. GPO Box U1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845. Anyone who had imagined that the demise of the Howard government would put an end to the public preoccupation with boat arrivals that characterised its period in office was proven wrong in early 2009 when the arrival of unauthorised asylum seekers once again become a topic of national prominence. In 2008 fourteen boats carrying people seeking asylum had reached Australian waters. While this figure was a significant increase from the three boats detected the previous year, it remained relatively unremarked until April 17, 2009, when a boat, identified as Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel (SIEV) 36, carrying 47 Afghan asylum seekers, exploded as it was being towed to Christmas Island where those on board would be detained while their asylum claims were assessed. The event conjures memories of the unnamed SIEV, SIEV X, which, sank in international waters off Java on October 19, 2001, causing the deaths of 353 people, primarily women and children (Marr and Wilkinson 2003; Kevin 2004). Unlike that desperate night, this time the Australian navy was on hand to help. Still, five people died. Many more were severely burned and had to be air-lifted to hospitals in Darwin, Perth and Brisbane.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Apartheid Movements in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand
    The anti-apartheid movements in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand By Peter Limb Introduction The history of the anti-apartheid movement(s) (AAM) in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia is one of multi-faceted solidarity action with strong international, but also regional and historical dimensions that gave it specific features, most notably the role of sports sanctions and the relationship of indigenous peoples’ struggles to the AAM. Most writings on the movement in Australia are in the form of memoirs, though Christine Jennett in 1989 produced an analysis of it as a social movement. New Zealand too has insightful memoirs and fine studies of the divisive 1981 rugby tour. The movement’s internal history is less known. This chapter is the first history of the movement in both countries. It explains the movement’s nature, details its history, and discusses its significance and lessons.1 The movement was a complex mosaic of bodies of diverse forms: there was never a singular, centralised organisation. Components included specific anti-apartheid groups, some of them loose coalitions, others tightly focused, and broader supportive organisations such as unions, churches and NGOs. If activists came largely from left- wing, union, student, church and South African communities, supporters came from a broader social range. The liberation movement was connected organically not only through politics, but also via the presence of South Africans, prominent in Australia, if rather less so in New Zealand. The political configuration of each country influenced choice of alliance and depth of interrelationships. Forms of struggle varied over time and place. There were internal contradictions and divisive issues, and questions around tactics, armed struggle and sanctions, and how to relate to internal racism.
    [Show full text]