Suffer little children

So the combined machinations and legislative manipulations of the Australian Governments and Oppositions (just a role reversal between the Liberal/National Coalition and the Labor party in recent years, so both equally culpable) have led to today’s High Court decision clearing the way to allow 37 babies and 54 children of asylum seekers to be transported to an offshore detention centre.

A move which is now apparently legal, despite being morally bankrupt.This is such a hollow victory for you.

Hang your heads in shame.

These children are the victims of their parents’ misguided decisions, borne of chaos. And Australian governments’ ruthless policies to exercise control. Many of these children have never even lived in their country of origin. Many were born in Australia or whilst in Australian custody.

This outcome is purportedly justifiable as a manouevre to thwart and halt the criminality of people smugglers, thereby saving the lives of other potential asylum seekers who could drown if they had the audacity to try to seek help from this country by crossing the sea. Desperate they may be, but invited with a welcome? Nah. No way.

A manouevre that is worth it, evidently at any price.

Even if that price results in compassion, humanity and morality being extinguished.

And we are told that the majority of Australians support this hard line.

Well, Liberal/National and Labor politicians, who have supported and orchestrated this situation over the past couple of decades, with the escalations of the past five or six years, I am here to tell you loud and clear –

Not me.  

You do not have my support on this issue.  

You do not speak for me on this issue.

But you do have my contempt.

And if you proceed with moving 91 children to an offshore dentention camp, with a bleak future choice of a) staying there, b) returning to your country of origin (regardless of its current state) or c) being relocated to an impoverished third party country, you will have sunk to a new low of inhumanity.

You are sacrificing this country’s values in order to be seen to be strong, to be hard, to hold the line, to make an example.

So much for “Australian values”. So much for a “fair go”. So much for “a society based on Christian principals”. So much for being a “good Samaritan in the world community”. So much for “demonstrating our commitment to carrying our share” of the international crisis. So much for our commitment to international treaties and human rights.

So much self-validation.  

So little self-awareness.

You are deluding yourselves if you believe that maintaining this cruel hard line at all costs is the right thing to do, however you dress it up and try to spin some positives out of it.

I hope you have the fortitude to live with your decisions, and the peace of mind to sleep well at night.  

To look these children in the eye as they are transported offshore, wiping away their tears and offer platitudes; and tell them that their futures, their wellbeing, are being sacrificed for the greater good.

But, of course, you won’t. Other people will have the unenviable task of bringing life to your policies as these innocent victims are quietly moved out of sight, and out of mind.

You, and this, have become a national disgrace.

Life on the road with Pauline…

Another tale from our recent trip to Turkey…

Pauline just wanted a cup of tea in our cave hotel room in Ayvali, a small village in Cappadocia.
There was everything there except milk.

The Turks serve their tea black, and Pauline, as everyone who knows her is aware, has her tea very white.

So she went to reception to ask for some milk. They very generously gave her a large jug full of milk – more than they were obliged to provide and way more than she needed!

Upon her return, it was apparent that the jug wouldn’t fit on the fridge shelf. Or the door.

  

(The recalcitrant fridge hides in the cupboard on the right.)

So Pauline had the bright idea of emptying the fridge so that the jug would fit. 

But it didn’t.

“Take the top shelf out”, she said, “then it will fit”.

But the fridge door was restricted by the door of the cupboard containing the fridge, and wouldn’t open quite wide enough…

I couldn’t bring myself to empty the fridge, remove the fridge from its cupboard, take out the top shelf, put the fridge back in the cupboard and then put everything else back in the fridge, including the jug. Call me difficult…

So the shelf remained imprisoned in its slot, and the contents went back in the fridge.

Pauline then had the brighter idea of using an empty water bottle. The milk then lived in that, and it fitted in the fridge.

So then, Pauline was happy and so was I.

I drink black tea.

Help! Where’s the butter?

On our first night in Istanbul during our recent trip to Turkey, we had to visit the local supermarket to buy a few essential supplies.

The caretaker in the apartment block where we staying had kindly offered to take us there.  This understanding was no mean feat, as he had no English vocabulary, and we had no Turkish.  Not even hello, goodbye, please, thank you.  Such is the complacency of most of the English speaking in the world – pretty well everywhere you go, most people can speak a few words of English.  Well, not here in Kadıköy on the Asian side of Istanbul.

We had managed to reach this understanding thanks to a passing resident from the apartment block who did have a few words of English, and had managed to translate our need to the caretaker.

So off we trotted round the corner to the supermarket, a small but well stocked store that looked much like any supermarket back home in Australia.

  Our local supermarket

We located the bananas (muz in Turkish) easily enough, the muesli (müsli), bread (ekmek) and the milk (süt) (we did not know these Turkish words at the time…).   The last thing on our list was butter.

We couldn’t see any butter in the dairy section of the fridges, despite walking up and down several times.  We gestured to our caretaker friend to indicate what we were looking for, using an air knife to spread air butter on air bread.  Sadly, our mime fell on deaf eyes, despite the added clue of us saying “butter”.  “BUTT-AH”.  Stating it louder and slower, resorting to this well-known tactic to establish understanding with the non-English speaking.

In an attempt to solve the riddle, the caretaker rattled off a couple of sentences in Turkish, and cleverly rang the aforementioned apartment block resident for assistance.  Pauline spoke to her, explaining that we were looking for butter.  Helpfully, I uselessly repeated my spreading butter mime routine – we were not on Skype, after all.

Sadly, we could not break through the comprehension barrier, and the call ended with a sense of failure.

We now targeted the one of the store employees, another local with zero English vocabulary, and went through our charade once again. “Butter”.  “Buttah”.  “Butt-ahh”.  Our growing team wandered up and down the fridge section.  The assistant helpfully offered products that might be the solution.

“No, sorry, that’s yoghurt. Butt-ah.  We want butter.”  More helpful air spreading.  And nodding.  Nodding might help.  With a smile and raised eyebrows.

“No, sorry, that’s cheese.  We want butter.”

I suddenly panicked.  “I hope none of these people have seen Last tango in Paris“, I thought to myself.  “No, relax, they are all way too young…”

A young woman came into view.  “Engleesh? You spik Engleesh?” We were definitely losing the plot by now.

Hallelujah!  She did!

She quickly understood our need, with a little help from our hand movements, and translated for the assistant.  He went straight to the far end of the fridge and picked up a small, square, flat pack of what looked like butter.  Obviously not much demand for this product in Turkey, given the limited choice and very small pile on display.

Our holy grail.

We happily thanked our team of helpers and made our way to the checkout, butter (tereyağı) in hand.

  

Our pat of butter!

It nearly takes a whole suburb to assist a couple of helpless foreigners who haven’t bothered to even learn “thank you” in Turkish.

Teşekkür ederim!

Tulips in Istanbul

A recent trip to Turkey during April revealed something unexpected – that Turkey has a long association with tulips.  Indeed, tulips were introduced into Holland from Turkey in the 1500s.  The flower has its origins in Central Asia and Persia, now Iran.  The botanical name for tulip, tulipa, is derived from the Turkish word for turban, whose shape the flower resembles.

 

Tulips in Sultanahmet Square

Istanbul in spring is ablaze with tulips.  Since 2006, the city has planted tulip bulbs in garden beds across the city – alongside main roads, on verges and roundabouts; in parks, in front of walls and fences and in garden boxes.  They start to bloom from late March and add a stunning beauty and colour to the landscapes and streetscapes until May.

   
 Tulips beside the wall surrounding Gülhane Park, Alemdar Cadessi 

The Tulip Festival, which is now the result of this investment and hard work, means that a visit to Istanbul at this time of year is well worth it, even beyond the magnificent history, heritage and architecture for which the city is justifiably famous.

  

Tulips in Sultanahmet Square near Aya Sofia

  Tulips in the gardens of Süleymaniye Mosque

The tulip is as much a contemporary symbol of Istanbul as a traditional one.  Tulips are reflected in many aspects of Turkish art and design – tiles, ceramics, fabrics, carpets, paintings, horticulture – both from the past, especially the Ottoman period, and the present.  In Istanbul in the 1700s, there was an decade in the 1720s known as the “Tulip Era”.  Then, as now, residents and visitors to the city enjoyed walks in the parks adorned by these spectacular flowers.
   
           Tulips in the grounds of the Topkapi Palace

Gülhane Park, adjacent to the Topkapi Palace, in April, is one of the jewels in the tulip crown.  Its displays include 86 types of tulip totalling 1,379,000 flowers.  Emirgan Park is home to the largest display – 2,800,000 tulips from 192 different varieties.  Across the city, more than 20 million bulbs have been planted.

   

           Tulips in Gülhane Park

2015 also sees a “tulip carpet”, a world first, established in Sultanahmet Square, made up of 545,000 blooms.
   
 The “tulip carpet”, Sultanhamet Square

The city authorities are to be congratulated for creating this wonderful annual display, adding a dimension to Istanbul which is a delight to behold.

  Tulips in the grounds of Dolmabahçe Palace

A fine and all-too-rare example of leadership

During the past couple of years, a relative newcomer has appeared more and more frequently in the Australian media landscape – Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

Professor Triggs was appointed to this role in 2012, bringing with her an impressive legal and academic résumé. You can read more about her background here – https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/commissioners/president-professor-gillian-triggs .

The AHRC was established in 1986 by an act of the Federal Parliament, and is an independent statutory organisation which reports to the Parliament through the Attorney-General.

The AHRC website ( https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about-commission-0 ) states that the Commission seeks to lead “the promotion and protection of human rights in Australia by:

– making human rights values part of everyday life and language;
– empowering all people to understand and exercise their human rights;
– working with individuals, community, business and government to inspire action; and
keeping government accountable to national and international human rights standards.”

This is done by:

– “listening, learning, communicating and educating;
– being open, expert, committed and impartial;
– fostering a collaborative, diverse, flexible, respectful and innovative workplace.”

It’s statutory responsibilities include:

– “education and public awareness
– discrimination and human rights complaints
– human rights compliance
– policy and legislative development.”

The Commission is lead by the President and a number of commissioners –

– the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
(Mick Gooda)

– the Age and Disability Discrimination Commissioner (Susan Ryan)

– the Children’s Commissioner (Megan Mitchell)

– the Human Rights Commissioner (Tim Wilson)

– the Race Discrimination Commissioner (Tim Soutphommasane)

– the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (Elizabeth Broderick)

(I must confess, to my shame, that until now, I had not understood that this is how the Australian Federal system of commissioners for various rights actually operated – see https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/president-commissioners ).

Given the degeneration of successive Australian government attitudes over the past decade to those people who seek asylum and refuge in Australia having arrived here by boat, it is hardly surprising that a body such as the AHRC should be taking an increasingly active interest in the welfare and treatment of those asylum seekers and refugees. Failure to take such an interest would be a dereliction of duty and a breach of it’s legislative duty.

Having said that, anyone who questions or challenges current Government and Opposition policies on asylum seekers and refugees who arrived by boat puts themselves at significant risk of being criticised, critiqued, ridiculed and maligned.

It takes a person of strong principles and well-grounded conviction to run such a risk, and having spoken out, withstand the flow of invective and disparagement that follows.

Gillian Triggs is one such person.

When interviewed (often by hostile interviewers) she remains calm, composed and self-assured as she presents well-researched and well-formulated propositions. I have never heard her ruffled or confused. She is steadfast in her defence of human rights, bravely defiant in the face of withering and entirely unjustified dismissals of the AHRC’s work.

She is an impressive leader of her organisation as she asserts it’s independence of severely misguided governments that are almost certainly in breach of their national and international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, squirming as they articulate their weasel words of distortion and opacity.

And now the frenzy of opposition to the AHRC and Gillian Triggs is mounting with the publication of it’s report The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention (2014) –

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/asylum-seekers-and-refugees

I exhort you to to take the time to read Professor Triggs’ Foreword to the Report at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014 .

In the face of a sudden, ferocious and intense campaign to demonise and traduce the Commission, the President and the Report, this provides context to how, when and why the Report came to be initiated when it did.

(The timing of it’s release in Parliament last night, is, of course, a totally separate matter of conjecture…)

If you don’t have time to read the whole Foreword, at least read this part (bear in mind that it was written in 2014, so references to “last year” refer to 2013) –

“Asylum seeker policy in context

Australia’s policy of prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seeker children should be understood in context. Last year saw tumultuous global and regional conflict and persecution, leading to an unprecedented flow of boat arrivals in Australia. The Australian community has been shocked by the tragic deaths of over a thousand asylum seekers taking the perilous voyage by sea, including at least 15 children between 2008 and 2013.

In an attempt to stop illegal people smuggling and drowning at sea, the Labor Government reintroduced offshore transfers to Nauru and Manus Island. As from 13 August 2012, that Government froze the assessment of claims to refugee status under the ‘no advantage’ principle, leaving about 31,000 asylum seeker families and children in a legal black hole in which their rights and dignity have been denied, in some cases for years. The current Government has maintained this policy.

The Commission acknowledges that the surge in asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat in 2013 placed considerable pressures on the Department of Immigration and its resources, especially on Christmas Island. The Government’s policy, ’Operation Sovereign Borders’, under which Australian authorities use force to intercept and turn back boats, has prevented asylum seekers from reaching our shores. The consequence is that it has become possible to focus on those 5,514 asylum seekers who are currently detained in Australia and on Nauru and Manus Island (as of 30 September 2014).

Commission decision to conduct an Inquiry

By July 2013, the number of children detained reached 1,992.

As the federal election was imminent, I decided to await the outcome of the election, and any government changes in asylum seeker policy, before considering launching an Inquiry. By February this year, it became apparent that there had been a slowing down of the release of children. Over the first six months of the new Coalition Government the numbers of children in detention remained relatively constant. Not only were over 1000 children held in detention by February 2014, but also they were being held for longer periods than in the past, with no pathway to resettlement.

In these circumstances, I decided to exercise the Commission’s powers under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) to hold a National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.”

My admiration for Gillian Triggs, which is already extremely high, will only increase as she now defends herself, the Report and the Commission’s work.

It is lamentable that so few public officials and politicians display this kind of leadership in public life today.

And those people who feel the need to profess and express their own leadership qualities for the edification of the rest of us, are sadly the ones in whom they are all-too-obviously lacking.

And we are not fooled.

A Southend childhood

I wrote the piece below following recent visits to Southend-on-sea, the town in England where I grew up. The time I spent there was a time of reflection and reminiscence.

Shoebury, Thorpe Bay, Southchurch, Southend,
Westcliff, Chalkwell, Leigh and Hadleigh.
Beach huts, deckchairs,
Seagulls, sun cream,
Light on water gleaming.

The tide is in, the tide is out,
Mud as far as an eye can see.
Sand and seashells,
Groynes and seaweed,
Shingle at times, sore feet.

Paddle along the water’s edge,
Buckets and spades for making pies,
Sandy castles,
Windmills spinning,
Refilling moats when dry.

Rossi’s ice cream, flake sticking out,
Southend rock pink white, letters red
Fish ‘n’ chips, salt,
Wrapped in paper
Hot to the tongue and touch.

And then the pier, stretching out far,
Half way to Kent across the Thames.
Trains trundle out,
Right to the end,
Lifeboat ready to help.

Peter Pan’s playground draws you in.
Crooked House, Ferris wheel, dodgems,
Helter skelter,
Roller coaster,
Candy floss and hot dogs.

August brings Southend carnival,
Chalkwell Park home to the fun fair,
The seafront sees
The procession.
Floats pass by, one by one.

Darkfall brings bright lights twinkling
In shrubs of Never Never Land.
Cliffs hide grottos
Telling stories,
Brought to life by magic.

And all along the esplanades
Between the lamplit posts and poles
Hang coloured lights,
Spectacular,
Queues of cars and people.

Everywhere the amusements, fun,
On Golden Mile and pier for all.
Taking your coins,
Tempting prizes,
Games, noise, lights and music.

Old Leigh – bridge, pubs. The Peter boat,
The Smack, The Ship. And cockle sheds.
Jellied eels, whelks
Winkles, mussels
Cockle shell mountains climbed.

Great parks abound across the town –
Priory, Southchurch, Chalkwell too.
Swings, roundabouts
Ponds for boating,
Belfairs on longer trips.

Family outings to country spots –
Cherry tree, Plough and sail, The cock.
Drinks in gardens,
Walks on sea walls,
Danbury Common picnics.

St Mary’s school at Prittlewell,
Then King Edmund Comprehensive,
SEEVIC Benfleet
Until uni.
Happy days of learning.

Piano lessons, violin class,
Ridley Studios for speaking.
Readings, poems,
High school acting.
(Tried giving sport a miss).

Vic Circus the start of High Street,
Shops there and along London Road.
Dixons, Garons,
Woolworths, Cotgroves
Argosy – games and toys.

Holiday jobs and weekends too,
BHS kitchen and Waitrose.
Coral’s bookies,
Southend Gen’ral,
Postman deliv’ring mail.

Time on buses, familiar routes,
Numbers 7 and 9 and 1.
Double deckers,
Conductors clip,
Tickets torn off the roll.

Entertainment, films and music.
Odeon, Essoldo, Ritz, TOTS,
The Queen’s Hotel,
Palace Theatre,
Kursaal, Cliffs Pavilion.

Town of childhood, place of memories,
The sense of place in heart means home.
Southend-on-sea.
Thames Estuary.
Times past live on in me.

Freedom of bigoted speech? I hope not.

The Collins English Dictionary website defines the word “bigot” as “a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race.”

It defines bigotry as “the attitudes, behaviour, or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice; intolerance”.

It would appear that proposed legislative changes in Australia will make it easier for someone who is a bigot, whether self-professed or by the judgment of others, to express their opinions on the grounds of freedom of speech. It will be of minor consequence if it causes offence to anyone.

We are all capable of bigotry in varying degrees, although most of us would like to think we are not; and most of us understand, either by instinct, education or training that such sentiments are not at all conducive to the development, evolution and conduct of a healthy and harmonious society. We are all the better, as people and as citizens, from containing the more base elements of the human condition.

This has been reflected in legislation that has been in place for many decades, a shield to protect those who are vulnerable to the prejudices and ill-informed opinions of others. Others who are not necessarily a majority in our community, but often vocal in expressing their views that are frequently based on fear, ignorance and limited experience.

To pretend that weakening these laws is permissible, even desirable, in an espousal of freedom of speech is spurious and, quite frankly, totally misleading. It is a argument and justification that must be countered, and strongly.

We do not have freedom of speech, any more than we have freedom of action. We are all constrained to some degree in what we can do or say by social mores, social conventions and the law.

In terms of action, we have some freedom to act as we will. But we cannot go up to someone and physically assault them just because we don’t like the look of them, or because of their skin colour, or what they are wearing, or what they are saying. Well, we can, but there are repercussions: arrest. Criminal charges. Conviction and penalty. Our freedom to act is restricted by law, it is not unfettered.

Why should anyone expect a verbal assault or a strongly expressed offensive opinion to be treated differently to a physical assault? Harm to wellbeing and self esteem can be as damaging as harm to the body, and often the effects are much more enduring.

We have laws that aim to prevent verbal abuse, bullying and harassment, even offensive language in some jurisdictions. They are all curtailments on free speech that most people would accept as reasonable. None of us has the ability to go around saying anything we like, anywhere we like, to whomever, and disregard the consequences of our words simply because we have the freedom to do so, even less the right.

So we do not have freedom of speech.

We have only the freedom to speak with responsibility. Just as we have the freedom to act responsibly. It is what society expects of us in order for us to live in an orderly community.

Responsibility. Respect. Tolerance. If we cannot live by these tenets, we deserve to be restricted to some degree, either by the application of social pressures, the law or, if necessary, physical containment.

We all have opinions. We can all express them privately. However, in public, whether written or spoken, some opinions are best kept to oneself.

It is critically important that there is no weakening of our laws in order to validate misguidedly a freedom of speech that does not exist, and in so doing encourage the expression of intolerance and vilification. It will result in an Australia that will be very different to the one we have known in recent time, and not one in which I would choose to live.

A note to Denise and Bruce Morcombe

Along with the rest of Australia, I have followed the story of Daniel Morcombe over the past eleven years.

As a parent, citizen and fellow human being it has been scary, distressing and sad – listening to and watching the news accounts, interviews and documentaries that have been broadcast over those long years.

And the constant thought that always comes to mind whenever the appalling crime is mentioned, is “his poor parents, how on earth do they cope?”

Somehow, rising above the tragic loss of their young Daniel; the fact that this is evil act is something that happens from time to time in most communities; the disturbing implications it has about the underbelly of our so-called civilised society, are the faces and voices of Denise and Bruce Morcombe, Daniel’s stricken parents.

I have often wondered what it is about this dignified and inspirational couple that has struck such a chord with not only me, but so many of the people I know. Perhaps it is simply that they are just like us. It could be us thrust into that nightmare. Many people suffer tragic loss, enduring grief, bewildering experiences and life changing events. They sometimes fall under the public gaze for a time, but do not often stay in the collective memory.

The Morcombes have suffered all of these incursions into their commonplace, private life. They have somehow managed to survive, perhaps barely, all of these, and have resonated with us throughout their ordeal. Denise’s haunted expression; Bruce’s composure masking his perplexity, cast into the unwelcome role of spokesman and bereaved father.
We cannot see ourselves managing to deal with such a dreadful situation as impressively as they have done. They invoke our compassion.

When I heard the news of the verdict this afternoon, tears came to my eyes, part of my usual reaction to any news item in which they are mentioned. And then the inevitable, unchanging and unanswered questions that always come to mind:

How have they coped?

How have they kept their family together as their other children have grown up?

How, indeed, have they stayed together as a couple, as they process the what if?, if only, why didn’t you?, why didn’t I? questions and insinuations.

How have they confronted the terrors and fears that must have permeated their sleepless nights?

How have they retained their composure during the media onslaught (perhaps more restrained and respectful than most have to endure, but nonetheless relentless) that has invaded their routines that will never again be what they once were?

And all the time displaying patience. Restraint. Unity and mutual support. Fortitude. Dignity through the gross indignity of it all.

I am in awe of their spirit as they have stoically borne their loss and burden.

I do not know what their future holds. What does it hold for any of us? But I do wish them well. I hope they find a kind of peace. I hope they find a way to gently smile, to laugh at life’s absurdities.

I’d like them to know how very much admired they are and we will not forget them, or Daniel.

And I’d like give them a big, quiet hug. Wouldn’t we all?

Refugees and asylum seekers – it just ain’t cricket

There are many official websites where one can find statistical information about Papua New Guinea (PNG). They include:-
– the Australian Government’s AusAID – http://www.ausaid.gov.au/countries/pacific/png/Pages/statistics-png.aspx
– the World Health Organisation – http://www.who.int/countries/png/en/
– the World Bank – http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/png and
– the CIA – https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pp.html .

By any measure, PNG is a country confronted with major challenges:- low life expectancy (somewhere in the 60s), high infant mortality (around 35-40 per 1,000 births), 0.05 physicians per 1,000 people, 60% primary school enrolment, 37.5% living below the poverty line, 33% with access to improved water sources. The Gross National Income per capita is US$1,790 (these figures can be variously found on the websites above).

The list of disadvantage is unending.

In lists of nearly 200 countries by comparative wealth, PNG ranks between 126 and 140.

It is also a country with 0 migration. It is not a destination to which desperate people turn if they are seeking refuge, sanctuary or a better way of life.

Now consider some statistics about Australia, one of the closest neighbours of PNG.

In Australia, life expectancy is 81.98, infant mortality is 4.49 per 1,000 births, there are 2.99 physicians per 1,000 people, primary school enrolment is 100%, 12.8% live below a very different poverty line, 100% have access to improved water sources. The Gross National Income per capita is US$43,300 (these figures can be variously found on the websites above).

In lists of nearly 200 countries by comparative wealth, Australia ranks between 5 and 7.

It has a migration rate of 5.8 persons per 1,000 population, and is a country founded on migration in its myriad forms (albeit to the detriment of the Australian Indigenous people).

In the OECD’s Better Life Index, Australia is ranked number 1.

So with that brief consideration of two very different countries, read this statement, made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd:-

Under the new arrangement signed with Papua New Guinea today – the Regional Settlement Arrangement – unauthorised arrivals will be sent to Papua New Guinea for assessment and if found to be a refugee will be settled there.

Arriving in Australia by boat will no longer mean settlement in Australia. Australians have had enough of seeing people drowning in the waters to our north.

Our country has had enough of people smugglers exploiting asylum seekers and seeing them drown on the high seas.

We are sick of watching our servicemen and women risking their lives in rescues in dangerous conditions on the high seas.

Regional processing arrangements in Papua New Guinea will be significantly expanded and people will be sent to Manus Island as soon as health checks are complete and appropriate accommodation is identified.

PNG officials will assess their claims on Manus Island.

Our governments will expand existing facilities on Manus Island, as well as establishing further facilities in Papua New Guinea.

There is no cap on the number of people who can be transferred to Papua New Guinea.

The Australian government, in partnership with the PNG government, will support settlement services for those with refugee status, as safe and appropriate accommodation and services are identified.

We are a compassionate nation and we will continue to deliver a strong humanitarian program.

If the measure announced today and the international meeting on the convention that has been flagged lead to a significant change in the number of people arriving by boat, then the government stands ready to consider progressively increasing our humanitarian intake towards 27,000 as recommended by the Houston panel.

There is nothing compassionate about criminal operations which see children and families drowning at sea.

Access to our humanitarian program must be through the international organisations which resettle people around the world, not through criminal operators who have pushed people on to unseaworthy vessels with tragic consequences.

The new arrangements will allow Australia to help more people who are genuinely in need and help prevent people smugglers from abusing our system.

The people smugglers themselves are constantly changing the way they operate and we need to be flexible enough to anticipate and match their actions to avoid the terrible consequences of this trade.

No doubt there will be some people smugglers who now encourage asylum seekers to test our resolve.

Be in no doubt. If people are paying thousands and thousands of dollars to a people smuggler they are buying a ticket to a country other than Australia.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/19/kevin-rudd-statement-asylum-seekers )

This is a difficult and intractable problem, no-one denies it. I don’t have anything to suggest to resolve it. But really??

We are a compassionate nation (cough).

Or a nation of masterful political opportunism? A nation proud to display a breathtaking example of first world exploitation of a third world country? A gobsmacking demonstration of NIMBYism? Let’s dump the floating-disaster-prone-asylum-seeking-won’t-go-away nuisances on a remote island tucked away behind an impoverished and now hoodwinked neighbour and throw its government some much needed cash to deal with it all.

Problem solved, out of sight, pleasingly out of mind, and hopefully out of the headlines. What was that? Now call an election?

Whatever actually happened to compassion? What about ethics? Morality? Shouldering the responsibility that might be expected of one of the world’s wealthiest countries in assisting the world’s disadvantaged, desperate, needy? Seemingly abandoned in the haste to re-position the scenery for the next episode of Australian Politics – we’re ALL drowning in it.

There are times when it makes me cringe to live in this country – and I’m not talking about the cricket.

Mad world

In the words of Roland Orzabal’s song Mad World (I love this song, especially the Gary Jules and Michael Andrews version – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4), it is a mad world.

On Wednesday, we were remote spectators to the latest appalling acts to visit the streets of the so-called “West”. Not only was the crime in London horrific, it was instantaneously captured by the omnipresent smartphone cameras and then flicked around the world by the global media, it’s insatiable appetite hungry as ever for fresh images to feed us.

The shocked onlookers stood and watched as a few brave or misguided souls placed themselves at the centre of the outrage, prepared to help the victim, placate the aggressors or film the verbal tirade.

The combination of images and footage created a powerful impact on most people – boringly normal streetscape, a violated body, bloodied hands, political lecture, a calm woman having a conversation. Jarring scenes, seemingly thrown together in a bizarrely random sequence of news clips.

Switch to today. The other side of the world from London, in the cafe at my local shopping centre.

I was standing waiting for my daily fix of coffee, having just been to the supermarket to top up on a few essential items.

Nothing much happening. I was momentarily looking at the owner of the cafe, who was facing towards the front window. Suddenly his facial expression changed and he exclaimed “Oh my God!” From the tone of his voice, it sounded as though he had just seen something dreadful take place outside his shop.

I looked outside but could see nothing untoward, when I heard the owner say “There’s a kid out there who just licked the salt shaker!” You could hear the revulsion in his voice.

There was no-one sitting at the contaminated table, and the child had just committed his atrocity while he was waiting with the rest of his family outside the neighbouring fish and chip shop.

Within a few seconds the owner made his way out to collect the offending salt shaker, but in those few moments, a woman had entered the cafe. She had been sitting at a table located outside the fish and chip shop and seen the child commit his crime. She felt strongly enough about what she had seen to get up and inform the cafe next door of what had occurred. No doubt seeing it as her public duty to save others from the onslaught of some kind of awful transmittable disease.

The defiled salt shaker was retrieved, and presumably disinfected.

You might think I am being unreasonable, as we all would want to avoid catching something from a dirty salt shaker.

But I cannot help feeling that we have lost our sense of perspective to a large extent. The reaction of the cafe owner and the lady sitting next door were more indicative of people witnessing something truly shocking and offensive to society. Neither of them challenged or berated the parents of the child.

So compare the two incidents.

I am not for one moment equating one with the other, but the reactions do seem totally out of kilter. A woman calmly reasons with a murderer in a London street, as if it is the most natural thing in the world to do, with numerous people standing by watching and filming. And yet in a cafe, a child licks a salt shaker and there are exclamations of shock and horror, and actions are taken to prevent the innocent from catching germs.

Something is not right. It surely is a mad, mad world.