If only the Greens and many refugee advocates would also admit that they got it wrong. They allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
My strong conviction for several years is that the Malaysian Arrangement — it was not a Malaysian “Solution” — would have been an important building block in regional co-operation to manage the movement of displaced people. It would also have avoided the tragedy that is unfolding in Manus and Nauru. That tragedy will be on Australia’s conscience forever.
In his speech to the Samuel Griffith Society in Adelaide on August 12, 2016, Tony Abbott said:
“I wonder though about the former government’s people swap with Malaysia. … I doubt it would have worked. Still, letting it stand would have been an acknowledgement of the government-of-the-day’s mandate to do the best it could, by its own lights, to meet our nation’s challenges. It would have been a step back from the hyper-partisanship that now poisons our public life.”
At the time of the proposed Malaysian Arrangement, Tony Abbott did his best to deliberately poison our public life by demonising asylum seekers and attacking the Malaysian government. There was a battering of Malaysia for weeks. Tony Abbott, the Greens and refugee advocates attacked Malaysia’s human rights record and “canings”. Point-scoring was easy, but it did not help those most in need.
As prime minister, Tony Abbott later apologised to the Malaysian government for his intemperate behaviour. But the damage had been done to our relations with Malaysia as well as dashing the prospects of a workable regional refugee policy.
As Peter Hughes and I pointed out in a joint blog in September 2015 (“Slogans versus facts on boat arrivals” Part 1 and Part 2) the opposition by the Coalition, the Greens and some independents resulted in the Malaysian Arrangement being rejected.
We should recall a few facts from that time.
On August 31, 2011, the High Court found against that the minister for immigration and citizenship’s power to transfer people to Malaysia under the arrangement. In response, on September 21, 2011, the Gillard government introduced legislation that was designed to modify those parts of the Migration Act, which caused the problem in the High Court. There was strong opposition to the bill in the House of Representatives by the Coalition, led by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, who were bitterly critical of Malaysia. Bandt (Greens), Katter and Wilkie also opposed the bill. As the bill was doomed, the government decided not to proceed with the legislation.
[Malaysian Solution lost at sea]
The motives of the opponents varied. The Coalition did not want to stop the boats. It wanted to stop Labor stopping the boats. The Greens and some independents opposed the legislation because they were opposed to regional processing. They allowed their ideological purity to stand in the way of a workable alternative. As Gough Whitlam put it in a different context: “Only the impotent are pure.”
As we also pointed out in those blogs referred to, there followed, with the failure of the legislation in the Parliament in September 2011, a significant increase in boat arrivals. At the time, the number of boat arrivals was running at four to five arriving per month with 200 to 300 people. But with the failure of the Malaysian Arrangement, people smugglers geared up for the new opportunities presented.
From November 2011, monthly asylum-seeker arrivals began to trend up again. In the month of May 2012, they reached 1286 and allowing for seasonal variations, kept rising inexorably to a monthly peak of 4230 on 48 boats in July 2013.
There can be no doubt that implementation of the Malaysian Arrangement would have stemmed the flow of maritime arrivals. It would simply have removed all incentive to make the last trip of the journey. Tony Abbott, together with the Greens and some refugee advocates, must bear responsibility for the more than 32,000 people who arrived irregularly by sea between September 2011, when the Malaysian Arrangement was frustrated, and mid 2013, when harsher measures were reluctantly taken by the Labor government.
In my blog of July 25, 2016, “What our next Prime Minister should do on asylum seekers“, I set out what I believe the new Prime Minister should do in respect of the 2000 people we are holding and punishing in Nauru and Manus. We should bring them to Australia for processing and final settlement if desired. It would not risk more boat arrivals. Circumstances have changed.
In the longer term, we need a regional framework to manage refugee flows in a humane and efficient manner and in cooperation with the UNHCR. Together with colleagues at the Centre for Policy Development, we have conducted two meetings — in Melbourne and Bangkok — of a “Second Track Dialogue” to try to build a regional refugee framework based on co-operation and burden sharing.
An earlier regional arrangement was critical in managing the Indochina outflow several decades ago. That successful program would not have been possible without offshore processing in the region and cooperation with regional countries.
My experience with that Indochina program was part of the reason why I always felt that the rejection of the Malaysian Arrangement was a tragic mistake. Unfortunately those bearing the price of that mistake are the 2000 wounded souls in Manus and Nauru.
[Gillard wanted to be judged on asylum seekers]
The Malaysian Arrangement was not a “solution”. The initial figure agreed between Australia and Malaysia was 800 people. That did not preclude the number being raised in future by mutual agreement. But it would have been an important step forward in building regional co-operation. It was not perfect and dealing with desperate people will always be messy.
At least Tony Abbott now admits that he should have supported the Malaysian Arrangement. Will the Greens and many refugee advocates acknowledge that their total opposition to the Malaysian Arrangement and offshore processing has caused harm to people we have pledged to help?
Surely the issue is not where processing occurs. The important issue is whether that processing is fair, humane and efficient. Importantly, it must be done in cooperation with the UNHCR.
The Houston Panel saw Manus and Nauru as a short-term circuit breaker. The panel did not envisage Manus and Nauru being permanent warehouses of horror. It saw its proposals as short-term and as part of a jigsaw for a regional solution with regional processing.
*This article was originally published at John Menadue’s blog Pearls and Irritations
‘But it would have been an important step forward in building regional co-operation. It was not perfect and dealing with desperate people will always be messy.’
Being no expert, it seemed, at the time, to be a solution that could have been a way through the mess not least of all because it was an attempt to cut through simplistic partisan politics at the time (then and now).
I’m a little more … well, a LOT more … cynical about Abbott’s mea culpa. Everything in his recent history shows that what he says and what he does is all about his personal quest for power. He’s trying to see if a ‘softening’ of his style will help make him more attractive to his own party and the voters should there be a crisis and a spill.
But he’s the guy who was the prime instigator of the vicious partisanship that made refugees pawns and Labor, in minority government, didn’t have the cajones to break out of the cycle. It’s just what Howard did with Tampa. Abbott was even better at it and while it may weigh on the conscience of many Australians for a long time, I don’t think he’s lost a minute of sleep over it.
The environment needs the Greens to admit they got it wrong on nuclear energy. By touting wind-backed-by-gas as the only way to eliminate coal-and-gas, they stand to be contradicted by history and condemned by our survivors.
Yawn
Yeah, the UK are having such a good experience building a nuclear reactor at the moment, another great success you can point to in your quest for nuclear power.
You mentioned Wilkie. He’s the guy that Gillard and Labor dudded over gambling reform. They didn’t blink an eyelid. You think he owed them something? Let’s see if Labor and the Coalition can put together a proposal that does not require wedging someone to get it passed.
I didn’t think he was dudded so much as they weren’t going to be able to get the Legislation through parliament. Bit like the legislation needed to change the Migration Act to legalise the Malaysian arrangement.
Jane – sorry, the repudiation of the deal with Wilkie was quite explicit when Gillard bounced the avuncular & fair Harry Jenkins – and didn’t that work out well.
Wilk
Wilkie certainly was dudded. Gillard was overcome by the gambling industry lobbying and the flow of donations that represented and potential loss of votes from gamblers and club users who feared loss of their amenity was more important than the losses of families’ income, homes, loved-ones, etc.
I went off doctrinaire lines and thought the Malaysian Solution/Arrangement was a lesser evil as a circuit breaker. It was clear the removal of the prize of settlement in Australia would have an effect and there would be net gains in resettlement.
The biggest villain of the piece was the Coalition however, even if you make the Greens and advocates equivalent to them.
Abbott, Turnbull and the rest in the Coalition were working from hollow cynicism only, wanting to keep the boats coming and the death toll rising (as you say). The Greens and advocates (especially the latter) were working from idealism. Isn’t that better than cynicism as a motive?
OK, the Greens were maybe considering their base too. But I can see the problem for them as their claim and appeal is as an ethical party. So they are very wedged by “less bad” but still unethical deals like forced removal of asylum seekers to Malaysia.
And it was hard to imagine that even the Coalition would run punitive detention for year upon year without resettlement and knowingly tolerate if not foster abusive conditions. It does seem obvious in hindsight though.
Well said.
Well said indeed.
True enough Mr Menadue, and certainly a welcome addition to the debate. TA’s mea culpa had all the sincerity of a fence post, but at least a fence post serves some purpose.
Can’t blame the Greens so much as it is their policy, but they did a lot of political point scoring over it too, and definitely have some share of the blame.
Not so much, still a lot.