Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak today on what I believe is a matter of great public importance, and that is the issue of the need to ensure proper treatment and proper assessment of the asylum claims of those who have arrived from West Papua. There was a fair degree of publicity surrounding their arrival a few weeks ago.

I have already expressed in the public arena my views about this and how I believe it is inappropriate that those asylum seekers were removed to Christmas Island. They arrived on Cape York, the tip of my state of Queensland, and there is ample space in many detention centres in Australia for any period of time they needed to be detained. To remove them at great public cost to the most remote and inaccessible place possible, Christmas Island, I believe was unnecessary and actually hinders their claims being processed speedily and effectively, because it takes longer for people to get there, longer for their claims to be put together and longer for assistance to be provided to them. It is just generally made more difficult than it otherwise would be, so it is a counterproductive approach.

Having said that, I want to raise some of the wider issues because I think all of us, whatever our view about their specific case, need to look at some of the wider issues that this situation brings up. We also need to take the opportunity to look at some of our own country’s history in this area. It is curious and a bit strange that, despite asylum seekers being such a hot topic in the political arena in recent years, we have had very little decent examination of what our country’s real history is with regard to asylum seekers, apart from extremely shallow and imprecise sweeping statements—and to some extent I, too, have made some of those.

The West Papuan refugees provide a very special opportunity to examine that, because one part of the history of how we have dealt with asylum seekers that is very rarely examined or detailed is how we handled asylum seekers from West Papua back in the 1960s and the early 1970s. Thousands of people fled across the border in the period following the Indonesian takeover of West Papua after the colonial Dutch regime moved out in 1962. I do not want to sidetrack to the serious problems that were involved in Indonesia taking sovereignty over West Papua, beyond saying that it was clearly an appalling process which ended with the completely inaccurately named ‘act of free choice’. Despite that, it was a process that was—sadly and shamefully—authorised, verified, ratified and accepted by the United Nations. Regardless of how bad the process was, there can be no doubt—unlike with the East Timor parallel that some people draw—that Indonesian sovereignty over the West Papuan area is recognised internationally.

However, what is also quite clearly established is that, in exercising that sovereignty and ensuring they retained it, Indonesian officials, military and police in the past perpetrated very serious human rights abuses over a long period of time. They are widely documented and, while there may be disputes about specifics, I do not think there can be any dispute about the general reality that they occurred. I have to say that I do not think there can be much dispute that such human rights abuses still occur, although the severity of them may be less than what it was in the past.

I draw particular attention to a book written by Australian historian Klaus Neumann, called Refuge Australia, which looks at this issue of how Australia has historically handled refugees and asylum seekers. It is worth referring particularly to a chapter in that book dealing with border crossers, because of course in those days Papua New Guinea was an Australian territory, so we did have a land border crossing with West Papua, and people in their thousands crossed that border—some of them seeking asylum; some of them being what we would call economic refugees; and some of them just moving across the border as they always had, because it is an artificial border for the traditional people in those areas. Nonetheless, there were many who quite clearly were seeking to flee the Indonesian control in West Papua at the time, and quite clearly many of them did claim a genuine fear of persecution.

It also needs to be clarified that in the 1960s and 1970s Australia’s migration laws were very different to what they are now. The level of discretion was pretty much open-ended in whatever way the government chose to rule with regard to asylum claims; it was not the codified law that exists today. The other thing that was different was that Australia did not actually ratify the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention until 1973. That protocol updated the refugee convention. Prior to then, in precise terms, the refugee convention only applied to people fleeing events that had occurred in Europe prior to 1951. Although the spirit of the convention obviously meant more than that, the precise legal terminology did not include people fleeing current events. The 1967 protocol fixed that, but Australia did not ratify or adopt that until 1973. Indeed, one of the key reasons why our government did not do that at that time was precisely because it did not want to have any extra restrictions on our discretion over whether we accepted asylum seekers from West Papua.

What is particularly interesting in the book by Mr Neumann that I referred to is his detailing of cabinet minutes and public pronouncements from the time by the government about the factors that informed the approach of the Australian government to asylum seekers from West Papua. It was quite a harsh line in the early years, although the former Dutch colonial rulers took responsibility for some people who were accepted. There was a more selective acceptance of some refugees from 1965 onwards, but the factors at that time included a fear that if we started taking a small number that would lead to a mass influx of refugees, and Australia was anxious not to encourage the movement of people across the border. A second factor, which is not so relevant today, was not wanting to burden a future independent nation of Papua New Guinea with a large number of people in that refugee-like situation.

A third factor, which is very relevant today, was the clear view of the Australian government that it did not want to harm the relationship with Indonesia, and the need to retain or establish a harmonious relationship with Indonesia was a key factor in determining the approach towards asylum seekers. The final factor was public opinion. It is quite clear from the documentation of the time that there was a desire on the part of government not to make this a big public issue and not to have public sympathy start developing for asylum seekers, because that would increase the pressure on the government to have to accept them. It would also harm the relationship with Indonesia.

In detailing all these factors, I am not in any way trying to suggest that it is inappropriate that they be taken into account. They are all very understandable factors for any government to be concerned about. Indeed, it is totally appropriate for all Australians to be concerned about us having a good relationship with Indonesia. I think we in Australia very much underestimate just how much very positive progress Indonesia has made in democratising itself in recent years. I for one very strongly praise many of the steps Indonesia has taken. Particularly given the situation they have come from and the history of that country, the very positive progress Indonesia has made is nothing short of astonishing. However, that should not overshadow the fact that there are still problems, as Indonesians themselves acknowledge.

There are still problems with human rights abuses in West Papua—particularly towards the indigenous people of that region. However, in raising concerns about ensuring that West Papuans get better treatment and that the 43 current asylum seekers get proper assessment of their claims, I believe that that concern should not bleed across into knee-jerk Indonesia bashing. This can very easily happen, as we saw with the public concern over the Schapelle Corby situation, where legitimate questions about an individual situation very easily bled across into general Indonesia bashing and displaying of prejudices and ignorance that harmed the relationship unnecessarily. We need to guard against that very strongly.

I say that even in the broader context of the debate and prejudices within Australia about Muslims as a result of some of the actions in other countries—quite tellingly, I might say, not in Australia—and the overreaction of some Muslims to cartoons published in Europe. That has led to people within Australia—not at government level obviously, but elsewhere in the community—again flagging these myths and prejudices that somehow Islam is incompatible with democracy, and other farcical suggestions like that, and to people suggesting that somehow we should restrict the entry of Muslims into Australia. I categorically reject any such assertions, as I am sure every member of this parliament does, but we want to make sure that there is no extra opportunity for those sorts of prejudices to get extra currency as a result of legitimate concerns about a specific situation.

I have no doubt, despite my criticisms of the locating of these asylum seekers on Christmas Island, that their claims will be fully assessed on a case-by-case basis and on the merits of their situation. Of course, we cannot just rely on bland assurances from the Indonesian government or anybody else that these people will not be harmed. Those sorts of assurances cannot be accepted at face value, particularly given the history. I again go back to that history and the book of Mr Neumann, to use that example.

In December 1964, one of the first people from West Papua to be accepted by Australia as a refugee was Dioni Jakedewa, who had fled from there with other people. He was accepted by the Australian government and given a five-year residence permit. He was allowed to remain in New Guinea and was not returned, as many others had been up to that point. We could contrast that with the fate of his brother, a man by the name of Mesak Jakedewa. In May 1965, the then Minister for Territories, Mr Barnes, responded to a question in parliament about the suggestion that returned refugees were being ill-treated in West Irian, or West Papua.

I quote from the Hansard of the House of Representatives of that time, when the minister said, ‘I say very definitely, there is no evidence of this occurring,’ even though, according to Mr Neumann’s book, the files of the departments of territories and external affairs contained references to refugees who had reportedly been beaten, imprisoned or murdered after their return to West Irian, or West Papua. Indeed, one day after that categorical response from the minister back in 1965, the brother of Dioni Jakedewa, Mesak, was sent back across the border and the territory’s local intelligence committee reported that he was killed by Indonesian troops within less than a month of his return.

That is history. It is important to detail that and become more aware of it because, as the saying goes, quite wisely: ‘If you don’t remember your history, you’re condemned to repeat the mistakes of it.’ Much has changed since then. We have ratified the protocol of the convention; we have adopted a codified migration act, for all its flaws; and the Indonesian government has massively advanced in democratisation. But some of the pressures that applied in the 1960s are still there and some of the decisions that were made in the 1960s that led to situations where people were being returned to face mistreatment are potentially still able to be made today. We need to be aware of that history and make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes. I am sure the Australian government will be aware of that. On this occasion, many Australians are aware of the current situation. I urge the government to act on this expeditiously but appropriately with regard to those asylum seekers, but also be aware of the wider need to maintain a strong and positive relationship with Indonesia, regardless of individual situations. (Time expired)