Abbott’s hypocrisy on asylum seekers

The Coalition is engaged in further hypocrisy.

1. The Coalition (both under Howard and more recently through Morrison’s own words) has supported Nairu as an appropriate venue well before Nairu had signed the UN Convention on Refugees.

2. The current Abbott policy still does not deal with human rights concerns. It is threatening, where it is safe to do so, to send boats back to Indonesia (a non-signatory to the Refugee convention). Indonesia has refused to accept any boat people back. It is viewed by our Navy as a hazardous journey.

3. Nairu will not work on its own – as 80 to 90% of the boat arrivals will head back to Australia. It needs further action if it is to succeed.

4. Gillard has been able to win additional human right guarantees from Malaysia. The new rights will apply to Australian asylum seekers but they could put greater pressure on Malaysia to give similar rights to other asylum seekers.

I would like to see these facts spelt out more fully by Gillard.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Abbott’s hypocrisy on asylum seekers

  1. hammygar says:

    I maintained in a comment to one of Ken Parish’s posts that we should send large ships (obsolete but seaworthy cruise ships or container ships) to Indonesia to transport refugees to Australia safely. Since then Clive Palmer has come out and made a similar proposal.

    We will have to increase out intake to somewhat more than 20,000 (even to unlimited by any pre-determined number as refugees get to know about our offer). But as Lee Rhiannon points out, you can’t put a price on human life.

    To those who claim that we’d be swamped by considerably more than even our current total immigration intake, we shouldn’t be fazed by this. Our unconscionably high standard of living in this country is immoral when we compare it with the standard of living of the quoted 47 million refugees world-wide. We must share our good fortune. We have no alternative.

    Our action in this regard would be a good example to all other Western countries, who’d have to follow our example.

    • Chris Lloyd says:

      “Our unconscionably high standard of living in this country is immoral when we compare it with the standard of living of the quoted 47 million refugees world-wide. We must share our good fortune. We have no alternative.” I know of no ethical principle that makes it unconscionable to have a higher standard of living than others if ti does no harm to others. We certainly do have an alternative. Unless you home is permanently open to the homeless then you are a complete hypocrite my friend.

      • Nick says:

        “Unless you home is permanently open to the homeless then you are a complete hypocrite my friend.”

        And here was me thinking all hammygar meant was that pretty much all of us can afford to give a small amount of what we have, and while it’ll make an unnoticeable difference to our lives, such is the disparity, it’ll make a noticeable difference to those we give it to. I know, I know. It’s radical stuff. Nothing like any ethical principles I’ve ever come across.

        I’ll always give change to the poor and the addicted and the homeless when I’m asked. As I yukked to my friend I was walking with the other day “yeah, I make it a rule to give away 1/500th of my income every week”…

        I’d happily call anyone who’s not prepared to do that a complete hypocrite. What are they hypocritical about you ask? Ask them why they’re not prepared to. You’ll soon find out.

        “actually it’s the well-intentioned guy who’s the complete hypocrite because no matter how much he does share, he won’t keep his door open 24/7 to the homeless!”

        • Yobbo says:

          How you can possibly get that from what Hammygar said I have no idea. What Hammygar said is that we should open our borders and let the poor pour in and share our wealth.

          You first.

  2. Peter Patton says:

    But as Lee Rhiannon points out, you can’t put a price on human life.

    This is rubbish and has been for millennia. In fact, since the 17th, a highly trained, smart, and well-paid profession has been dying precisely that. They are known as “actuaries”. Oh, and have you spread good new to all those involved in life insurance? You have quoted Air Rhiannon once, which is a misfortune…

  3. Katz says:

    The Coalition’s illogical, inconsistent, contradictory, irrelevant, and hypocritical, policy statements on this issue have only served to improve their poll numbers.

    Coincidence. Or not. You decide.

    • Fred Argy says:

      Yes you are right, Katz.

      The improvement in Coalition’s polling is due to
      1. Abbott’s highly effective lies on carbon tax and asylum seekers (managed even better than Dr. Goebbels);
      2. Gillard’s inability to respond adequately to the lies – perhaps because the issues are too dense; and
      3. Gillard’s broken promise on carbon tax.

      Abbott is proving a difficult adversary.

  4. Pedro says:

    Love the typo, but to the main point, perhaps the circumstances of the deal with Nauru were such that the Coalitions’ current fears were not relevant. Nauru was toeing our line while the Malaysians would be far more independent.

    Turning a boat back to the country of origin is not the same as taking the passengers to a different country. We don’t stop people having bali holidays despite Indonesia not having signed the convention. The starting point is that we don’t want illegal arrivals.

  5. Yobbo says:

    The Coalition (both under Howard and more recently through Morrison’s own words) has supported Nairu as an appropriate venue well before Nairu had signed the UN Convention on Refugees.

    Because Nauru has a long history of human rights abuses, doesn’t it Fred?

    You people will clutch at any straw to try and smear Abbott. Just face facts: This labor government is a dud, and anyone (including Abbott) would be far, far better.

  6. Patrick says:

    Our action in this regard would be a good example to all other Western countries, who’d have to follow our example.

    Just like with the carbon tax…um, or not.

  7. Chris Lloyd says:

    As has been noted elsewhere, if either party really cared about deaths at sea they would stop confiscating or destroying the boats. That policy ensures that unseaworthy boats are used. In principle, any cost levied on the intermediary will always be passed on to the consumer/refugee. But everyone is pretending that the smugglers are the bad guys.

    The Malaysia deal would surely have worked. The spectacle to refugees in Malaysia of seeing those who get on boats forcible returned while others are automatically given entry to Australia in their place would surely have reversed the incentives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.