Winning votes for Kevin Rudd
IT is election year in Australia and
Kevin Rudd has to do what Kevin Rudd has to do – bring back the Labor
government. And in PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill he has found an unlikely
but willing ally to help him achieve his goal. He has unashamedly dragged our
PM into Australian domestic politics under the guise of correcting a regional
problem which in the long run will affect us all.
It is obvious from the two leaders’
announcement in Brisbane on Friday that Canberra’s best way to deal with its asylum-seeker
dilemma is to export the problem to its nearest northern neighbour.
For our cooperation in the deal, we will
receive generous aid. In return, Mr Rudd wants to be seen as the iron-fisted
leader who can protect “scourge” of people smugglers and their sad cargo. And
Mr O’Neill wants to be part of that Pacific final solution.
In a race for Labor’s right
conservative votes, the Rudd-initiated Regional Settlement Agreement must be
seen as a hardline move designed to match, and even surpass, the conservative
Tony Abbot opposition’s promise to tow asylum-seeker boats back to Indonesia,
where most, if not all, set sail from.
Critics say Mr Rudd does not have
the courage or the moral authority to do the right thing by refugees. For them,
this is a day of shame in which PNG is a willing partner.
The new measures may not stop the steady
flow of unauthorised arrivals travelling by sea. There are simply too many
desperate people fleeing death and persecution, and that Canberra and Waigani’s
attempts to stop them simply will not work.
Mr Rudd ousted Julia Gillard as
Labor Party leader amid dismal polling figures last month but insists the new
arrangements will allow Australia to help more people who are genuinely in need
and help prevent people smugglers from abusing the system.
Last year, the Australian government
reintroduced a controversial policy under which people arriving by boat in
Australia are sent to camps in PNG and Nauru for processing. But the policy has
so far failed to deter boat people, who are arriving in increasing numbers. It
has also been strongly criticised, most recently by the UNHCR – for the conditions which asylum-seekers face at the
camps.
Asylum has become a key election
issue in Australia and polls must be called before the end of November.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott –
whose party looked on course to trounce Labor at the polls before the
leadership change – has said he will turn boats back to Indonesia when safe to
do so.
Australia, more than PNG, has
international obligations to protect people who come to its shores, not
exposing them to further risks elsewhere like Manus or Nauru.
The fact remains that Australia
hosts a very small fraction of refugees worldwide compared with PNG and West
Papua refugees and yet what we see here is a policy designed not only to deter
asylum seekers from going and seeking refuge in Australia, but one that also
proposes to shift Australia’s responsibilities on to PNG.
Rights group Amnesty International
sums up the situation nicely: the move by Mr Rudd and Mr O’Neill will be marked
as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world’s most vulnerable
people, closed the door and threw away the key.
By the same token, Mr O’Neill has to
convince a Parliament what benefits there are for PNG. Like the Australian
opposition, we want to know the full text of the arrangement and the financial
benefits for PNG which one Australian politician described at the weekend as
the most impoverished nation in the region.
The bigger question begs answers:
Where is PNG going to resettle those identified as genuine refugees?
