Proposed asylum law changes a test of MPs' values

29 May 2006

Federal parliamentarians cannot support harsh changes to Australia's refugee and asylum seeker laws and still claim to support basic Australian values, A Just Australia said.

AJA National Co-ordinator, Kate Gauthier, said the legislation was a test of whether Australia's parliamentarians were prepared to fight for and practice what they preach.

"This proposed change offends basic Australians values and breaks international standards for human rights.

"For example, how does sending people back to face persecution, denying genuine refugees asylum, indefinite detention or putting children in detention, meet the test of care and compassion?

"How does acquiescence with or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses meet the test of a 'fair go'? How does punishing innocent and vulnerable men, women and children for the sake of appeasing another country meet the test of a 'fair go'?"

Ms Gauthier said AJA had put together a list of key questions that MPs need to ask themselves before they debate and vote on the proposed changes. [These are attached]

"There has been a lot said about 'Australian values' by Australian politicians of all political persuasions, from the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Ministers and Government members, to the leaders and members of other political parties who take up their seats in Australia's Parliament.

"We challenge every MP to explain how this proposed law supports the values by which they want Australians to live. If, like AJA, they come to the view that the legislation does not meet the test of our values, we call on them to vote against it."

Ms Gauthier said the simple fact is the Australian Government found that 42 West Papuans were entitled to refugee status because of a genuine fear of persecution.

"Now, under pressure from the Indonesian Government, it seeks to change the law not only so that it can turn its back on those who are being persecuted but so that it can further punish them by condemning them to a second-rate and unfair decision-making process coupled with the possibility of indefinite detention as there will be no realistic resettlement options," she said.

"Prime Minister John Howard once promised that 'we will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come'. Unfortunately it now appears that Indonesia is making this decision for us."

Ms Gauthier said the passage of such a law that offends basic Australians values will leave those who support it with no claim to integrity; it will render the 'talk about Australian values empty and our Parliament and nation diminished.

>>>>>

THE QUESTIONS MPs NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES

Last year the Australian Government released 'Values for Australian Schooling'; the values they want all Australians to be taught and by which they want all Australians to live. They were listed as:
- care and compassion;
- doing your best;
- fair go;
- freedom;
- honesty and trustworthiness;
- integrity;
- respect;
- responsibility; and
- understanding, tolerance and inclusion.

Given that the consequences of this legislation includes denying asylum to genuine refugees or allowing them to face indefinite detention, returning people to persecution, and detention of children, we call on our MPs to explain the following:

1. How does sending people back to face persecution, denying genuine refugees asylum, indefinite detention or putting children in detention, meet the test of care and compassion?

2. How does doing these things meet the test of 'doing your best', that is, accomplishing something worthy and admirable?

3. How does denying those asylum seekers who arrive by boat from our north access to information, advice and support provided to others claiming asylum meet the test of a 'fair go'?

4. How does acquiescence with or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses meet the test of a 'fair go'? How does punishing innocent and vulnerable men, women and children for the sake of appeasing another country meet the test of a 'fair go'?

5. How do the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration about the reasons for this legislation withstand the test of 'honesty and trustworthiness'?

6. How do the proposed changes demonstrate respect? What respect are we showing ourselves when we are prepared to change our laws not because we believe they are wrong but because another country believes they are wrong?

7. How do the numerous breaches of not only our moral but legal duties that this new law represent meet the test of responsibility?

8. How does the new law support the calls for understanding, tolerance and inclusion?

9. How can the passage of such a law demonstrate integrity, that is, the willingness to act in accordance with these values?

10. Where do you draw the line and say that you can no longer defend the erosion of these values and make a stand for what is the right and principled thing to do?