Human rights Archives - thegoodwills.com

Australia’s refugee shame

australia-refugee-shame — Image courtesy of Peter Broelman https://twitter.com/Broelman

It took a little refugee girl to become gravely ill while held in an Australian detention centre to attract the attention this issue deserves.

The plight of refugees and asylum seekers has been somewhat diminished in the public eye over the past 18 months because of Covid-19. But some issues just won’t go away. As cartoonist Peter Broelman observed last week in a two-panel cartoon: an Australian going stir crazy inside four bare walls, while in the right panel are two girls, assumed to represent the Biloela Tamil children confined to the detention centre at Christmas Island.

The Sri Lankan family of four were whisked away from their home in Biloela (central Queensland) in March 2018 after overstaying their visas. After some temporary stays in detention elsewhere, they were flow to Christmas Island, where they are still the only detainees held there.

This week, Tharnicca, three, was flown to Perth for emergency medical attention, She was accompanied by her mother, Priya. News reports claim Tharnicca had been unwell for up to two weeks before being flown to Perth reportedly suffering from a blood infection.

She is now stable and with top quality medical care will hopefully recover.

But what then, given the government’s insistence that the family are not refugees and therefore not entitled to settle in Australia? It’s bad timing for the Federal Government as support groups gear up for Refugee Week (June 20-27). Ahead of the event, refugee support groups are heading to the capital for the ‘Canberra Convergence’. The June 15 event will be held on the lawns of Parliament House. Number one item on the agenda is to call for the controversial indefinite detention Bill to be repealed.

What, you didn’t know about that?

The Migration Amendment Bill 2021 will allow Australia to indefinitely hold refugees in mandatory detention centres in cases where a person’s refugee visa has been cancelled but cannot be deported because they could face persecution in their home country. A person may have their visa cancelled for a range of reasons, including security or character grounds or association with certain groups.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said the new bill promotes human rights because it reinforces the nation’s commitment to non-refoulement. This clumsy term means a country is forbidden from deporting refugees or asylum seekers to their country of origin if they are at risk of persecution. So the Morrison government’s solution is to lock them up with no end date in sight.

The law currently applies to 21 refugees in Australian detention, according to Guardian reporter Ben Doherty. The Bill was tabled on the last sitting day of the March session of parliament. It was voted into law on May 13 after the Senate debate was cut short.

Global outrage about this Bill suggests that Australia is breaching the Human Rights Charter by supporting the amendment.

The influence of refugee support groups cannot be underestimated. In 2018 a coalition of such groups lobbied for the medical evacuation of children from the detention centre on Nauru. This campaign became known as #KidsOffNauru and, as children were medically evacuated to Australia, support groups claimed victory.

Someone known to FOMM readers wrote a song about it.

As Asylum Seeker Resource Centre CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis said this week on the organisation’s 20^th anniversary, “It’s a bitter-sweet moment”.

The ASRC was set up on a shoestring in Melbourne 20 years ago with the initial aim of providing free meals for poor families in inner Melbourne. It has grown into an asylum seeker support and advocacy organisation with annual revenue of $27.62 million. In 2019-2020, the ASRC provided shelter, free meals, healthcare and medication and paid work for asylum seekers.

Through lock-down in Melbourne, the ASRC has committed to keep paying ‘social enterprise’ staff in its cleaning and catering businesses, even when there is no work. The organisation is soon to broaden the opportunity to support ASRC Catering. In Melbourne, people can order a meal for pick up or delivery. Those who do not live in Melbourne will soon be able to support via a ‘pay it forward’ meal, providing meals to vulnerable people, such as casuals and workers in hospitality who have lost work.

The ASRC’s annual report (2019-2020) lists outcomes which include supporting 3,039 people who presented at its offices in crisis, securing 146 temporary or protection visas and distributing fresh food valued at $1.73 million to its members. It was all done through donations and the hard work of its many volunteers.

As CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis said in a live video to celebrate the ASRC’s 20th, his hope is that there no need for another 20 years of the ASRC.

“My hope is that one day we don’t need to be here.

“So when people come here seeking protection they find safety, dignity, sanctuary, a safety net, no detention, and safety and freedom”.

In the meantime, the ASRC’s annual telethon fund-raiser will be more important than ever as it continues to support asylum seeker workers through Melbourne’s lock-downs.

On the local front, the Southern Downs Refugee and Migrant Network held a welcome picnic in Warwick last Sunday to celebrate the inclusion of the Southern Downs as a Refugee Welcome Zone.

The Southern Downs Regional Council approved this initiative after a presentation by SDRAMN members. It becomes the 169^th Australian local government to officially welcome refugees.

This brings our region in line with Toowoomba, not only Australia’s biggest inland city (not in the desert, Scotty), but also home to a large number of refugees and migrants. The most commonly spoken language in Toowoomba other than English is Tagalog.

Five years have passed since the last Census established that just over one in four Australians were born somewhere else (26%), a 1% increase on the 2011 Census. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics has found, Australia is now a diverse society.

More than 300 languages are spoken in our homes; we have over 100 religions and more than 300 different ancestries, This wide variety of backgrounds, together with the many cultures of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, has helped to create a uniquely Australian identity. No doubt the 2021 Census, which will be held in August, will reveal how many more Australians were born somewhere else. As it is, about half of us were born elsewhere or have parents who were born overseas.

Given the diversity of our background, it behoves us to open our hearts and minds to those fleeing religious or political persecution. The so-called Indefinite Detention Bill shows just how far we are from opening our doors to those in crisis. A <change.org> petition calling for the Tamil children to be brought back to Biloela (where townsfolk support them), gathered more than 500,000 signatures this week.

Meantime, The Guardian trolled through the Budget papers to find that Australia will spend almost $3.4 million a year for each of the 239 people held in offshore detention. As one wag on Twitter commented (and it’s not a bad idea), we’d be better off giving them all $1 million each and suggesting they move to the US (or NZ) as business migrants

So yes, Kon, it would be great if we didn’t need an ASRC anymore. But I’m not holding my breath.

Australia’s flawed human rights record

australia-human-rights — Christmas Island immigration detention centre – cc wikimedia

There’s not too much coincidence about the timing of China’s social media campaign, accusing Australia of human rights abuses.

The photo-shopped meme which has outraged all sides of the Australian government targets alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

Timely, given that next Thursday (the 10^th), is International Human Rights Day.

China, of course, is campaigning from a blood-stained corner, its long record of human rights abuses and accusations thereof, lurking in the shadows. I mention the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the persecution of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities and so-called ‘re-education’ camps as examples of China’s human rights transgressions. The scary website below depicts the world’s human rights record in a series of charts.

The United Nations lists the main tenets of human rights as:

the right to life and liberty;
freedom from slavery and torture;
freedom of opinion and expressionand the right to work and education;

Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

The Cato Institute ranks countries for their adherence to human rights principles. It will surprise no-one this side of the Tasman that New Zealand is at No 1. However, Australia has a strong human rights records, ranked, in 2018, as fourth in the world behind New Zealand, Switzerland and Hong Kong (the latter has no doubt dropped a few rankings since then).

An important indicator of a country’s attitude to human rights is its intake of refugees. New Zealand lifted its annual refugee quota from 750 (unchanged since the 1950s) to 1,000 then in July this year to 1,500. Australia ranks well in the number of refugees accepted – over 12,700 in 2018 (although Canada, with a population of 10million more than Australia accepted more than double that number).

But the issue that won’t go away is Australia’s inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees who have arrived by boat. Australia’s long-held position (set by John Howard in 2012 and upheld by Kevin Rudd), is that no-one who has arrived here by boat will ever be resettled in Australia. The Morrison government would like to set its policy in legislative stone. The Labor Opposition, in weakly supporting this egregious position, said it would only do so if refugees in detention were able to re-settle in New Zealand.

The global scale of the refugee problem understandably allows Australia to sink below the footlights. Our numbers are comparatively tiny, so they warrant little attention on the global stage.

While Australia has re-settled a comparatively high number of refugees, its human rights record is blighted by an offshore detention regime that the International Criminal Court described as “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” and “unlawful under international law”. But as The Guardian reported, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie’s campaign to bring Australia to justice on this issue fell short.

The office of the ICC prosecutor said that while the imprisonment of refugees and asylum seekers formed the basis of a crime against humanity, the violations did not rise to the level to warrant further investigation.

The one glaring example which fits all of those criticisms and more is the incarceration of a family of five Sri Lankan refugees.

They are the ‘Bilo’ family, adopted by people in Biloela in 2014, where they lived until forcibly removed by immigration officers in 2018. They have been held in the detention facility at Christmas Island since August 2019. They are reportedly the only detainees on the island. Various articles on this subject have speculated that this is costing between $20m and $40m a year.

This timeline by MP Josh Burns charts this sad tale over the past 20 years.

Meanwhile, 1,534 people are being held in Australian-controlled detention centres. Of these, 615 refugees are in Alternative Places of Detention (APOD) or Immigration Transit Accommodation (ITA). Some have been there a long, long time.

The latest Office of Home Affairs report shows that 502 people had been held for between 92 and 365 days. Another 743 have been held longer than a year and 229 held for longer than two years.

From these damning statistics, refugee support groups derive social media hashtags like #7yearstoolong. The latter is a reference to the 99 people the department admit have been in (domestic) detention for ‘more than 1825 days’ (6.5% of the total).

Since January this year, the Office of Home Affairs has been publishing key statistics on the ‘transitory’ refugee population in Nauru and PNG. As of October 31, there were 146 people held on Nauru and 145 in Papua New Guinea (total 291). The department resettled 212 people in 2020.

These statistics show that an unacceptable number of people have had their lives put on hold, indefinitely.

NZ’s leader Jacinda Ardern has tried to show Australia the proper path for fair treatment of refugees. A year ago, Ms Ardern told Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison New Zealand was open to accepting refugees from Nauru and PNG. Along the way, the country offered safe haven to the distinguished writer and refugee martyr, Behrouz Boochani.

You will see a lot of campaigns surface and re-surface next week as refugee support groups roll out their collection of hashtags and petitions. Rural Australians for Refugees (RAR) has started a campaign to lobby the Australian Government to enshrine a charter of human rights.

As RAR notes, “The ACT, Victoria and Queensland all have Human Rights Charters which cover their States. But because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not Australian law, the Australian Government is not bound by it.”

The RAR has produced a discussion paper for interested groups to lobby for what is only fair and right.

To personalise the issue, just imagine for a minute that there has been a bloody coup in Australia and the White Australia junta has decreed that 7.25 million people born somewhere else must go back to their country of origin. Already there is a vast convoy heading for the backroads of Queensland and NSW, fleeing persecution. As you’d expect, they do so with dogged Aussie determination, flying their Aussie flags, with an attitude best summed up in the words of Darryl Kerrigan in the iconic Aussie film, The Castle: “Tell them they’re dreamin”).

So, dear reader, your mission on next week’s International Human Rights Day (December 10), should you choose to accept it, is to spend a few hours digesting these numbers. If we accept the position that a forcibly removed refugee is the subject of human rights abuses, these statistics from the UNHCR from December 2019 underline the magnitude of the global problem. At that time there were 79.5 million forcibly displaced people, 45.7m of whom were displaced internally. The UNHCR counted 26 million as refugees under its mandate. Comparatively few find a safe haven. Only 100,400 were resettled in other countries in 2019, with 5.4m returned to their country of origin.

And yet we (the Australian Government and others), campaigned strongly to free one of our own citizens being held in detention in Iran.

Given the Season, I’m ending on a lighter note. A reader submitted this, in response to my whimsical piece on ‘shoe trees’.

Speaking of readers, thanks to those who have responded so warmly to my modest subscriber request. Keep those cards and letters coming. Also, if you feel so moved, buy a Christmas card from RAR and send it to your local MP. #hometobilo

Martial Law Or Just Do What You’re Told?

Martial-law-Brisbane-Ekka — Inventive Brisbane Ekka photo by David Kapernick

This may be Good Friday, but by any definition it’s not all that flash, given varying states of emergency in Australia and attempts to police COVID-19 restrictions (emergent but not quite martial law).

Well may you scoff, as hysteria spreads in the US about the very real prospect of the Commander in Chief ordering the armed forces to take over. Outspoken New York governor Andrew Cuomo has dismissed martial law rumours in his state, although he has tightened business restrictions. As always, the global situation changes by the day.

According to <militarynews.com>, there are more than enough believers that martial law could soon apply in some US states. As we should know, that means the abandonment of civil liberties, free speech and all recourse to legal protections through suspension of habeas corpus. This has happened in recent times in countries relatively close to us, including Fiji, East Timor and Aceh.

Martial law occurs when military control of normal civilian functions is imposed by a government. Civil liberties, such as the right to free movement or protection from unreasonable searches, can be suspended. Civilians may be arrested for violating curfews or for offences not considered serious enough (in normal times) to warrant detention.

The United States has imposed martial law in one or more States on more than a dozen occasions since the formation of the Union. Most were declared because of wars, civil unrest or natural disasters. President Trump has more wiggle room in 2020, thanks to John Warner’s National Defense Authorization Act, brought into law by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. In addition to allocating funding for the armed forces, it also gave the president the power to declare martial law and to take command of the National Guard units of each State without the consent of State governors.

The Atlantic reported last month on the extraordinary power available to the President simply by invoking a ‘national emergency’.

This delivers more than 100 special provisions not usually available in peacetime. For example, he can shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the US, freeze Americans’ bank accounts and deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest. As The Atlantic’s Elizabeth Goitein observes, it would be OK if one trusted the President to do the right thing. But she points to past abuses, such as President Roosevelt’s rounding up and detaining Japanese nationals, even US citizens, after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. More recently, George W Bush supported programmes of wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

As far back as the Civil War, some presidents have had misgivings about martial law. President Lincoln defended the suspension of habeas corpus, saying that while it was constitutionally questionable, it was “necessary to preserve the union”.

It may surprise readers to find that Australia was subject to martial law, notably Tasmania and NSW, during the Frontier Wars of the late 1800s.

Governor Arthur declared martial law (against indigenous peoples) in Tasmania in November 11, 1828. Soldiers were given the right to apprehend without warrant or to shoot on sight any Aboriginal person in the Settled Districts who resisted them. The edict stressed that tribes that surrendered should be treated with every degree of humanity; and that “defenceless women and children be invariably spared”.

The Tasmanian state of martial law remained in place for three years. Meanwhile, Governor Brisbane introduced his own version of martial law in New South Wales. I have lost count of the Australians who have told me “we were never taught that at school”. Even now, some of the evidence is disputed, but at least there’s enough of it out there to make up your own mind.

Roll forward to 2020 and we have an executive Cabinet running Australia, only recalling Parliament one time, to vote on spending a lot of money to keep the economy in ‘hibernation’. There is a bi-partisan delegated legislation committee to oversee these measures, but how much influence does it really have?

The most sensible analysis I’ve read of this National Cabinet Committee is from libertarian blog, <Cattalaxyfiles>.

The writer describes the Cabinet (the nation’s first ministers – the Prime Minister, premiers and territory leaders), as an attempt at ‘cooperative federalism’. But he argues it has no constitutional authority.

“The Commonwealth might not actually have the power to do many of the things that are currently being done. The States do. The ‘National Cabinet’ is an unconstitutional fig leaf that allows the States to coordinate their activities while appearing to have a unified national approach.”

Even with just a humble State of Emergency in place, Australian citizens have reportedly been subjected to harassment by police in NSW. Can someone sit on a park bench and eat a kebab? Not if the police have spoken to the same guy twice in the same day, apparently.

Life seems relatively benign in Queensland, compared with zealous police patrols of NSW streets, markets, shopping centres and beaches. Nevertheless, Queensland police have the power to order you to move on (when did they not?) and if you are flagrantly breaking the rules (using a kids’ playground for example), expect to get run in.

But is this anything new?

The National Museum of Australia may be closed, but you can still read online a summary of stern health measures taken by Australian authorities in 1918 and 1919, during the Spanish Flu pandemic’.

“The Australian Quarantine Service monitored the spread of the pandemic and implemented maritime quarantine on 17 October 1918, after learning of outbreaks in New Zealand and South Africa.

“The first infected ship to enter Australian waters was the Mataram, from Singapore, which arrived in Darwin on 18 October 1918. Over the next six months, the service intercepted 323 vessels, 174 of which carried the infection. Of the 81,510 people who were checked, 1102 were infected.”

Despite all best efforts, the illness spread and 15,000 people died of pneumonic influenza, the nation’s name for Spanish Flu. The death toll equated to 2.7 people in every 1000, one of the lowest death rates in the world.

History will show whether or not we can improve on this, more than a hundred years later. Much depends on how long we can all hang in there under virtual house arrest. The cancellation of the Royal Queensland Show (the Ekka) is a clear sign that authorities expect the pandemic to still be around in August.

Authorities decided that exposing up to 400,000 people to the coronavirus was too big a risk. Also, the State government has taken an option over the 22ha Brisbane Showgrounds site for temporary hospital accommodation, just as it happened in 1919, at the peak of the ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic.

We can only imagine what a blow the Ekka announcement was to the State’s farmers – their annual chance to leave the drought and bushfires behind, put on their best duds and escape to the city.

It’s for the best, they say, but we don’t have to like it.

Further reading: NSW civil liberties advocate Nicholas Cowdery warns extended adjournment is “unacceptable and dangerous for democracy”

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/government-response-to-the-covid-19-outbreak

The return of capital punishment

capital-punishment-returns — The condemned man enjoyed a full moon. Image by prettysleepy2, www.pixabay.com

In February, my attention was caught by a bizarre story about the Sri Lankan government advertising for two public executioners of “strong moral character”.

I let it go at the time, as the topic seemed too morbid for FOMM readers. But that was before Donald Trump’s government last month re-introduced capital punishment in the US for Federal offences.

People in Trump’s government have been lobbying to reintroduce capital punishment, last used in 2003. The main target is drug traffickers, as the US battles to staunch its opioid crisis. Trump has also tweeted that the death sentence should apply to ‘mass shooters’. After this week’s racially-motivated shootings in the US, Trump is sticking to this line, resisting calls for firearm controls saying ‘hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun’.

The capital punishment debate should pique the curiosity of Australians born after 1967, because that was when the last person was executed in this country. Ronald Ryan had the dubious honour of being the last man to step up to the scaffold in February 1967. One of my former lecturers, the late Keith Willey, was the only journalist to attend the execution of Ryan in Pentridge Gaol.

Ryan, who had been founded guilty of killing a gaol warden, said to the hangman before the trapdoor opened: “God bless you – whatever you do, do it quickly.”

Actor Lewis Fitz-Gerald directed a 1993 documentary-drama based on the Ryan execution. Fitz-Gerald also played the part of his late uncle (Keith Willey). The Last Man Hanged also starred Colin Friels as Ryan.

Keith Willey wrote at least eight books, including “You might as well laugh, mate’, published posthumously in 1984. Willey’s Walkley-award studded journalism career included covering wars in Israel, South Vietnam and Cambodia and racial massacres in Cyprus and Kuala Lumpur.

Ryan’s execution happened at a time of growing public dissent about capital punishment. There were demonstrations, vigils and petitions. The Federal government abolished capital punishment (including the ACT and NT) in 1973. Queensland had already abolished it (in 1922), NSW in 1939 and Tasmania in 1968. Other states lagged behind including Victoria (1975), South Australia (1976) and Western Australia (1984).

As you know, I delight in uncovering apparently little-known facts, this one being the derivation of ‘capital punishment’, which is from the Latin ‘caput’ literally taken to mean decapitation.

There are a few fundamental flaws with capital punishment, the main one being that it has been shown on many occasions that innocent men (and women) were executed by mistake.

Many books have been written on this subject and more than 50 mainstream movies made, including The Green Mile, Dead Man Walking, Monster’s Ball and 12 Angry Men. People have marched in the streets over this issue, just as they are doing now in Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Nonetheless, we find ourselves in an era where conservative/right wing governments prevail. For governments of this ilk, capital punishment appeals as a deterrent. It is also a symbol of the strong hand of populist government, getting tough on crime, when the real issues are racism, poverty and the control of wealth in the hands of a few.

I’ll get off my soapbox now, as there seems no need for it in a supposedly enlightened first world country that is highly unlikely to ever re-introduce capital punishment. Federal, Territory and State governments have enough on their plates with high rates of suicide and deaths in custody. There are also emotive cases where governments are called on to defend Australian citizens convicted of crimes in countries that do have the death penalty.

Diplomatic interventions and other legal challenges failed to save convicted drug traffickers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. These two members of the now-infamous ‘Bali Nine’ were both executed by firing squad in April 2015. In the 1980s, convicted drug traffickers Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers were executed in Malaysia.

There have been others and there are certain to me more, given the human potential for risk-taking.

Amnesty International says there were at least 690 executions, in 20 countries, in 2018, a decrease of 31% compared to 2017 (at least 993). This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in the past decade. There are 106 countries where use of the death penalty is not allowed by law, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and South Africa. However 56 countries, most in Asia and the Middle East, still retain the death penalty. Amnesty says that just four countries accounted for 84% of the executions (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). This does not include China which keeps its statistics secret. Amnesty estimates China executes thousands every year.

Twenty-nine of America’s 50 states hand down and carry out death sentences, even though authorities have admitted that 10 people who died were ‘probably’ innocent. More worryingly, 140 people who were on death row were subsequently exonerated.

Now here is something all Australians need to know (whether you agree or disagree). Twenty Australian political parties were asked before the 2019 election about their political stance on the death penalty – yes or no. Three parties – One Nation, United Australia Party and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers – answered yes. The three major parties answered no and 11 parties did not respond to the survey.

The death penalty is a subject that is always up for debate,. From an ethical and moral standpoint it is indefensible. It can also be argued that by using capital punishment as a deterrent (which it isn’t), the countries who use it are clinging to concepts dreamt up in much less enlightened times.

Some of you may have seen the ABC’s Australian Story interview with former state executioner for Virginia, Jerry Givens. Givens says he is on a mission to highlight the decline in capital punishment in the US (executions fell from 98 in 1999 to a low of 20 in 2016 (25 in 2018).

This is long and far from cheery, but it is intriguing to read about capital punishment from the perspective of the ultimate insider. Givens legally executed 62 people from 1982 until forced to resign in 1999 over criminal charges which saw him serve a stint in prison.

State executioners are almost always sworn to secrecy so their place in society is rarely known about or discussed. Givens said even his wife did not know until it came to light in reports of his own brush with the law.

All up, 15,760 people have been executed in the US since 1700, with lethal injection now preferred over past methods including electrocution, hanging, gassing, firing squad and burning. It does make you think about the men and women involved in carrying out their official duties.

“So, Grandad, what did you really do at the Correctional Centre?”

Australia’s record looks comparatively benign, although executions were commonplace in the early days of settlement.

An Institute of Criminology report states that in 19^th century Australia, as many as 80 persons were hanged each year. The crimes included murder, manslaughter, burglary, sheep stealing, forgery and sexual assault. Since Federation (1901), only 114 persons have been legally executed in Australia.

Maybe so, but that’s too many to have on our collective conscience.

Refugee documentaries – preaching to the converted

As it is Refugee Week, I’ve been reflecting on how my support for refugees and asylum seekers is shamefully passive. I was reminded of this after attending a viewing last Saturday of Julian Burnside’s refugee documentary, Border Politics. Then on Monday I was one of 67 people who devoted the evening to a public viewing in Buderim of the refugee film, Constance on the Edge.

‘Constance on the Edge’ charts the struggles of a mother and her six children on a journey from war-torn South Sudan, via a decade in a Kenyan refugee camp, before being settled in Wagga Wagga, NSW. Constance suffers culture shock, adding to existing (and so-far untreated), post-traumatic stress. She has difficulties fitting in to a rural town, encountering unexpected racism. She also voices frustration that the help refugees receive, well-meaning as it may be, is not always what they want or need.

During question time someone asked how we could ensure more people get to more refugee documentaries like ‘Constance on the Edge’ and develop some empathy for refugees. As he said, the 67 people in the room already know about the issues and how much work needs to be done.

The debate about Australia’s asylum seeker policies resides within disparate echo chambers. First there’s the chamber of humanitarian outrage, where we gather to watch refugee documentaries, drop gold coins in the donations bucket and froth about our disappointing government. Then there are those who do have compassion but feel/believe that the government is right to take a hard line with asylum seekers. Perhaps they have never asked themselves why, merely trusting in their political masters to do the right thing.

While I fully support the expatriation of refugees from offshore detention, an increase in the refugee intake and a more relaxed attitude in general, a few hundred people protesting in King George Square or waving banners outside Peter Dutton’s electorate office is not going to make much difference. Many people who are bothered by the government’s attitude to refugees thought things would change when Labor won the election. Not only did Labor not win, the party’s position on refugees is quite similar to that of the LNP, with the exception that Labor would have entertained New Zealand’s offer to resettle people from Manus and Nauru.

Today I’m asking myself the same question I put to you – how many refugees do you actually know? Had anyone over to lunch recently or for a sleepover? I know a few local people who have opened their homes to refugees, linking up with local support groups like Buddies and Welcome to Maleny. The latter organised the viewing of Border Politics, part of the Sunshine Coast Refugee Action Network’s film festival. This film, co-produced by BBC Scotland, owes a bit to the style of outspoken US film maker Michael Moore in that it tells its story regardless of another point of view. The opposing stance is depicted in carefully chosen media clips of Donald Trump and others defending their position (John Howard is shown stating: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”.

This much-used quote comes from a long election campaign speech in 2001 amid the Tampa affair and the ‘children overboard’ claims.

Human rights barrister Julian Burnside certainly got around the place making this film. It revealed some things about refugees I did not know, namely the decision by outlying Scottish shires like the island of Bute to welcome as many refugees as was practical. Burnside also visited the Greek island of Lesbos, which at one stage in 2015 was literally awash with refugees arriving ad hoc from mainland Turkey. Many locals just reacted as they would if one of their own had been tossed out of a boat and was in danger of drowning. They gave food and shelter and helped them find their feet, all in the name of humanitarianism.

The problem with Border Politics, as is the case with many of the refugee-based documentaries doing the rounds, is that it preaches to the converted. It simmers with outrage and absolutely ignores the opportunity to engage in a debate with intelligent but conservative people who are wedded to the government line that an open door policy is an invitation to terrorists to set up camp and destabilise from within.

Some refugee documentaries, like Orban Wallace’s ‘Another News Story’, try for another angle. ‘Another News Story’ turns the camera on the news crew and film-makers. They, after all, are the ones who capture stark images like the photo shown in Burnside’s documentary of a toddler lying dead on a Mediterranean beach. As The Guardian’s Charlie Phillips wrote: “Film crews are shown asking refugees the same things over and over, then moving on to the next story. Their intentions may be honourable, but the scrum to get the most emotional pictures feels unpleasant and desensitising.”

Phillips lists documentaries which have real shock power, notably Gianfranco Rosi’s Oscar-nominated ‘Fire at Sea’ and Daphne Maziaraki’s ‘4.1 miles’, a 28-minute documentary which shows coastguards rescuing refugees arriving on Lesbos.

Australia’s ‘Island of the Hungry Ghosts’ gets an honourable mention. I have seen this film, which deals with the personal struggle of a trauma counsellor working at Christmas Island’s high-security detention centre. Christmas Island counsellor Po-Lin is herself traumatised by the experience of counselling traumatised refugees while battling the indifference of centre management.

The documentary has a twin purpose – to chronicle the annual migration of red crabs from the jungle on one side of the island to the open sea on the other. The analogy is not wasted. h

Documentaries like those mentioned involve us in a passive way, while actually making a decision to go and work with refugees, as many volunteers do, is probably more effective. Many of these films are in limited distribution, tagged on to film festival programmes or being shown to like-minded people who have donated money to make the viewing affordable. But some can be found and viewed for nothing via YouTube or Vimeo or streamed for a small fee.

Some refugee documentaries are hard work: ‘Border Politics’ is harrowing and so too Ai Weiwei’s ‘Human Flow’, a three-hour tour of all the world’s refugee hotspots. Here’s the trailer – the movie is available for streaming or download through Amazon.

Some use comedy to get the message out, for example, ‘The Merger’, (a struggling rural AFL club recruits African refugees to bolster the team’s efforts). When the proportion of refugees living among us is less than 0.25% of the population, we need insights like these to remind us that people escaping wars and persecution are settling here. They need our help, even the small things (like the CWA lady in Wagga teaching one of the African women how to knit).

While Refugee Week (an Australian initiative now in its 20^th year) ends tomorrow, I recommend tracking down at least one of the movies mentioned here. They give voice to important stories which are not in general circulation, and that in itself is commendable.

Refugees settling in despite funding cuts

refugees-Toowoomba-funding — Multiculturalism: Toowoomba’s Mayayali Association (Kerala province south India) participates in the city’s annual Carnival of Flowers parade. Photo by Bob Wilson.

While refugees and migrants have been welcomed into Australia’s rural communities, successive Budget cuts have made life difficult for refugee support services. Although not attracting too many headlines, a $50 million cut in the 2018-19 Budget, and another $77.9 million over four years in the 2019-20 Budget, means that organisations trying to help refugees with the transition to a new country, a new culture and a new language are left scrambling.

The Refugee Council of Australia pointed out that the Budget found $62 million extra for Operation Sovereign Borders, while spending $50 million less on refugee support services.

“The Government has savagely cut its allocation for financial support for people seeking asylum by more than 60% in just two years, from $139.8 million in 2017-18 to $52.6 million in 2019-20”.

The 2018 cuts were particularly bad for organisations like Toowoomba Refugee and Migrants Services (TRAMS), because the government also stopped funding translation services, which means TRAMS and other networks throughout Australia have to fund their own.

Over the past 15 years, more than 4,000 families have settled in Toowoomba,130 kms west of Brisbane. They came from conflict-torn homelands of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan.

TRAMS director Kate Venables told regional ABC that Federal funding was cut from $390,000 to $240,000 in late 2018, taking the organisation by surprise.

“Part of that funding now goes towards an interpreting service that was previously government funded. So really our funding was reduced to $160,000, a massive reduction for us.”

About 400 TRAMS clients are Yazadi, a persecuted religious minority from Iraq. The Yazadi follow their own religion and speak the little-known dialect of Kurdish-Kurmanji.

According to the 2016 Census, 3,657 people living in Toowoomba spoke a language other than English at home. They included Mandarin (934), Arabic (879), Tagalog (482), Dinka (474) and Afrikaans (444). Tagalog is the language of Filipino natives while Dinka is spoken by South Sudanese ethnic groups. Most of the Yazadi refugees arrived after the Census was taken.

Toowoomba’s population has more than doubled from 73,390 in 1986 to 160,799 in 2016. In a provincial city settled mainly by people of Anglo-Saxon or German descent, that is considerable growth and diversity of population. The city also has significant communities of migrants from India and the Philippines.

When we visited last September for the Carnival of Flowers, I was taken with the way the traditional street parade had become a celebration of multiculturalism and diversity. If you want to know how multicultural Toowoomba has become, the weekend we were there, more than 2,000 South Sudanese people attended a funeral for a local Anglican priest. Some of these people came from out of town, but such was the show of support they had to hire a high school hall for the service.

According to a survey of 155 newly arrived adult refugees and 59 children from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan who settled in suburban Brisbane, Logan and Toowoomba, those who settled in Toowoomba had the easiest time integrating and feeling a part of their local communities.

The survey by Professor Jock Collins, Professor of Social Economics, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney and Professor Carol Read, Professor, Western Sydney University, was funded by the Australian Research Council. The findings are the first to emerge from a three-year study of settlement outcomes of recently arrived refugees in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

Nearly all refugees surveyed in Brisbane and Logan are Christians – a consequence of the Turnbull government favouring mainly Christian refugees from Syria and Iraq. As well as settling Yazidi refugees, Toowoomba also welcomed a smaller number of Muslim refugees from Afghanistan.

I recall checking out an Afghan takeaway and grocery shop in Toowoomba’s Margaret Street. We chatted to the young man behind the counter who said that while he liked Toowoomba well enough, he found it very quiet after the constant hubbub of Kabul (population 4.65 million).

One key issue related to immigrant and refugee settlement in regional and rural Australia relates to the warmth of the welcome. Collins and Read said 68% of the refugees in Queensland overall – and 81% in Toowoomba reported that it was “very easy” or “easy” to make friends in Australia. About 60% found it “very easy” or “easy” to talk to their Australian neighbours.

“When we revisit these families in 2019 and 2020, we expect the numbers will even be higher,” the survey authors said.

Syrian refugee Yousef Roumieh, a bi-cultural support worker with TRAMS, helps Yazadi refugees with day-to-day tasks, such as booking appointments and reading mail and text messages.

He learned to speak Kurdish-Kurmanji during a five-year stay in an Iraqi refugee camp.

“There is not enough funding to pay for the supports, this is a big problem,” Mr Roumieh, formerly a pharmacist from Damascus, told the ABC.

The Department of Social Services made it clear the onus was (now) on refugee support services to provide their own interpreting services. The department said the previous arrangement was ‘contrary to the intent of the Free Interpreting Service program’.

You may recall the Australian Story episode Field of Dreams in 2016, which told of the positive outcomes flowing from settling African refugees in the New South Wales border town of Mingaloo. It’s not difficult to find similar stories, particularly in rural Victoria and NSW. The Economist published a story in January about the 400 Yazadi refugees resettled in the NSW regional town of Wagga Wagga. The primary school in the town had to hire interpreters to communicate with families (a fifth of its students are refugees) and the local college is busy with parents learning English and new trades. As the article observed “Few locals seem fussed about the changes and to those fresh from war zones, ‘Wagga’ is an idyll.”

Many grassroots organisations and charities have weighed in to help refugees make the transition to new towns in Australia. Rural Australians for Refugees (RAR) said resettlements had occurred in Hamilton, Swan Reach, Kerang, Nhill, Bendigo, Castlemaine, Shepparton, Albury/Wodonga, Wagga, Griffith, Leeton, Armidale, Mingoola and Townsville – “to name a few”.

In the tiny Victorian town of Nhill (pop 2,184), 160 refugees from Myanmar helped boost the town’s economy by taking jobs with a local poultry farm.

Funding for refugee support services is often derived from a variety of sources. The Nhill initiative was co-funded by the Federal government, Hindmarsh Shire and the poultry farm, Luv-a-Duck.

A report published by Deloitte Access Economics and settlement agency AMES Australia said the initiative has added more than $40 million and 70 jobs to the local economy between 2010 and 2015.

At its annual conference in December, the Labor Party made a commitment to increase community-sponsored refugee programmes up to 5,000 places per year, and boost funding for regional processing and resettlement. The unequivocal promise of support is in stark contrast to the $50 million cut to refugee services by the Coalition. Coincidentally, this is the exact sum set aside for the redevelopment of the site at Botany Bay where the British explorer and his crew first set foot on Australian soil in 1770.

That’s what elections are all about, really; you vote for the party that spends (or doesn’t spend) money on things you care about.

FOMM back pages:

Errata: Last week I somewhat underestimated the cost of a political bill board, which an informed reader told me was $10,000 a month.

Get the kids off Nauru, maybe

Nauru refugees are welcome – photo by Takver – flickr

We’ve been learning a protest song for our choir’s Christmas concert. Actually it is a plea for peace, the musical equivalent of a street march – “What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now.”

John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s Happy Xmas/War is Over starts by asking the universal question so many of us end up asking ourselves: “And so it is Christmas, and what have we done? Another year over, a new one just begun.”

If you can ignore the ‘sounds like’ melody and work through the key changes to the counter-refrain “War is over, if you want it,” this is quite an epic tune. Many critics have pointed out the similarities between Leadbelly’s ‘Stewball’ made popular by Peter Paul and Mary but even then, the tune pre-dates that earnest trio by a few hundred years.

A few people (including me) have written protest songs about Australia’s pitiless refugee policies, particularly its offshore processing strategy. Doctors for Refugees spokesman Paddy McLisky recently told a rally in Brisbane that offshore processing was a ‘health hazard’ Continue reading “Get the kids off Nauru, maybe”

Human Rights and Halloween

human-rights-nauru — Human rights billboard Image provided by Fr Rod Bower of Gosford Anglican Church

You always have to look for the silver lining; like the Queensland Parliament introducing a Human Rights Act on the same day (31^st October) that people were walking the streets dressed as ghouls and zombies, reminding us that Christmas is just 55 days away.

Christmas Island is just around the corner too – well, it’s precisely 1,550 kms north-west of Perth. But it is an Australian territory, unlike Nauru and Manus Island.

I mention human rights in the context of offshore processing of asylum seekers to make the point that Australia is one of the few democracies that does not have a so-called Bill of Rights.

Victoria and the ACT have their own Human Rights acts and Queensland’s new act will become law next year. But there is no specific Federal law. In case you did not know, Queensland’s Human Rights Act will replace a hit-and-miss system in which individual liberties are said to be protected under the constitution and by common law. The Federalists have always argued that the latter is sufficient protection to ensure freedom of speech, privacy, equality and such like. The anti-Federalists in Queensland have been quietly pushing for this new act for the last four or five years.

The subject came up more than once when former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs was in town for Outspoken, a literary event that draws a mixed crowd of avid readers. Triggs, as one would imagine, was well aware that Queensland was considering introducing a Human Rights act and there was a bit of discussion as to what form that might take. As she mentioned at the time, she hoped this new Act would protect indigenous culture (and it does).

Queensland’s act mimics Victoria’s laws in many ways – it protects 23 human rights as basic as the right to freedom from forced work, to equality, the right to life and the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (remember Campbell Newman’s bikie laws?).The Australian Government should make a note of this one: ‘protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’, in terms of refugees being kept on Nauru and Manus Island.

If this new Act is set to enhance the protection and privacy of individuals, will this extend to trick and treaters coming down the driveway, uninvited? This did not happen in our street, the Halloween revellers opting to approach only those houses suitably adorned with spooky lights, cobwebs, pumpkins and other faux-accoutrements of a distinctly American tradition.

Protecting the privacy of individuals should surely extend to preventing real estate agents, politicians, Clive Palmer and the NBN from shoving unwanted solicitations in your letterbox?

Should it not also cover the telephone ringing at 6.50pm with the chatter of a call centre in the background and a long pause while someone realises yours is the next cold call they must attend to (by which time you have hung up).

ABC News provided a handy guide to the new Act, which meant that although I downloaded it, I do not necessarily have to wade my way through all 88 pages of the Act. The main objects are to:

to protect and promote human rights; and
to help build a culture in the Queensland public sector

that respects and promotes human rights; and

to help promote a dialogue about the nature, meaning

and scope of human rights.”

Under this new Act, the Anti-Discrimination Commission will be re-named the Queensland Human Rights Commission and as such receive complaints from the public. The specifics of the Act ensure that the Parliament, the government and more importantly, the bureaucracy that administers Queensland’s laws will have to comply with them.

Dan Rogers from Caxton Legal told the ABC the new act would provide a broad spectrum of individual rights. He said Victoria and the ACT had benefited from having similar legislation for over a decade.

“When government departments deliver services, they’re more likely to comply with our fundamental human rights.”

Rogers gave examples of when these rights may be compromised (cameras recording conversations or abuse of search powers by police and government inspectors).

Queensland Council of Civil Liberties president Michael Cope told the ABC that Australian States were some of the last in the world not yet be covered by a human rights act.

“We know from history that democracies can quickly change from being democracies to something else. It only took Hitler six or seven years to transform Germany.”

Predictably, the Queensland Opposition described the new Act as a ‘distraction’ from the real issue (the economy) and harped on about the time and money spent implementing the new Act. (Victoria’s Human Rights Act has been estimated to cost 50c per person, per year).

Most democracies have a bill of rights of some type and 192 member States have become signatories to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it was established in 1948. There are eight notable hold-outs: South Africa, Belorussia, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Saudi Arabia, Yugoslavia and Russia.

Since we mentioned Nauru in the context of Australia’s decision to use the tiny island as a holding depot for asylum seekers and refugees, here’s what we know about its place in the world.

Of the nine core United Nations human rights treaties, Nauru, which has been a member since 1999, has ratified or acceded to four of them. They include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture. In response to recommendations from other States and human rights monitoring bodies, Nauru ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in June 2011. Just so we know.

The UN has gone to a lot of trouble to set up a portal to teach children the basics of human rights. It’s not a bad place for adults to digest a summary of the obvious and not-so obvious things we regard as rights.

Item 19 is of particular interest to me and my 27 readers (and an old blue heeler called Herbie who chases his tail when he hears FOMM go ‘ping’ in the inbox):

We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.

That would be of small comfort to journalists jailed last year by regimes that do not brook public dissent. A record 262 journalists were jailed in 2017, amid an aggressive crackdown by government authorities, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

In this free-ranging discussion about human rights you may have noticed my own bias creeping in about Halloween. I just do not care for the pervasive infiltration of American ‘culture’ into the Australian-way-of-life. Pumpkins were meant to be cooked and eaten, mate, by me or the dog.

And don‘t get me started on those Council workers cluttering up the only roundabout in the village with a truck and crane adorning the Flame Tree with shiny Christmas baubles and fake presents.

“Mate, you’re infringing on my right to freedom of movement,” the grumpy septuagenarian hollered out the car window.

FOMM back pages

About Nauru your petitioner humbly prays

Nauru-refugee-children — Refugee child ‘Roze’ on Nauru, provided by World Vision Australia

I could count on the toes of my feet the number of petitions I have signed in this life, but I could not refuse the Kids off Nauru campaign. More than 100 human rights groups, churches, charities and organisations, including World Vision, Amnesty International and the Australian Lawyers Alliance are behind Kids off Nauru.

The e-petition to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten leaves no room for negotiation. Children in detention on Nauru, about 40 of who were born on the island, have witnessed lip stitching, self-immolation and other suicide attempts. Many have developed traumatic withdrawal syndrome, characterised by resigning from all activities that support a normal life. The Australian Medical Association has called for immediate action to assure the health and wellbeing of those on Nauru.

As one of the NGOs involved in the campaign, Plan International says, “This can’t continue, not on our watch”.

“We’ve seen report after report of children who are in such despair, for whom life in detention is so miserable, that they have withdrawn socially, stopped eating and even attempted suicide,” Plan International said. “In August a 12-year-old girl tried to set herself on fire.”

The petitioners want all 120* children and their families off Nauru by November 20, 2018. The date is not random – it is Universal Children’s Day.

You all know this shameful story, where the Australian Government re-invented an offshore processing solution for people who’d mostly arrived without permission by boat, seeking refuge in the big open country they had heard was egalitarian and tolerant.

Nauru, a small island north-east of PNG and the Solomon Islands, was once known for extracting and selling phosphate for fertiliser. The resource is exhausted, so the Nauruan government could hardly refuse the lucrative offer from the Australian Government.

It’s difficult to get an accurate count* of children on Nauru, quoted variously as between 106 and 126. Meanwhile the official number from the Australian Government is 22. But wait, the fine print refers only to children in the Nauru Regional Processing Centre (Australia’s responsibility). Other refugee children are accommodated in centres run by the Nauruan Government. The latter is not at all transparent about the welfare of refugee children and their parents. A New Zealand TV reporter was detained briefly when reporting from the Pacific Forum because she went ‘off reservation’ to talk to refugees “without going through proper channels”.

I’d go and see for myself but they want $8,000 for a journalist visa.

Anglican Bishop Phillip Huggins wrote to then Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton seeking clarification of numbers published on the department’s website.

The (eventual) reply from Mr Dutton and Huggins’s interpretation of the answers is worth reading to get a perspective.

Bishop Huggins concluded that the harsh reality is that there were (in August 2018), 120 refugee children in Nauru (some have been resettled in the last month). Some are being assessed for resettlement in America; some may eventually be resettled in New Zealand.

Let’s ask the obvious question: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern and her coalition partner Winston Peters have offered to take up to 150 refugees from Nauru. Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull rejected the offer to resettle the Nauru refugees, making the woolly argument that this would only make New Zealand attractive to people smugglers. It may surprise readers to know that the New Zealand offer to resettle refugees goes back to the administration of former PM John Key (2008-2016).

The transfer of asylum seekers to offshore processing centres in the Pacific was first introduced by the Howard (Coalition) Government in 2001.Here’s an edited summary of what followed.

Seven months after Kevin Rudd was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2008, the last remaining asylum seekers on Nauru were transferred to Australia, ending the Howard Government’s controversial ‘Pacific Solution’.

In July 2010, then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard revealed that the Government had begun having discussions about establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing irregular entrants to the region. Importantly, only 25 asylum seekers had travelled by boat to Australia to seek asylum in the 2007–08 financial year. By the time Gillard made her announcement in July 2010, more than 5,000 people had come by boat to Australia to seek asylum.

Gillard acknowledged that the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia was ‘very, very minor’ but she identified a number of reasons why the processing of asylum seekers in other countries was considered necessary, including:

to remove the financial incentive for the people smugglers to send boats to Australia;
to ensure that those arriving by boat do not get an unfair advantage over others;
to prevent people embarking on a voyage across dangerous seas with the ever present risk of death;
to prevent overcrowding in detention facilities in Australia.

Though it took another two years to secure arrangements, people began to be transferred to Nauru and PNG in the last quarter of 2012.

Two months before the 2013 federal election amidst growing support for the Opposition’s tougher border protection policies, newly appointed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that Australia had entered into a Regional Resettlement Arrangement with PNG. Under the arrangement, all (not just some) asylum seekers who arrived by boat would be transferred to PNG for processing and settlement in PNG and in any other participating regional State. Mr Rudd subsequently made a similar arrangement with Nauru.

Mr Rudd now says this was meant to be a temporary arrangement.

So he we are with a humanitarian crisis on our back door and as per usual, those clinging to slender majorities do not want to make brave, decent decisions which might cost them their seat at the next election.

Petitions are a form of protest known to exert moral authority; that is, they have no legal force. But the sheer weight of numbers can force social change. One example was the millions of signatures on a petition calling for the release of Nelson Mandela.

Before e-petitions and ‘clicktivism’ became the norm, government clerks charged with the receipt and storage of paper petitions had a job for life.

The Australian government receives on average 120 petitions a year, a large proportion of which are e-petitions. Activist group, change.org, (https://www.change.org), the biggest generator of e-petitions, has 50 million subscribers world-wide.

Nigel Gladstone, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, says 32,728 Australian petitions were started on the change.org website since 2014. More than 3.5 million people signed their name to support campaigns such as reduced parking fees at NSW hospitals and marriage equality.

Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Sydney, Ariadne Vromen and Professor Darren Halpin of ANU collected data from change.org to study online petitions over a four-year period.

“This form of political engagement is both mainstream and important,” Professor Vromen told the SMH. “In Australia Get-up were really the pioneers of using online petitions and that was a bit of a shock to the system, but politicians quickly became cynical.

“Change.org is different because citizens can start their own thing, so it is different to an advocacy group starting something.”

So will the advocacy groups behind Kids off Nauru succeed in their mission to force the government to act by November 20? Let’s revisit this in a couple of months’ time.

#kidsoffnauru

Multiculturalism under siege

multiculturalism-perilli-monument — Monument to Multiculturalism in Toronto, a sculpture by Francesco Perilli. Photo by Shaun Merritt https://flic.kr/p/5d7sTp

My plan to write something cuddly and wholesome about Multiculturalism Month in Queensland was derailed somewhat by the egregious maiden speech of crossbench Senator Fraser Anning.

One of our newest politicians, he chose his maiden speech to call for a return to the White Australia policy, suggesting that a plebiscite be held to ask Australians if they want ‘wholesale non-English speaking immigrants from the Third World and, in particular, whether they want any Muslims’.

Politicians who make incendiary speeches are often misquoted, so this is exactly what Senator Anning had to say about Muslims.

“A majority of Muslims in Australia of working age do not work and live on welfare. Muslims in New South Wales and Victoria are three times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes. We have black African Muslim gangs terrorising Melbourne. We have ISIS-sympathising Muslims trying to go overseas to fight for ISIS and, while all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims. So why would anyone want to bring more of them here?”

He said a lot of other things too; about countering the growing threat of China both outside and within Australia; about building coal-fired power stations to return us to the cheapest power in the world, and about (ahem) restoring personal freedoms and free speech.

The thing that outraged many, however, was his use of the words, ‘the final solution’, made infamous by the Nazis in WWII. Senator Anning seems unrepentant, amid claims the speech was deliberately structured to be controversial and raise his profile. He claims the use of the term “final solution” (the Nazi regime’s euphemism for exterminating Jewish people), was “inadvertent”. But he has not backed down, saying the outrage is coming solely from political opponents.

The counterpoint to Senator Anning’s divisive speech was a plea for consensus by the Member for Chifley, Hon Ed Husic. His response in Parliament described the experiences of his Bosnian parents, who came to Australia in the 1960s.

“My old man worked on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Dad worked with his hands and Mum stayed home to make sure we had a family that could take advantage of all the great things in this country.

“Like many kids of migrants, I carry a debt – a debt of gratitude to this country that we were able to achieve this. I went to university. I could count on one hand the numbers of folks in my family or from my Dad’s generation that got to do that. Now I get to serve in this place (Parliament) and regardless of my faith, my commitment to the community is what I’m judged on.”

Opposition leader Bill Shorten weighed in, saying “…As leaders, as representatives of the Australian people, as servants of diverse communities in a great multicultural nation, we cannot stay silent in the face of racism.”

Even former MP John Howard condemned the tone of Anning’s speech, which is a bit rich coming from the bloke who introduced the One Australia policy in 1988, which called for an end to multiculturalism (and opposed a treaty with Aboriginal Australians).

Anning might not have read the spray in the Tweed Daily News from Australian-born journalist Charis Chong, who said that although she drinks all kinds of Australian beer and has a Weber in her backyard, “I’ll never be Australian enough”.

She talks of her negative experiences as an Asian Australia, but also her true friendships with people who don’t talk about assimilation – “they are just nice, decent people who appreciate each individual person for who they are.

“The problem with Senator Anning’s comments is that they seek to exclude people from ever being good enough to be ‘Australian’ simply because they don’t look ‘white’ or want to practice a certain religion.”

Katharine Murphy writing for The Guardian warned that the Anning speech was a sign that Australia was being caught up in global nationalist debates.

“What we are witnessing in national politics is the latest manifestation of Australia’s cultural cringe. Far right political operatives, and the media voices prepared to give them succour, are importing the nationalist debates that have sprung up in the shadow of the global financial crisis.”

Murphy is correct in saying that debates about race, multiculturalism, sovereignty and immigration have flared up elsewhere because of deep resentments felt by the losers of globalisation. While Australia was not as deeply affected by the GFC, the ‘outrage consciousness’ that exists elsewhere is being imported, validated and projected here, she said.

The 2016 Census revealed a lot about the ethnic makeup of Australia. Nearly half (49%) of Australians had either been born overseas (first generation Australian) or one or both of their parents had been born overseas (second generation Australians). Of the 6.16 million overseas-born persons, nearly one in five (18%) had arrived since the start of 2012. While England and New Zealand were still the next most common countries of birth, the proportion of those born overseas who were born in China and India has increased to 8.3% and 7.4% respectively. Malaysia now appears in the top 10 countries of birth (replacing Scotland) and represents 0.6% of the Australian population. While 52.1% of Australians identify as Christians, those who listed Islam as their religion numbered 620,200 or 2.6% of the population.

One might imagine that immigrants and refugees settling in regional and rural Australia would receive a chilly reception from the stereotypical ‘rednecks’ of the bush. But Prof. Collins wrote in The Conversation that a research project on immigrants living in regional Australia a decade ago dispelled this myth, with 80% of respondents reporting a warm welcome.

“Our new research confirmed this finding, with 68% of the refugees surveyed in Queensland overall – and 81% in Toowoomba – reporting it was ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’ to make friends in Australia.”

Meanwhile, people who believe in embracing multiculturalism continue to celebrate its existence, which in Queensland is the month of August.

If you live in regional Queensland and support cultural diversity, you could look out for BEMAC’s Culture Train. (BEMAC is Queensland’s leading multicultural arts producer, presenter and artistic development organisation).The train will be making 15 whistle stops on a tour that starts today. A group of five culturally diverse musicians will present free concerts and workshops starting at Dunwich (Stradbroke Island), then on to Dalby, Chinchilla, Roma, Charleville, Longreach, Barcaldine, Emerald, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Childers, Cherbourg, Toowoomba, Ipswich and finishing at the Brisbane Multicultural Centre on August 31. The Culture Train 2018 ensemble is: Sarah Calderwood: Celtic singer-songwriter, flute & whistle player, Chong Ali: Vietnamese rapper and emcee, Marcelo Rosciano: Brazilian percussionist, Ben Kashi: Persian dulcimer and percussionist and Gertrude Benjamin: Torres-Strait Islander folk and soul singer.

Sarah, who is also musical director, said the group would be performing shows which combine songs from the group’s vastly different cultures backgrounds, with individuals performing solo work as well.

“The five of us are thrilled to not only celebrate this diversity through music and storytelling,” she told FOMM, “but to promote inclusion and bring communities together to collectively celebrate multiculturalism in regional, rural and remote communities.”