Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to talk about two related issues: the situation in Darfur and the intake of refugees in this country.

I want to start by drawing the Senate’s attention to the stand that was taken today—and I am sure that some of you heard about it on the news—by the iconic filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Until today, as you may or may not know, Mr Spielberg was the artistic director for the Beijing Olympics, but he has now walked away from that role. He has given it up because he could no longer tolerate the approach of the Chinese government towards the genocide in Darfur. Mr Spielberg’s move has been followed up by a letter signed by a collection of actors, Nobel laureates, athletes and officials, including myself and Senator Nettle from this place, urging the Chinese government to do more to bring the conflict in Darfur to an end.

To recap those awful statistics: since 2003, it is estimated that some 200,000 people have died and approximately 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes. Rape is a common weapon. We have also seen from the recent instability in neighbouring Chad that this conflict can spread all too easily. I should acknowledge that indifference to Darfur or a lack of action is not just China’s fault nor just confined to that country.

The Senate would be aware that the Sudanese government finally agreed to the deployment of a joint UN-African union force on 1 January this year as called for under UN resolution 1769. The force was intended to constitute 20,000 troops and more than 6,000 police and civilian staff. Although a force of this size would be hard-pressed to patrol an area of the size of France, it was a welcome outcome when the difficult negotiations with the Sudanese government finally bore fruit.

Unfortunately, there has not been an overwhelming response from the international community. There are only about 9,000 troops on the ground and the force lacks the 24 helicopters it needs to patrol an area of such a size. Apparently a ring around by the UN Secretary-General to nations in a position to donate a helicopter yielded not one single helicopter! Maybe we should be getting on the phone and finding out if someone is willing to contribute. I would love to see an Australian contribution in that respect. The international community deserves a bit of a slap on the wrist for its apathy and for allowing another Rwanda to happen and we all have a responsibility to respond in some way.

I do reserve a special criticism for China because of its close relationship with the Sudanese government. China is a major partner of Sudan. It buys approximately two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and is a major donor of aid and capital works. It has recently increased its trade with Sudan by providing the Sudanese government with resources to, basically, make it easier to continue its campaign against the Darfuri people. For a long time China has been the primary source of military supplies to Sudan. This includes Shenyang fighter jets that have just been deployed to Darfur.

We should recognise in this place, of course, that China did agree to UN resolution 1769, which I had hoped would signal a strengthening of their position towards the Sudanese regime. Unfortunately, that particular approach has not transpired. The Sudanese government’s continuing and increasingly belligerent attitude towards the UN mission, by refusing troops from certain nations and placing restrictions on UN flights and radio transmissions, has been greeted with silence by the Chinese government.

When China was awarded the Olympics back in 2001, the Beijing Olympic Committee promised that the awarding of the games to them would lead to an improvement in their respect for human rights. I have to question the extent to which that has happened. I am happy to be corrected on this point. Apart from China’s non-critical approach to its close ally, Sudan, we have seen, just months before the Olympic Games are about to start, the arrest of pro-reform activists such as prominent human rights campaigner Hu Jia. Hu was detained in December without charge until the end of January when he was eventually accused of—and this is exactly what he has been accused of—inciting subversion of state power. It is a charge which, I understand, carries a sentence of up to six years.

I am conscious that I am often critical of China. Therefore I want to put on record that—I know I have said this before—I actually respect and admire many things about that country. Also, as I have placed on record before, it is possible to have respect and admiration for a country and aspects of its government but also to be very frank and up-front about your criticism particularly when it pertains to human rights abuses. I would do the same thing in my own country as I would in the region or in any other nation in this world because we have a responsibility as good global citizens to expose human rights abuses where they occur and where people are culpable in those human rights abuses occurring.

I have no doubt that China has made incredibly impressive strides in an economic sense, in a social sense, and that Chinese citizens these days are able to grasp opportunities that would have been unheard of one or two generations ago. If I am strident in my criticism, it is basically due to a frustration that the government of a country with such a history and undoubtedly such a bright future is still not willing to tolerate non-violent dissent or to empathise with the oppressed. So it is a great thing that major figures such as Mr Spielberg have now drawn serious attention to the issue in a way that perhaps national governments were either unable or, indeed, unwilling to do.

I am still unsure of this new government’s approach towards the situation in Darfur, but, given the stated intention during the election campaign by the ALP to focus resources on the Asia-Pacific region, I suspect we are not going to see an increase or a significant boost in either resources or advocacy for the Darfur region and, in the same way that I pleaded with the previous government, I really urge them to reconsider. I acknowledge that we have police in Sudan and there is a troop commitment, but we should be looking at a peacekeeping role for our troops in that particular region of Darfur as well as elsewhere in Sudan, which may currently be the case.

One other area through which we could probably do more is our humanitarian aid program and indeed the refugee program. In late January I had the pleasure of meeting with the Australian Refugee Association in Adelaide, particularly with members of the Sudanese community. As you would know, Mr President, in our home state the ARA does a remarkable job with limited resources, particularly in assisting refugees to relocate and resettle in Adelaide. The Sudanese community, in particular, has experienced a somewhat tumultuous time of late. Some unhelpful remarks by a former minister for immigration late last year in response to incidents in Melbourne left the community feeling targeted and unwelcome. The former minister also decided to cut the intake of African refugees by almost a third, citing difficulties with integration.

Rather than making these baseless and inflammatory assessments that befell the previous government, I hope this government considers the role that it can take in ensuring that refugees are offered adequate and appropriate resettlement programs. The government was elected on a platform of fresh ideas and a new approach to governing. In order to overcome the negative and sometimes divisive legacy on this issue by a previous government when it comes to immigration it will need to implement some of those new ideas. We could perhaps start with an urgent review of that humanitarian program. Australia currently takes 13,000 refugees each year and clearly is a prosperous and developed country. We have the capacity to take more. Clearly, our intake of humanitarian refugees could be larger.

Before I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my remarks I, along with others, want to acknowledge the extraordinary service of Lorna to all of us in this place over many years. She knows that she will be missed. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my remarks.

Leave granted.

The incorporation read as follows—

While the last 12 years has seen our general migration intake more than double from around 77 000 to 155 000, our intake of humanitarian refugees has increased a paltry 1000 from 12 000 to 13 000, despite growing demand.

There are many strong grounds for increasing our intake of humanitarian refugees: the number of resettlement requests vastly exceeds the number of places available worldwide; the Australian economy is robust and growing; and refugees are contributing a great deal to our vibrant multicultural society.

However, we need to do more when it comes to our resettlement priorities.

Decisions in relation to Australia’s resettlement intake should be made on the merits of the situation, not on summary perceptions of integration potential. Need must be the primary criterion. Australia has certainly shown in the past that Australia can and does resettle refugees of all backgrounds well. However, we should not let outdated preconceptions about particular communities dictate our migration policy.

Our humanitarian program would also benefit from an enhanced focus on the importance of family reunion. The refugee experience is a divisive one and often results in the separation of the family unit when individual resettlement places are found. Provision should be made for the reunification of family members under the humanitarian program as a priority. Places for family members should be in addition to the annual intake of humanitarian refugees.

There is also a drastic need to review Australia’s resettlement programs.

English language training has been particularly problematic. Australia seems to have adopted a `one size fits all’ approach’ to English language courses for humanitarian refugees.

Training is not outcome based —rather each student is apportioned a set number of English hours. This approach has resulted in perverse outcomes whereby people who are still struggling to grasps the basics of English are cut off when their hours are up. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases only 10% of people completing courses emerge with functional English. At the other end of the spectrum, students who may be younger or more adaptable are offered classes which are well below their capabilities.

Likewise, incoming students are often placed in school classes based on age rather that ability. It must be remembered that schooling systems in other parts of the word are often vasty different to our own, and a 12 year old from Sudan might not have the same level of education as a 12 year old from Adelaide. As a result, many incoming students feel out of their depth and disengage from their schooling, often resulting in difficulties in other aspects of their social and community lives.

There is also a need to consider how we recognise international qualifications. Many people fleeing refugee situations overseas have valuable skills that could be put to better use solving the ‘skills shortage’ in many Australian industries and professions.

I think one of the most beneficial exercises that the new Government could undertake would be to visit in person some of the refugee camps overseas to gain a first hand insight into the situation that people might be fleeing; the facilities available to them and the divide which they must overcome to integrate into a new way of life.

There is nothing like experience to influence good policy outcomes. I know that the previous Governments have sent such delegations in the past and I would encourage the new Government to do the same.