In aus.religion A 'Net friend wrote: [snip]

> The point of my post seems to have entirely escaped you. This was

> not a serious suggestion at all. (I thought it was kinda obvious)

> For starters the number of ppl voting YES would be minuscule. (for

> obvious reasons).

It was indeed obvious that your proposal could not seriously be implemented, but I was nevertheless attempting to take your hypothetical seriously and use it (as I thought was intended)

to bring out some of the issues.

> You are happily ranting and raving about your perceived lack of

> compassion on Australia's part, and of the Australian public, and

> what should and should not be and have been done. I am trying to

> personalize that, and suggest that if you, and others like you,

> were personally responsible for these ppl, would your attitude

> still be the same? I think not. When it is non personalized,

> and you can happily talk in abstracts like 'Australia',

> 'Australian government', 'taxpayers', etc., it's very easy to

> be philosophical, idealistic, and take the moral high ground. But

> when the practical realities are considered, we need to find real

> and practical solutions. Australia simply cannot afford to keep

> taking these ppl. That's the bottom line. Are you happy for our

> (limited) resources to be constantly channelled in this direction,

> and diverted from elsewhere, and with it's ever increasing burden

> on the aussie taxpayer? I'm not. Running a country is little

> different from running a business or a household. Money comes in,

> money goes out. More cannot go out than comes in, without serious

> consequences.. and serious decisions need to be made about how

> the money is spent. Simple economics.

I disagree, with respect.

First, as indicated in my response to you hypothetical, my attitude would not be different (I hope and trust) if I was saddled with personal responsibility (appropriately scaled) for care of illegal arrivals on our shores; and I think I am far from alone in this.

Second, I certainly disagree that we "cannot afford" to keep taking these people. In fact, the numbers of people involved are small, and the costs are not really that significant. Under existing laws and conventions, Australia does have a responsibility to people arriving legally on our shores, and we have no real problem meeting the costs associated with this responsibility.

We may not, legally speaking, simply turn away those who claim asylum.

Even now it remains possible (I think) that the courts will rule that the asylum seekers may not be discharged in PNG, but must legally be returned to Australia if they so request.

At present, we handle illegal arrivals who seek asylum by detention and investigation. If you are proposing some different method for handling illegal arrivals claiming asylum, by all means spell it out. Note that I agree in general with attempting to prevent these arrivals taking place in the first place.

Third, the situation of the Tampa is not that of an illegal people smuggler. The situation is unique, and without precedent. I disagree that taking the refugees off the hands of their rescue vessel would be setting a precedent for allowing any vessel to carry people from Indonesia to Australia.

I have seen nothing in the actions of the master of the Tampa which is other than exemplary. He diverted to pick up persons in distress. This is not unusual; most ships would do the same thing. He was not legally obligated, given the actual distance involved, but that is a detail. Nearly any responsible ship would do the same thing. Interestingly, since these events we have actually had at least one case of a ship refusing to respond to a request for help from Australian Search and Rescue, citing the failure of Australia to give proper followup support to the Tampa.

The rescue was far larger than originally expected by the Search and Rescue authorities. Original estimates, prior to the actual rescue, were of about 80 people. The Tampa was in an extraordinary situation, and grossly overcrowded. Furthermore, the concerns of chaos on board surrounding a return to Indonesia was a legitimate concern for the freighter captain. After being confronted by the refugees on the matter of destination, the Tampa contacted Australian Search and Rescue again. He was advised by AusR that as ship's master he had the absolute right to decide on the appropriate action. He decided to divert to Christmas Island, which was closer and which would calm his extra passengers. Australian Search and Rescue acknowledged without question this decision, and gave him advice on approach and customs handling when he arrived.

Only much later, a scant half hour before the Tampa was due to cross into Australian waters, did Australian politicians buy into what had up until then been a major but otherwise relatively straightforward rescue at sea crisis. They refused the Tampa permission to enter our waters.

The Tampa was now in a difficult position. The master had legimate concerns for health and safety. He had already made a substantial part of the journey to Christmas Island, now less than twenty miles away. He was being asked to backtrack once more, and sail hundreds of miles to Indonesia. He had, at this point (I think) lost contact with the Indonesian port authorities, though had not yet been officially denied permission by Indonesia. But on the other hand he knew (by the Australia about face) that there was no guarantee in Indonesia either. He had nearly 500 people on board.

He waited, outside the Australian border.

After a time, he declared a "pan-pan" (call for emergency assistance), but still remained outside our border. No help actually arrived. Another eighteen hours after that, he advised his intention to approach land; and then a few hours later proceeded to within two miles of Christmas Island.

> (I have to go now, but I will get back to you, and others, asap,

> as I am keen to continue this debate)

That is good. I think it is a good thing that this issue be discussed. I would also like to get better information on the events. My major source above is the Sydney Morning Herald, moderated by what I have read in a large range of other sources. The matter is made more difficult by our government's attempt to restrict information on the matter from being open to public scrutiny; another horrible precedent for a democracy.

I welcome an exchange of divergent views on this matter. I do not expect us to reach a consensus, but I hope some of the relevant issues will at least be clarified.

Best wishes -- Chris

In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: > "Chris Ho-Stuart" <> wrote in message

> .

[snip]

>> Even now it remains possible (I think) that the courts will rule

>> that the asylum seekers may not be discharged in PNG, but must

>> legally be returned to Australia if they so request.

>>

>> At present, we handle illegal arrivals who seek asylum by detention

>> and investigation. If you are proposing some different method

>> for handling illegal arrivals claiming asylum, by all means spell

>> it out. Note that I agree in general with attempting to prevent

>> these arrivals taking place in the first place.

>>

>> Third, the situation of the Tampa is not that of an illegal

>> people smuggler. The situation is unique, and without precedent.

>

> That is splitting hairs. The asylum seekers paid to be smuggled into

> Australia. It's widely known that once the asylum-seekers are on a boat,

the > smugglers then cause it to slowly sink so as the boat people can be

rescued > and taken to their destination.

> Granted, the Tampa itself played no illegal part.

The more usual state of affairs is for people to be rescued by coastwatch. In this case, the people are invariably taken to Australia. Where else? Australia does not have the legal right to simply deposit these people in Indonesia or other countries. And I do not think we can simply ignore a sinking ship, based on a presumption that it is being deliberately scuttled.

Actually, Indonesia has primary responsibibility for search and rescue in seas north of Christmas Island, but for obvious reasons Australia should still patrol those waters. In any case, Indonesia is pretty lax in their rescue efforts; and Indonesia is not actually legally obliged to accept people whom we rescue in that region, despite the area being nominally their responsibility.

But back to the case of the Tampa....

In this instance, we had another ship not directly involved in coastwatch, which responded to a request by the Australian Search and Rescue for assistance. The ship took on far more people than originally anticipated. When the captain became concerned about the situation, and diverted to the nearest port (Christmas Island), he did so after consultation with AusR. He was not at that point directed how to proceed by AusR -- they rather advised him that as master in charge he had full authority act as he saw fit based on his circumstances. The master of the Tampa then advised of his intent to proceed to Christmas Island. AusR co-operated with this action, and advised the Tampa on landing procedures and customs.

So far, nothing in events is untoward: all parties are acting as one would normally react to an emergency at sea.

But a few hours later, just as the Tampa is on the verge of entering the 12 mile nautical limit around Christmas Island, she receives another communication, that they are not welcome in Australia.

What message is being sent here.... I think the message is plain. Don't acknowledge or respond to Australian Search and Rescue requests for assistance. Let the coastwatch handle it themselves.

And I hate to say it, but by this stage my cynicism is complete. If the coastwatch gets there too late, and people drown, the general public of Australia will, for the most part, breath a sign of relief and wash their hands of the whole matter, because the refugees brought it on themselves, or because it is not really our problem, and because they are glad we don't have to handle another load of refugees.

>> I disagree that taking the refugees off the hands of their

>> rescue vessel would be setting a precedent for allowing any

>> vessel to carry people from Indonesia to Australia.

>

> It was reported by the media another 5000 were waiting to be bought over,

> that they were watching to see the outcome of the Tanda.

> A couple of days ago some refugees in Indonesia were interviewed, their

> entire focus was getting only to Australia, and as one person put it, they

> weren't asking, but demanding it.

I am sure there are lots of people waiting to make an illegal crossing. The media says lots of conflicting things; but I don't find the above particularly implausible.

Assuming the report is accurate, I would still not expect all 5000 to come over next month, but for that number of refugees attempting a crossing to be spread out over many months to a year. I do not think they are actually going to chose go/no go based on the Tampa. The risks are enormous, and the people involved are desperate. If we do not find some way of addressing the problems at the source, they will continue to come no matter what we do.

Many people are quite likely demanding asylum. They have cause. Current indications are that something like 90% of Afghan refugees assess as legitimate refugees fleeing real dangers. Of course their entire focus is on getting to Australia. And so, of course, it follows that we could have been rather more gracious to the Tampa without making a blind bit of difference to who decides to come or not. I am quite positive that the Tampa fiasco was really aimed for the Australian public. As a message to people smugglers it is not going to be effective, for the reasons you mention.

It also follows that in all likelihood, many of the refugees rescued by the Tampa are not simply wealthy people trying to improve their economic circumstances, but real refugees, who have real needs and legimate reasons for their tragic circumstances.

Cheers -- Chris

In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: [snip]

> You really are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact

> that too many Australians DO NOT have the basic needs, let alone

> a future. Expense is a very real problem. How can this country

> keep providing for new arrivals when it can't even keep hospital

> beds open, or have enough facilites for the aged and disabled

> or protect it's abused and homeless. There are too many people

> suffering in this country, without relief, where is the compassion

> and outcry for them.

I disagree that there is a major problem surrounding the expenses of handling illegal arrivals. Quote some figures for me if you disagree. This is a genuine request. I am not sure of the actual cost figures involved. I think we currently get a bit less than 5000 illegal arrivals by sea every year.

But even so, this is still not the point at issue with the Tampa. No matter what we had done with the Tampa, Australia will need to spend money on infrastructure to handle illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, drug addicts, and various other classes of people who are sometimes portrayed as people to whom we should not give any consideration.

With respect to the Tampa, we chose a highly expensive option. One could argue that this extra expense was justified as a way of discouraging others from attempting to come to Australia. I think that argument is very far fetched. The Tampa was not a people smuggler; its position was exceptional.

Personally, I think a more effective way to reduce the numbers of people attempting the crossing from Java to Christmas Island would be to try and streamline the legal application procedure. The backlogs are encouraging desperation; and legal arrivals do not cost us very much at all.

The costs of addressing other social problems within Australia are generally far greater than the costs of addressing the needs of aylum seekers. We can, and should, manage both; and being hard hearted and legalistic towards asylum seekers is not actually going to be a major factor in letting us be more caring for other needs. I frankly believe we would manager better all around, on all these various needs, to foster a general concern and compassion for the needs of others.

Cheers -- Chris

7 September 2001 (p.m.)