A ‘Dog Pound’ for a third world country
By JASON GIMA WURI
After the signing of the refugee resettlement deal between Australia and Papua New Guinea last week Friday, it seems highly likely that Australia has finally succeeded in sending its problem to PNG.
The big question Papua New Guinea should be asking here is, why does Australia not want to deal directly with its asylum seekers?
We should be asking questions like, hasn’t Australia got a huge land mass enough to build countless detention centres?
Or is it because detention centres in Australia are referred to as ”Dog Pounds” that they do not want any more of those kind of centres built on their land, instead sign deals with third world countries like Papua New Guinea?
Concluding that we are seen as an underdeveloped country where a “Dog Pound” is fit to be set up.
Whatever Australia has agreed to give to the people of remote Manus province in terms of development and infrastructure in exchange for the new deal in building a bigger processing centre to house an increased number of asylum seekers to be sent to Manus, should be delivered in a given time frame or risk moving out.
A time frame to deliver all it has promised to the people of Manus in exchange for the larger processing centre, because it will be a disaster if both governments do not keep up to their promises in the deal.
We know Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has said in the media that PNG is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention and has continuously called Papua New Guinea a Christian country.
Mr O’Neill has challenged many PNG citizens many of whom have disagreed with the refugee resettlement deal to have Christ like character to offer compassion to the needy, in this case to the asylum seekers.
Then Mr O’Neill further claims that even though we have Christ like character to accept asylum seekers, the refugees will not be given priority over Papua New Guineans in essential areas like health and education.
He further states that there is nothing in the agreement that says refugees will get priority over our citizens.
Let me paint you a scenario in this situation, assuming if there are two patients rushed to the Lorengau General hospital, one a local diagnosed with malaria and the other a refugee having a heart attack and needs immediate attention. Who do you serve first? Well Prime Minister O’Neill just stated the answer in the media (The National page 3 dated 24/17/13) that priority is given to the locals, so the doctor takes his/her time to treat the local patient while the refugee is dying of heart attack in another hospital room.
Where is the humanitarian compassion to save the life of the dying refugee? Where is the Christ like humanitarian compassion that Mr O’Neill is big mouthing about?
In other words, how can the Prime Minister allow the refugees to come into the country only to allow them to die in the hospital in regards to what he is sayng in the media?
What Mr O’Neill does not know is that he is contradicting himself in regards to the deal.
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared the policy on Friday, saying the new regime to deny settlement in Australia to asylum seekers who paid people smugglers for unauthorised passage would begin immediately.
The surprise announcement was condemned by refugee advocates as inhumane and praised by the opposition as a "very promising development".
Mr Rudd's hardline approach means people arriving by boat and without a visa will be sent to Australia's Manus Island facility in Papua New Guinea for assessment and, if found to be genuine refugees, they will be settled there.
If they are not found to be genuine refugees, they would be repatriated or sent to a safe third country.
Mr Rudd said the agreement did not specify an absolute limit to the number of refugees who could be resettled.
The first transfers to Manus Island are expected within weeks, following the arrival on Friday of a boat carrying 80 people at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Mr Rudd in the presence of Mr O’Neill in Brisbane said "Any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee.
The Manus facility currently houses 215 people in tents and shelters and living conditions are described as harsh.
A permanent 600-bed facility is due for completion in January but further upgrades are now expected.
Meanwhile Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the new policy will never work with Mr Rudd in charge.
"I welcome it, but it won't work under Mr Rudd. I do welcome the generous response of PNG to Australia's difficulties here," he said.
"Let's face it, this is Labor's fifth go at getting it right and while this certainly is a very promising development in offshore processing, it is about processing boat people, it's not about stopping the boats and that in the end is what we have to have.
"I think the question that the Australian people have to ask is, who do you trust on this subject? Who do you trust to stop the boats? Do you trust the political party which started them up again?
"Or you trust the party that is the original and the best when it comes to actually stopping the boats?"
Human rights advocate David Manne says he is surprised by Mr Rudd's hardline stance.
"I am surprised on a number of fronts, first and foremost because Australia, having signed up to the Refugees' Convention in 1954 committed to protecting people who come to its shores, not exposing them to further risks elsewhere," he said.
Mr Manne said also particularly concerned because in the context of the global challenges, the fact remains that Australia hosts only 0.3 per cent of refugees worldwide and yet, what we see here is a policy designed not only to deter asylum seekers from coming and seeking refuge in Australia, but one that also proposes to shift our responsibilities on to others, to not shoulder the responsibility of protecting refugees but to shift it and to deflect it on to others.
"In this case Papua New Guinea, a country that is far less well equipped to respond and accommodate to the needs of refugees."
Tasmanian human rights lawyer Greg Barns is highly critical of the policy and says it may violate Australia's international obligations under the United Nations refugee convention.
"Effectively you've got a form of discrimination, 50,000 of them who come in every year on planes will be treated in a certain way, those who come by boat won't be.” he said.
In conclusion it's going back to the World War II syndrome that Papua New Guinea is the front line.
The incentives are some investment that will go into a remote Manus province. It's a province without much in the way of economic opportunities. This is seen as providing opportunities in catering and security.
It's not a popular initiative. Much of PNG has other thoughts on its mind, much of the population is concerned with making an income and surviving, but it's generally seen as an Australian problem and why should Australia export its problems to PNG?
There is the possibility of a legal challenge to the agreement, as we have seen before with challenges to the Supreme Court on the existing activity on Manus Island and the memorandum of understanding between PNG and Australia.
The most recent iteration was thrown out on a procedural matter but the main lawyer involved has vowed to resubmit the challenge.
There is also an interesting question in how those resettled refugees will be able to blend in. Papua New Guinea is Christian – in some parts a deeply Christian - country. There is a small population of Muslims, but as many thousands more come in, that reaction is something we will have to wait and see.
This is a cheap deal. Does he know that what he has agreed upon is a simple trading process, like buying a tin fish? He should feel ashamed of himself for thinking as lowly as a Prime Minister of a robust nation like PNG.
He has ignorantly undermined PNG’s sovereignty as well as its rich natural resources including smart and highly educated indigenous human resources.
Such act of ignorance is totally unacceptable. Only arrogant, stupid, self-fish, and people of unsound mind can make illogical decisions like that.
Mr O’Neill has once again succeeded in selling this nation by trying to play saviour in our regional affairs when our mother country Australia is more than capable of dealing with its own complex asylum boat people and refugee resettlement issues.
After the signing of the refugee resettlement deal between Australia and Papua New Guinea last week Friday, it seems highly likely that Australia has finally succeeded in sending its problem to PNG.
The big question Papua New Guinea should be asking here is, why does Australia not want to deal directly with its asylum seekers?
We should be asking questions like, hasn’t Australia got a huge land mass enough to build countless detention centres?
Or is it because detention centres in Australia are referred to as ”Dog Pounds” that they do not want any more of those kind of centres built on their land, instead sign deals with third world countries like Papua New Guinea?
Concluding that we are seen as an underdeveloped country where a “Dog Pound” is fit to be set up.
Whatever Australia has agreed to give to the people of remote Manus province in terms of development and infrastructure in exchange for the new deal in building a bigger processing centre to house an increased number of asylum seekers to be sent to Manus, should be delivered in a given time frame or risk moving out.
A time frame to deliver all it has promised to the people of Manus in exchange for the larger processing centre, because it will be a disaster if both governments do not keep up to their promises in the deal.
We know Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has said in the media that PNG is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention and has continuously called Papua New Guinea a Christian country.
Mr O’Neill has challenged many PNG citizens many of whom have disagreed with the refugee resettlement deal to have Christ like character to offer compassion to the needy, in this case to the asylum seekers.
Then Mr O’Neill further claims that even though we have Christ like character to accept asylum seekers, the refugees will not be given priority over Papua New Guineans in essential areas like health and education.
He further states that there is nothing in the agreement that says refugees will get priority over our citizens.
Let me paint you a scenario in this situation, assuming if there are two patients rushed to the Lorengau General hospital, one a local diagnosed with malaria and the other a refugee having a heart attack and needs immediate attention. Who do you serve first? Well Prime Minister O’Neill just stated the answer in the media (The National page 3 dated 24/17/13) that priority is given to the locals, so the doctor takes his/her time to treat the local patient while the refugee is dying of heart attack in another hospital room.
Where is the humanitarian compassion to save the life of the dying refugee? Where is the Christ like humanitarian compassion that Mr O’Neill is big mouthing about?
In other words, how can the Prime Minister allow the refugees to come into the country only to allow them to die in the hospital in regards to what he is sayng in the media?
What Mr O’Neill does not know is that he is contradicting himself in regards to the deal.
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared the policy on Friday, saying the new regime to deny settlement in Australia to asylum seekers who paid people smugglers for unauthorised passage would begin immediately.
The surprise announcement was condemned by refugee advocates as inhumane and praised by the opposition as a "very promising development".
Mr Rudd's hardline approach means people arriving by boat and without a visa will be sent to Australia's Manus Island facility in Papua New Guinea for assessment and, if found to be genuine refugees, they will be settled there.
If they are not found to be genuine refugees, they would be repatriated or sent to a safe third country.
Mr Rudd said the agreement did not specify an absolute limit to the number of refugees who could be resettled.
The first transfers to Manus Island are expected within weeks, following the arrival on Friday of a boat carrying 80 people at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Mr Rudd in the presence of Mr O’Neill in Brisbane said "Any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee.
The Manus facility currently houses 215 people in tents and shelters and living conditions are described as harsh.
A permanent 600-bed facility is due for completion in January but further upgrades are now expected.
Meanwhile Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the new policy will never work with Mr Rudd in charge.
"I welcome it, but it won't work under Mr Rudd. I do welcome the generous response of PNG to Australia's difficulties here," he said.
"Let's face it, this is Labor's fifth go at getting it right and while this certainly is a very promising development in offshore processing, it is about processing boat people, it's not about stopping the boats and that in the end is what we have to have.
"I think the question that the Australian people have to ask is, who do you trust on this subject? Who do you trust to stop the boats? Do you trust the political party which started them up again?
"Or you trust the party that is the original and the best when it comes to actually stopping the boats?"
Human rights advocate David Manne says he is surprised by Mr Rudd's hardline stance.
"I am surprised on a number of fronts, first and foremost because Australia, having signed up to the Refugees' Convention in 1954 committed to protecting people who come to its shores, not exposing them to further risks elsewhere," he said.
Mr Manne said also particularly concerned because in the context of the global challenges, the fact remains that Australia hosts only 0.3 per cent of refugees worldwide and yet, what we see here is a policy designed not only to deter asylum seekers from coming and seeking refuge in Australia, but one that also proposes to shift our responsibilities on to others, to not shoulder the responsibility of protecting refugees but to shift it and to deflect it on to others.
"In this case Papua New Guinea, a country that is far less well equipped to respond and accommodate to the needs of refugees."
Tasmanian human rights lawyer Greg Barns is highly critical of the policy and says it may violate Australia's international obligations under the United Nations refugee convention.
"Effectively you've got a form of discrimination, 50,000 of them who come in every year on planes will be treated in a certain way, those who come by boat won't be.” he said.
In conclusion it's going back to the World War II syndrome that Papua New Guinea is the front line.
The incentives are some investment that will go into a remote Manus province. It's a province without much in the way of economic opportunities. This is seen as providing opportunities in catering and security.
It's not a popular initiative. Much of PNG has other thoughts on its mind, much of the population is concerned with making an income and surviving, but it's generally seen as an Australian problem and why should Australia export its problems to PNG?
There is the possibility of a legal challenge to the agreement, as we have seen before with challenges to the Supreme Court on the existing activity on Manus Island and the memorandum of understanding between PNG and Australia.
The most recent iteration was thrown out on a procedural matter but the main lawyer involved has vowed to resubmit the challenge.
There is also an interesting question in how those resettled refugees will be able to blend in. Papua New Guinea is Christian – in some parts a deeply Christian - country. There is a small population of Muslims, but as many thousands more come in, that reaction is something we will have to wait and see.
This is a cheap deal. Does he know that what he has agreed upon is a simple trading process, like buying a tin fish? He should feel ashamed of himself for thinking as lowly as a Prime Minister of a robust nation like PNG.
He has ignorantly undermined PNG’s sovereignty as well as its rich natural resources including smart and highly educated indigenous human resources.
Such act of ignorance is totally unacceptable. Only arrogant, stupid, self-fish, and people of unsound mind can make illogical decisions like that.
Mr O’Neill has once again succeeded in selling this nation by trying to play saviour in our regional affairs when our mother country Australia is more than capable of dealing with its own complex asylum boat people and refugee resettlement issues.
