As supporters of refugees' rights prepared to mark August 26, the anniversary of the rescue of 433 refugees by the MV Tampa, as Tampa Day to shame the federal government, immigration minister Philip Ruddock fought back.
On August 24, Ruddock had the gall to claim that the federal government's anti-refugee "border protection" policies were "part of our commitment to providing humanitarian assistance for those most at risk". That was a blatant lie.
The Coalition government has never been interested in helping those "most at risk". If it had been, Ruddock's government in May would not have cut the Australian government's annual contribution to the UN High Commission for Refugees by almost 50%, from $14 million to $7.3 million. While a further $14.3 million was allocated to "special programs", its allocation is decided according to the Australian government's priorities, not the UNHCR's.
If the government was serious about helping those most at risk, it would have left Australia's annual refugee and humanitarian quota at 12,000 — which was what it was when it came to power. If it was really serious, it would have increased the quota to 20,000, which was the level from which the previous Labor government reduced it in the late 1980s.
Announcing the government's refugee and humanitarian quotas for 2002-03, Ruddock revealed that the intake of UNHCR-assessed refugees would remain the same as the previous year, at 4000, while humanitarian entrants would increase to 7000 (from 4200) and just 1000 places would be set aside for onshore arrivals.
Ruddock's announcement of an increase in offshore resettlements of almost 3000 did not mention the fact that the increase would come from an expansion of the number of entrants admitted under the special humanitarian category, and not the refugee resettlement category.
The special humanitarian category allows for the government to resettle people who are subject to "substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights in their home country", but do not fit the UNHCR definition of a refugee. This is precisely the situation which many onshore asylum seekers find themselves in, but few are granted humanitarian visas.
This is utter hypocrisy by a minister who has spearheaded a campaign to dismiss as fraudulent the claims of asylum seekers who arrive onshore and, according to Australia's assessment, don't meet the UN refugee definition. Ruddock's August 24 statement reinforced his demonisation of boat arrivals: "More offshore resettlement places are available so more people, who don't have the money to pay a people smuggler for a new identity and fabricated story of persecution will be able to come to Australia."
Those resettled from offshore through the special humanitarian category must be supported by a person or organisation in Australia. This favours those who already have family members here. It also means that the main selection factor is not need but the availability of a sponsor.
It is true that no boats have made it to the Australian mainland since the Tampa was stopped. Yet, Ruddock doesn't publicise the fact that, in the four months from September to December, 15 boats attempted to get to Australia but were turned back by the navy or were unable to make it. He certainly doesn't mention that a 16th boat, known as SIEV-X, sank while the navy stood by.
The government proudly claims that Australia has the gruesome honour of being seen as so brutal and vicious that desperate refugees fleeing war and repression — the people who are "most at risk" by anybody's definition — prefer to seek asylum elsewhere. More than anything else, this exposes Ruddock and his government's real "commitment to providing humanitarian assistance for those most at risk".
From Green Left Weekly, September 4, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.