Three new poems for PNG’s turbulent times

Applying Ockham’s razor to political myopia


THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT to have asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia be processed and if necessary, settled in Papua New Guinea has ramped up the political agenda.

This is reputedly an arrangement that neither Australia nor Papua New Guinea can guarantee will be successful in stopping the flow of boats even if it is fully put into practice.

So why isn’t this proposal merely being viewed as more ‘short sighted’ political hyperbole of the usual kind that is made just prior to a general election? 


Do Australians and Papua New Guineans really need to take a closer, cynical look at what Mr Rudd is trying to persuade us to accept? Why not just laugh it off as yet another cynical attempt to sway the swinging voters by throwing more money but less thought at a topical problem.

Firstly, what is an ‘asylum seeker’? Humans are mostly content to live where they were born and are familiar with unless their circumstances become adverse. The terminology logically then applies to a person who seeks asylum or protection from where they normally reside due to potential threats, persecution, starvation, pestilence or disease.

Seeking better living conditions is a human trait and has applied to us since our ancestors first migrated out of the East African crucible of human life some hundreds of thousands of years ago. Where those ancient migrants found no previous human inhabitants, they just set up shop and started a new life based on what they brought with them and what resources they found when they arrived.

Where there were already human occupants occupying the land and using the available resources, the newcomers faced the inevitable dilemma of either forcibly contesting ownership or moving on. Those who were not able to move on, or lacked the means to migrate, simply perished.

The Great Potato famine in Ireland in the 19th Century is a classic example where successive potato crops failed due to the potato blight. As a result, the population of Ireland subsequently dropped by 25% with one million emigrating and one million dying of starvation.

Such has been the human experience and now all the habitable areas of the world are quickly filling up. There is a real danger of the Earth quickly becoming overpopulated and many areas have already outstripped the available resources. Arable land and water are either at a premium or about to become so.

Religious and cultural persecution have over the last few millennia added to the continual warfare that seems to inevitably blight the human race from time to time. Examples of this type of persecution are the vast internal wars, migrations and subsequent depopulations in Eurasia and the European invasion of the Americas, 14,000 years after they were first colonised by settlers from Central Asia.

So let’s get some terminology established.

Refugees and asylum seekers are people who are outside of their own country and are either unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

•         While asylum seekers and refugees are in Australian territory (or otherwise engage Australia's jurisdiction), the Australian Government has obligations under various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

•         As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that asylum seekers who meet the definition of a refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

•         Australia also has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of certain human rights under the ICCPR, the CAT and the CRC, and not to send people to third countries where they would face a real risk of violation of their human rights under these instruments. These obligations also apply to people who have not been found to be refugees.

Under its Humanitarian Program, Australia accepts a certain number of people every year who are refugees or have special humanitarian needs. The Humanitarian Program has two main components:

•         offshore resettlement for people who are found to be refugees (and others whose need for protection has been acknowledged) in another country before they come to Australia, and

•         onshore protection for people who come to Australia and make a successful claim for asylum after they arrive. Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a valid visa, whether on the mainland or at an 'excised offshore place', must be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia.

There are currently thousands of asylum seekers, as well as some recognised refugees, being held in immigration detention around Australia. Hundreds of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia are also being detained in Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea under the Australian Government’s third country processing regime.

So by transferring asylum seekers from Australia to say PNG, effectively removes their right to be processed under Australian law with all the current taxpayer funded overheads and appeal processes. It also makes those who have been transferred to another country subject to that host country’s legal process and laws.

In addition, it is reported that all asylum seekers who arrived after the 13th of August 2012 are yet to have their claims processed. The list of those currently in detention and awaiting processing is therefore growing by the day and it could take at least five years spent in detention before a claim is processed.

Why won’t this new proposal be effective?

The real answer doesn’t lie with a short term, ‘band aid’ type fix. The essence of the answer to the problem of asylum seekers who arrive by boat is currently twofold:

1.      Effective communication of Australia’s immigration policies to potential asylum seekers, and

2.      Effective co-operation between the Indonesia (as the main source of departure) and the Australian government.

Neither of these more practical answers seems to feature largely in the proposed arrangement with PNG.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Norm Richardson

As I recall, Manus is or was a tropical paradise of sun, sea and sand with fishing aplenty, safe beaches, friendly natives, who did not have an axe to grind with the kiaps or anyone else in the world. Everyone that I know who lived there said it was paradise on earth.

Anyone who has the temerity to describe Manus Island as "hell on earth" (a certain Greens Senator) is either falsely condemning the Manus Islanders and the island itself or has a Trotskyite agenda in mind, unrelated to the fact that our Muslim boating population have been rejected by their Muslim brothers and sisters through whose countries (at least 4 and possibly 8 countries) they have passed to get to Australia.

Does living on Manus Island really present a risk of serious harm to those delicate little children who have survived the trip through innumerable Asian countries to get there?
If so, then we should look at evacuating all persons now resident on Manus Island, if it is so terrible.

So, what does the temperature get to in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, Damascus, etc? Was life better there? Who had running water or electricity in the house in Kandahar, Palmyra, etc? What is the problem with lack of access to the benefits of a major city?

They could have stayed in any number of major cities in any number of countries in Asia. I can say from personal experience that medical services, transport facilities, house accessibility, etc, in Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore are far better than anything we have in New South Wales, west of the Sandstone Curtain.

The tribal tradition for Arabs and nomads is to live in a camel and goat hair tent. A canvas tent is a step up, is it not?

I have lived in bush material houses and found them more comfortable that a 2 bedroom flat in Fitzroy, Stanmore or Elizabeth Bay, not to mention cheaper and quieter.

We have now been told by the Immigration officials that 50% of all Indian visas issued for education travel to Australia were based on false documentation. Further, the Sri Lankan boat arrivals have been found to be persons wanted by their government for war crimes.

So should Australia harbour war criminals? Perhaps we need more of Bilal Skaff’s cohort?

Should we adopt the methods of our major western defence partner, the United States of America? Their Coast Guard turns the boats around and sends them elsewhere, regardless of their pleas.


Don't forget also that by some legal trickery Australia has excised all of itself from the migration zone, thus even genuine refugees arriving in say Sydney have had their rights bypassed.

Who was that character in Dickens who was fond of saying "If that's so, I'll eat my head!"

That's right, it's Grimwig from Oliver Twist. "He’s stubborn, contrary, abrupt, hard on the outside, but marshmallow-y soft on the inside, and very fond of Rose"

Sounds familiar.

David Wall

I remember fondly the well built bush material house I had in Dreikikir as probably the most comfortable dwelling I lived in over my many years in PNG.

Tony Flynn

"Australia also has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of certain human rights under the ICCPR, the CAT and the CRC, and not to send people to third countries where they would face a real risk of violation of their human rights under these instruments. These obligations also apply to people who have not been found to be refugees".

Thanks for your clear exposition Paul.

I believe that PNG or any other country should not be required to provide accommodation to "refugees" at any higher level than that enjoyed by the majority of its citizens.

This means bush materials in PNG; in Australia it means much better class of dwelling. Thus for Australia to redirect unprocessed refugees to PNG would be against its responsibilities.

In pre-Independence PNG I lived variously in a tank house at Sixmile in Port Moresby, a converted Thames Trader packing case in Madang, and a bush material house at times; as did many kiaps.

Bush material houses are the norm for West Papuan refugees in various camps along the border. It is hypocritical of our leaders to offer these refugees better conditions and benefits now to sweeten the pill of new refugees being given all mods and cons.

How do Turkey, and other countries in the Middle East and Africa treat their refugees. Not well! What does the UN do about it? Not much!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)