Pay to deport. Australia’s shameful return of penal colonies

Australia’s agreement of deporting hundreds of refugees to Nauru will cost billions and will damage the already repulsed reputation as the advocate of human rights. Allison Battisson Reports about Janet Pelly.

About 250 years ago, my ancestors were deported to the Far Pacific Island of Norfolk Island from England. The life on the island was harsh and my ancestors died of young illness and deprivation – the island was never a suitable option for permanent settlement.

My ancestors were chosen to be deported among the guilty masses because they were deprived of their rights and they were not English, but in many cases (Irish). They didn’t have sounds in parliament. Just like the people who are affected by Australia’s agreement with the Nauru now, to get non -citizens who are considered to be too unwanted to stay in Australia.

These people cannot vote, and the lack of voting is reflected in both liberal and how the Labor parties behave to them – just like my ancestors.

When the deportation of criminal offenses from the UK is legal, it is to put it on a binding,

Slavery, death penalty for 12 -year -old girls and child marriage.

Speed ​​and confidentiality surrounding the Nauru agreement of Australia had the opportunity to weigh the deep consequences properly. Understanding what it means for the people it affects and for the Australians.

Australia’s deportation agreement with Nauru will cost $ 2.5 billion

The last agreement with Nauru serves exile from the Australian people who have no other place to go. They are in Australia because stateless or refugee. The Australian government aims to lift them to Nauru, because in November 2023, following the Supreme Court’s NCYQ decision, we can no longer be detained indefinitely.

Instead, the government’s solution is to send them to one of the smallest and poorest islands in the Pacific.

Twenty -four years after the announcement of the Pacific solution, the discovery of a new agreement last week and the changes in the 1958 (CTH) Migration Law (CTH) establish a new open marine detention regime: a person who undermits people from Australian courts and permanently disintegrates families.

Wrong narrative

The political narrative about people in the Nzyq cohort looks at a few facts.

First, they were detained indefinitely under prison conditions, because they could not be returned to origin countries, not because of the seriousness of their crimes. I have customers who have never broken or committed Nauru, who has never broken or committed violent property crimes.

Many of them committed a crime when they were young – now the elderly and rehabilitation. They all served the prison conditions and many of them disturbed more than ten years ago.

Secondly, a significant number has grown in Australia – most of my customers have Australian accents – although not citizens, it raises the question of how much responsibility we give for people who spend most of their lives in our communities. To export them now, even if they are excluded from their guards, to reject the maintenance of those shaped by the Australian society.

Finally, it is not honest to argue that this cohort represents an irrevocable danger. Otherwise, we would not send them to a island of Melbourne airport -sized, 12,000 population.

Those who were in prison served their time and for years of immigration in custody, often much longer than criminal penalties. My customers live with chronic trauma, illness or disability that worsened with the endless migration process and the endless nature of their detention and punishment.

The place where the castle poles are constantly changing and a permanent house is never guaranteed.

Persecution for votes: New migration laws blame refugees

Follow the money

The truth is that the Australian binding, which lasted decimal years, and the $ 2.5 billion price tag is only the most visible cost. With interest, Nauru earns more than 7 billion dollars of money without regulation.

It is less visible, but it is more abrasive damage to our democracy when privacy is used to prevent examination. Although it costs billions of taxpayers to the Australian taxpayer, the people still do not have access to the Consensus Zaptı (MO), which supports this regulation. Both labor and liberal parties supported the decision not to explain the memorandum of the memorandum to the public.

Companies and individuals will earn a reserve based on this secret agreement.

If Australia can remove people from the judicial authority when a court decision becomes politically disturbing, the idea of ​​the rule of law weakens. The Supreme Court has already decided that uncertain detention was illegal. The open sea exile, which has been purchased billions of billions, is slightly more than an attempt to eliminate this decision while acting as compatibility.

The truth is that these people will probably not be able to leave the island. They do not have the right to travel the documents, so Nauru visas can allow the exit and re -entry, but they cannot exercise this right in practice.

If public security is threatened, just as for citizens passing through the justice system, there are options that are entirely in the ability of Australia.

To illustrate our neighbors

Our Pacific neighbors are not public service, but are partners who deserve appropriate evaluation. Transforming Naur into a penal colony sends a deeply disturbing signal to the region and the world. Our Asia Pacific neighbors revealed concerns, including the Malaysian government, explaining that he would try to discuss his concerns with Australia this week.

Also the Australians

Accept a future where people can be removed from rights, referred to the open sea and can be forgotten.

The NZYQ group is only the first test. If the government does not decide that someone no longer belongs, the residence in Australia constitutes a precedent for nothing of roots and relationships. What starts with this group of people today can be much wider over time.

We encounter an election. We can develop a policy of exile and addiction or draw a different route.

Initially, we can stop the privacy surrounding the Nauru agreement and establish partnerships based on mutual respect, not financial coercion with our Pacific neighbors.

The reputation of Australia as a fair and fair nation depends on whether we meet this moment with integrity or with fear. By rejecting an island prison paradigm, we see real people and real families and begin to think about real, sustainable solutions.

Our government prevents access to the Consensus Zaptı when parliament, judicial and legal examination are both reasonable and needed.

The return proposed to a prison paradigm of an island is morally bankrupt, whether the Australian region or another nation.

The disappointment of asylum seekers, the pressure of moving to Australia.