I
was about to publish your reactions to the child overboard scandal when the government said the Chief of the Navy, Vice-Admiral David Shackleton, was about to put out a retraction of his statement that the navy had never advised the government that any child had been thrown overboard.
Here’s the statement and my take on what it means, then some advice on voting formally, and the second instalment of the Edmund Rice centres’ series on debunking the myths on asylum seekers.
***
What does the Shackleton statement mean?
It says:
Statement by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral David Shackleton AO RAN
“An AAP report (1640 8/11/01) attributed to me, following today’s farewell of HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Kanimbla in Western Australia, concerning unauthorised boat arrivals is inaccurate.
“My comments in no way contradict the Minister.
“I confirm the Minister was advised that Defence believed children had been thrown overboard.”
Further information: Tim Bloomfield (Department of Defence) Ph 0404 822361
Note that Shackleton is not withdrawing his prior statements in any way. His statement was that no children were thrown overboard on the day in question. He said the video did not prove the ministers’ claims, but showed only that a child was held over the side but not thrown in the water.
I rang Mr Bloomfield. He said that “the defence department advised the minister that defence believed children had been thrown overboard”. I asked who in the defence department gave that advice. He refused to say. I asked who advised the defence department of the matter. He refused to say. But he did make it clear that the NAVY had never given such advice. This backs the navy sources quoted in the Australian yesterday, that the incident alleged by the government did not take place.
Shackleton also said at his press conference before the statement: `A lot of children were in the water the next day when the boat was sinking.” The photos released by Reith which he said were taken after children were thrown overboard were in fact of the next day’s events, when the boats were sinking.
I asked the spokesman what, if anything, the navy did to correct the record after Reith released the photos. He refused to answer.
So the key questions remain. It is conceivable that someone in the defence department got the wrong end of the stick in the first advice to Ruddock. how? And what happened next? Who did the ONA assessment, and on what basis? Who saw the video and told Reith it proved the claim? Why did Ruddock and Reith claim navy officers had witnessed the alleged throwing overboard and accused skeptics of calling them liars? Who provided the photos as proof? Did anyone advise Reith that the photos were unrelated to the throwing overboard claim? And did the navy seek to correct the record with the ministers? We need to see all relevant documents, at the very least.
A few things are clear though. First, the government wrongly claimed that asylum seekers had thrown their children overboard to harass the navy, and thus made political capital out of something that never happened.
Second, the photographs the government released and said recorded and proved the alleged event did no such thing.
Third, government claims that a video proved the claim were also false.
Fourth, so fair none of the men who made the claim and then demonised innocent people – Howard, Ruddock and Reith – have withdrawn the claim, or apologised to the people they defamed.
****
Several readers have asked if they can write “Tampa” on their ballot paper without their vote being informal. Yes, but be careful.
The Australian Electoral Commission – which has received thousands of emails on the subject, advised me that “if an elector were to write a slogan on a ballot paper he/she must be extremely careful that the words or marks do not identify them and that the words or marks do not obscure the numbers in the boxes (ie. their vote)”.
In other words, write Tampa or any other slogan you want at the top or bottom of your ballot paper – do not write it over the candidates names or the numbers you put beside them. Do NOT write your name on the ballot paper.
Many readers are still asking if there is any way to vote which does not give a preference to either the Coalition or the ALP. No! The AEC, which again has been inundated with emails asking how to avoid preferencing a major party, advises: “In 1998 the Parliament enacted the Electoral and Referendum Act 1998, which among other things, repealed various sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The result is that, while it is no longer an offence to encourage a 1,2,3,3,3, … Langer-style vote, such votes will not be counted as formal votes for the House of Representatives.
“In order to cast a vote for the House of Representatives and the Senate in federal elections, voters are required by law to cast a full preferential vote. This means that you must place a preference number against the name of each and every candidate on the House of Representatives ballot paper in an electoral Division, and against the name of each and every candidate on the Senate ballot paper in a State or Territory (unless utilising a Group Ticket Vote for the Senate).”
This is the AEC’s advice on how to cast a vote that will be counted.
“To cast a formal vote you are required to do the following:
House of Representatives
A voter at a House of Representatives election is obliged to:
* place the number 1 in the square on the ballot paper opposite the name of the candidate for whom they give his/her first preference; and
* place consecutive numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires), without the repetition of any number, in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of preference for them.
Senate
A voter at a Senate election is obliged to vote in one of two ways:
Above the line: by recording a ticket vote by placing the number 1 in one of the squares printed on the top of the ballot paper for the purposes of ticket voting; or
Below the line: by numbering the squares opposite the names of the candidates printed on the bottom half of the ballot paper in exactly the same way as if recording a vote in a House of Representatives election.”
***
Direct action: The Boat People Tactical Media Group is heading down to the Opera House tonight at 10:30 pm to make its final statement prior to the federal election. Get down to check out how activists are responding to Howard’s shameful race card election ploy! And watch out for other projections throughout the city tonight!
DEBUNKING MORE MYTHS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS
I published the Edmund Rice Centre’s first myth-debunking document early in the Tampa debate. Here’s their next lot. Their site is www.erc.org.au
Myth 9: Australia is second only to Canada in the number of refugees it takes
Fact: This is incorrect. This claim is based on the fact that Australia is one of only eight countries whose immigration program actually specifies an annual quota of refugees and at 12,000 Australia’s quota is the second highest on a per capita basis. However, as UNHCR reports indicate, many more than eight countries take refugees and asylum seekers – but unlike Australia they do not set a fixed number. These are the facts:
71 countries accept refugees and asylum seekers in some form or other
Of the 71 Australia is ranked 32nd ;
On a per capita basis Australia is ranked 38th, slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, Djibouti and Syria;
Of the 29 developed countries that accept refugees and asylum seekers Australia is ranked 14th. Per capita, the US takes twice as many refugees as Australia.
Myth 10: The people in the boats are terrorists
Fact: This is incorrect. Just 11 of more than 13,000 people who sought asylum in Australia last year were rejected on “character grounds”. Only one was regarded as a security risk because of suspected terrorist links. He had come by air, not by boat.
Government intelligence briefings concerning the threat of terrorist attacks have not mentioned asylum seekers. There remains no evidence that any asylum seekers currently arriving by boat have any connection to terrorism. Those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks did not arrive in the United States as Asylum Seekers. They flew first class using valid papers.
The people in the boats are fleeing from the terrorism of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Linking the atrocities in the United States with the boat people is akin to blaming the Jews for fleeing Hitler. People fleeing oppression have a right to claim asylum and have those claims assessed.
Myth 11: Refugees should stay in the first country they come to and `join the queue’
Fact: Australia has not taken a single refugee from the UNHCR in Jakarta – from the so-called ‘queue’ – for more than three years. This is despite the rhetoric from Australian politicians for asylum seekers to be processed in Indonesia. It should also be noted that UNHCR centre in Indonesia was set up by Australia with Indonesian support. Refugees cannot stay in Indonesia because Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
There is no requirement in international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Some developed countries have made this an additional requirement in order to avoid processing claims, leaving the large numbers of asylum seekers in camps in Third World countries. International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country. Australia’s current policy does not accord with this requirement.
Some people have given up on the ‘queue’ and resorted to coming by boat. 24 of those who recently died when their ship sank off the coast of Indonesia had already been granted refugee status by the UNHCR in Jakarta. Many more had relations in Australia who had been provided with asylum but were not allowed access to their wives and children. Simply, the ‘queue’ does not work.
Myth 13: Getting tough on refugees does not affect Australia’s international reputation
Fact: The Australian Government’s stance on boat people has attracted widespread international condemnation. The President of Pakistan recently claimed that he should not be forced to open the border to Afghanistan to allow in refugees because Pakistan already had 2.5 million refugees whilst Australia was turning away a few hundred.
The Howard Government’s policy represents a change in the Liberal party’s position. In 1985 current Minister, Phillip Ruddock criticised the then Labor Government for reducing its intake of refugees from Vietnam. In 1998 the Government rejected Pauline Hanson’s call for temporary visas to be given to all refugees. However, the Government later introduced a similar proposal for those arriving without valid papers. Ms Hanson also called for the use of the navy to repel boats coming to Australia in February this year, six months before the Tampa incident.
Myth 14: Australia is a `soft touch’
Fact: Compared to other nations, Australia takes a hard-line approach to asylum seekers. All people are mandatorily detained. If successful they can only receive a 3-year temporary visa and cannot apply to have their families join them. The current policy has not stopped people coming. Asylum seekers come to Australia because they fear persecution. The numbers reflect the severity of the situation they are fleeing, not the policies of the countries they are fleeing to.
The Minister for Immigration recently commented that the drowning deaths of over 350 people trying to get to Australia would not deter others. If such events do not deter people, the costly use of the Australian navy will not deter them either. The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia has increased since the Tampa. The current policy has been extremely costly. So far it is estimated it has cost this year’s budget over $140 million in extra funding, bringing the total to $500million.
Myth 15: It is easier to get refugee status in Australia than overseas.
Fact: According to the UNHCR, the total acceptance rate for all asylum seekers in Australia is equivalent to other western countries.
The Government has claimed that Australia cannot afford to allow asylum seekers to land in Australia because our court system enables asylum seekers to appeal within our court system and thereby gain easier access to refugee status. In contrast, they claim that only 10-15% of Iraqi asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the UNHCR in the Middle East, and similar results are found in Indonesia. UNHCR figures do not support this. They have approved over 77% of Iraqi asylum seekers processed in Indonesia. This does not include those who gain access through the UNHCR’s appeal system.
Myth 16: People who destroy their identification can’t be genuine
Fact: Most refugees are not able to travel through conventional channels because they cannot obtain a passport from the government that is persecuting them, or they are fleeing from.
Identification documents enable not only Australian immigration officials to determine identity but also representatives of the regime people are fleeing. This places relatives within countries like Afghanistan and Iraq at risk. Moreover, people fleeing from political persecution are at greater risk within their own country if they can be identified when they are on the move.
Myth 17: Asylum seekers are “ungrateful” and behave badly
Fact: There has been a series of allegations in the media since the Tampa incident concerning the “behaviour” of asylum seekers. These claims have been continuously proven false. One newspaper reported that the violent activity of asylum seekers on board the Manoora led to a child having their arm broken. Defence Minister Peter Reith denied such reports. The Government has alleged that prior to being picked up by HMAS Adelaide refugees threw their children overboard. The Australian Navy’s video of the incident shows that these allegations cannot be substantiated.
Myth 18: Detention centres are better than the countries they have left behind
Fact: The German Government recently condemned detention centres, comparing them to concentration camps. Many asylum seekers have been the victims of persecution in the countries they have fled. For many, Australian detention centres continue their persecution by removing many basic human rights and freedoms including access to families, and to the media. Adequate support services for the most basic of needs are limited. Constant surveillance, musters and other intrusive practices characterise people’s daily lives. According to the Head of Psychiatry at Westmead Children’s Hospital, a young child confined within a detention centre was recently diagnosed with an extreme form of depression, directly attributable to his confinement. This was not a one-off case. Many cases of severe depression have been reported.
Myth 19: Sending boat people to other countries solves Australia’s asylum seeker problem
Fact: Australia pays for the processing of asylum seekers who are intercepted by the navy and then transported to other countries. Total bill for this policy is now $500 million, and rising. In contrast Iran receives $60 million to process over two million refugees.
Countries in the Pacific will not continue to accept asylum seekers coming to Australia. In the past Indonesia has accepted people for processing. However many nations, including Australia have refused to accept those who successfully receive refugee status. This has left the vast majority of asylum seekers in Indonesia indefinitely. Many in the Pacific fear the same will happen to them.