some years ago, i and many others, fought and demonstrated against the toxic verbal bile that was mouthed then by what was seen to be by most australians, as a fringe party. their disgusting rantings only proved them to be an ultra-racist party. some politicians agreed with them, some used them politically whilst the rest whimpered and whispered in case they lost votes.
the greater load of racist rubbish was aimed at those they conceived to be non-australians, including of course aborigines who historically are more australian than anyone. but the most poisonous vitriol was aimed at those called refugees or asylum seekers to describe them correctly.
it took people of conscience to bring this party to its knees even though there are still the odd twitchings of the party attempting a political lazarus.
that party of course was one nation and its fire-haired leader, pauline hanson.
sadly however, it is my solemn duty to have to inform hanson that she will now need to come up with a more draconian platform to push here agenda of hate.
i watched gough whitlam pour the dirt into lingiari’s hand and agree that it was always aboriginal land. i watched as malcolm fraser accepted the veitnamese boat people and welcomed them into australia as true asylum seekers. he fully upheld the un convention on asylum seekers for which act he has great honour. i watched the same prime minister endorse and push the land rights act into the nt.
since then, however, we have been shamed by every prime minister from bob hawke to julia gillard on these two human rights issues. the two main parties in our federal government can now be considered as acolytes of the one nation party.
i am absolutely disgusted by their collective actions. each attempting to outdo the other to see who can hit a social hell first!
by their actions they prove themselves to ignore several human rights facts that not only demean our parliaments but also demean us as a nation. and a supposedly christian nation at that as exampled by the prayers heard in our parliaments. the words mean nothing. their prayers are more based on the white australian policy than any bible.
allow me to put some facts to my argument.
there are no australian embassies in afghanistan, nor sri lanka, or iraq and none in burma to name just four countries. consequently there is no queue to join in these countries. so please ignore such calls as they are but empty words from questionable sources.
the un refugee convention was founded in 1951 and most countries of the world, including australia that signed the convention into australian law. the original need for the convention was the many millions of people who were either stateless or could not, or would not, return to their country of birth at the completion of ww2. australia took what it saw as their fair share of these refugees/asylum seekers. and it is undisputed history that our country grew in an positive manner.
this influx was counter-balanced by schemes as ‘bring out a briton’ and the ‘ten pound pom’ to name just two. another, but far more criminal action, was the bringing out the british youth, those now known as the ‘forgotten australians’ to whom krudd also made an apology.
boat people were an unknown entity to australia but quite common in europe so we were lulled into a false sense that we were in charge of who came here. from time to time events of asylum seeking did occur, perhaps the most famous being mrs petrov as she was being bundled into a russian aircraft.
to the best of my memory the defeat of the american forces in vietnam allowed for the first boat arrivals from that country as people of sth vietnam, including those who had worked for the americans, attempted to save their lives and seek safety for their families. as was their inalienable right under the convention. then pm fraser accepted our obligations as per the un convention and, again, we grew to accept our new australian citizens.
bob hawke then knifed bill hayden just prior to the election to become prime minister. it was his government that attempted to side-step the un convention and apply their own interpretations of the convention. paul keating, whilst being dragged kicking and screaming did do some positive things for aborigines. his redfern speech is still as powerful then as it remains to be. his actions on asylum seekers was less honourable.
howard plumbed new depths in his fascistic actions to stop ‘coloured people’ and non-christian faiths being found to be legitimate asylum seekers. they became the pawns of criminals and their human rights were ignored whilst the government huffed and puffed about a faux concern for their safety at the hands of these criminals who provided assistance, for a price, to reach australia. this practice is thousands of years old and probably will continue for thousands more should our world continue. during the second world war such people were war heroes, now our governments label them as criminals.
one way to slow down the exercise, perhaps, is to take those already assessed by the unhcr as legitimate refugees and lower the numbers in the camps, including malaysia. we have already stated we will accept 4 000 from that country, so lets take them.
the reason that narau is not favoured by the gillard government is that during its use by howard, we and nz finished up with some 90% of the camp residents as bona fide asylum seekers. the problem was that a large number of that intake had been mentally scarred by that process so it cost us much more to properly treat and settle these successful applicants. our once great labor party has now become so mired in their horror of dealing humanely with the current asylum seekers that nauru must be off limits to make sure that there is no chance that they can be processed by the unhcr and finish up back in australia. another system is needed to make sure that when they are processed that they become an addition to the tail end of many other thousands of hopefuls who have already been waiting in the camps for years. hence malaysia is favoured. no risk of return to australia therefore keeping australia relatively and safely white.
australia is a signatory to the un convention to the rights of the child yet every day we are bombarded with news that their rights as asylum seekers, whether accompanied or not, are to be excised from that convention to allow them to be sent to the tragedy that is the malaysian camps. this is just beyond the pale, it is an attack on their human rights, it is a social and criminal abomination that is being done in our name by our governments that have totally lost their way. i have nothing but disgust for both the labor and the coalition that dare to put my name to their nefarious and inhumane actions. i have but two more points to make.
firstly, these governments rule over the stolen lands of the traditional owners and yet firmly believe that they have some moral right to dictate who comes seeking refuge on stolen aboriginal lands. i do not accept that they have that right. our lands were invaded 223 years ago and australia has become most wealthy on our sequestrated resources. the current asylum seekers being imprisoned in isolated privately managed-for-profit incarceration camps, with the singular exception of xmas island, are all on aboriginal lands. and i as a wiradguri man say to those asylum seekers, you are most welcome to our lands. i realise of course that other aborigines may have different views to mine and, of course, that is their right. but i will state most strongly in their defence that these refugees did not invade us, they did not steal our lands, they did not suppress our culture and language, they did not commit genocide, they did not steal our children,they did not steal our wages, they did not steal our human rights as a first people to exist and to grow. the parliaments of the invaders have done all that and more.
again, i say to the asylum seekers, you are welcome to our lands.
secondly, as i have put so many times, these racist one nation clones do not speak in my name.
indigenous social justice association
Government should not revive Malaysian agreement
The Australian Human Rights Commission has expressed its concern at todays announcement that the Migration Act and the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act will be amended to enable third-country processing of asylum seekers.
Commission President Catherine Branson QC said the Commission recognised the need for regional and international cooperation on asylum seekers but was concerned the amendments could lead to serious human rights breaches.
The government should not seek to undermine our international obligations under the Refugee Convention by sending asylum seekers to third countries, particularly vulnerable groups such as families, unaccompanied minors and survivors of torture and trauma.
Ms Branson said the Commission was concerned that third-country processing could breach Australias obligation to not return anyone to their home country if doing so would place them in danger.
The agreement with Malaysia should not be revived. It does not provide adequate access to basic services such as health and education, she said.
There is also a real risk that those transferred could be seriously mistreated.
The Commission is also concerned that the amendments could lead to unaccompanied minors being sent to third countries.
She said Australia had promised to respect the rights set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting them.
All unaccompanied minors should have a legal guardian who makes decisions in their best interests, Ms Branson said.
We should not be amending our laws in ways that undermine the obligation to respect the best interests of the child.
In the vast majority of cases, it is difficult to see how transferring a child to a third country could be in their best interests.
Media contact: Louise McDermott (02) 9284 9851 or 0419 258 597
indigenous social justice association