In her brief stint as the Independent Member for Wentworth, Dr Kerryn Phelps bequeathed the nation a gift, which has become known as the Medevac legislation. A short explanation of this legislation is that when asylum seekers imprisoned on Manus Island and Nauru are sick in ways that cannot be treated there, the decision to evacuate them to Australia for treatment is made by a panel of doctors, not by Border Force officers with no medical training.
Doesn't seem that controversial, does it? They are not granted Australian residency. They are not even released from detention. They are simply moved from detention on a distant island to detention in Australia, close to the medical resources needed to treat their illness. It's humane in a strictly limited, basically inhumane kind of way. I think Phelps would have liked to do more, but this is the best she could get through with the help of Labor and her friends on the cross-benches. Even then the Labor Party mostly voted for it because they wanted to see the government squirm.
And squirm they did. It would be the end of the offshore detention regime, and people smugglers would soon be heading our way in vast numbers. They didn't, but they soon will if we don't repeal the legislation. Peter Dutton says, so it must be true.
We all know the narrative. The Liberal-National government stopped the boats by imprisoning people on Manus and Nauru. Any sign of kindness towards them - like letting them go to New Zealand (but not the US, apparently) or treating the illnesses we caused by imprisoning them, will restart the boats and lead to mass drownings.
This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions.
Firstly, that we have actually stopped the boats. Which is a funny thing to say, since every now and then we hear reports of one. Not to mention that at times it appears amply clear that the boats are simply going elsewhere, or perhaps nowhere at all. But we can't be sure because the government 'doesn't comment on on water matters'. Which is an implicit admission that something is out there on the water.
Secondly that if we have stopped them from coming to Australia it is because we are torturing people and not because we have boats stationed in our northern waters turning them around and sending them back to where they came from.
Thirdly, that the only way to prevent said drownings is to torture people. Not, say, to maintain an active search and rescue fleet, or process people in Indonesia and fly them here.
And finally, that an increased number of people seeking asylum by boat is a Bad Thing and must not be allowed. Which is a bit odd, because since we 'stopped the boats' we have seen a surge in people applying for asylum after arriving by plane. This doesn't appear to be anywhere near as alarming.
So for all these nonsensical reasons, and also to expunge the humiliation of their defeat back in February, the government has been intent on repealing the legislation and ensuring that people who don't have any medical knowledge regain the upper hand in these medical decisions. Because after all we know that doctors are just a bunch of bleeding heart lefties. Just look at Kerryn Phelps.
To whom could refugees turn for hope to preserve this tiny shred of decency in the midst of their torture? Phelps is gone, the Greens are passionate but powerless, the Labor Party is a broken reed, brown people could hardly look to Pauline Hanson to save them. Their one last hope was Senator Jacqui Lambie. A woman with a strange, unique mix of compassion and xenophobia. A woman who feels equally free to air her ignorance about Sharia Law on national TV and to argue vociferously for greater generosity to welfare recipients. What would happen this time? Would they get Compassionate Jacqui or Paranoid Jacqui?
To be honest, despite the fact that in the end she voted in favour of the repeal, it is still not entirely clear which Jacqui we got. She said she would vote in favour of repeal on one condition. What was that condition? She would not say, because 'national security'. She swore with hand on heart that she empathised with those on Manus and Nauru. Advocates found her receptive and compassionate. But in the end she voted for repeal, so obviously she felt she got what she wanted, despite the government's denial that any deal had been done.
In the absence of information, rumour takes over. There are three main rumours; one that makes Lambie a canny champion of humanity, a second which makes her a cynical manipulator, and a third which makes her a bit dim.
Champion Jacqui has insisted that the only way she will vote to repeal Medevac is if the Government accepts New Zealand's resettlement offer for those still on Manus and Nauru. This deal must be secret to save face for the Government, which has persistently refused said offer, and also to not send that mythical signal to the people smugglers to restart operations. This may also be why the New Zealand government denies any knowledge of it, but perhaps it's just that the Australian Government hasn't got around to calling them yet.
This would be nice. It could even be true. And Santa could be real.
Cynical Jacqui, a former soldier herself, has insisted that the Government make some unspecified changes to the organisation of Australian troop movements in the Middle East. These need to be secret for the sake of troop safety. The changes have nothing to do with asylum seekers, who are merely bargaining chips in a political game. As they have been from the beginning.
This would be business as usual. Therefore it could also be true.
Dumb Jacqui, whatever it was that she has asked for, has been taken in by some weasel words from the Government, which doesn't actually intend to do anything in return for her vote. The secrecy of the deal provides plausible deniability - in a few months time, when Angry Jacqui accuses the Government of failing to honour the deal, the government will reply, "What deal?". As, in fact, it already has.
Nothing would surprise me.
The government knows how cruel this regime is. This is why staff who work in these places can be prosecuted for talking about what they have seen, even long after they have resigned in disgust. This is why visitors are severely restricted. This is why mobile phones are forbidden items for detainees. This is why the government refuses to answer questions about what is going on in these places.
Doesn't seem that controversial, does it? They are not granted Australian residency. They are not even released from detention. They are simply moved from detention on a distant island to detention in Australia, close to the medical resources needed to treat their illness. It's humane in a strictly limited, basically inhumane kind of way. I think Phelps would have liked to do more, but this is the best she could get through with the help of Labor and her friends on the cross-benches. Even then the Labor Party mostly voted for it because they wanted to see the government squirm.And squirm they did. It would be the end of the offshore detention regime, and people smugglers would soon be heading our way in vast numbers. They didn't, but they soon will if we don't repeal the legislation. Peter Dutton says, so it must be true.
We all know the narrative. The Liberal-National government stopped the boats by imprisoning people on Manus and Nauru. Any sign of kindness towards them - like letting them go to New Zealand (but not the US, apparently) or treating the illnesses we caused by imprisoning them, will restart the boats and lead to mass drownings.
This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions.
Firstly, that we have actually stopped the boats. Which is a funny thing to say, since every now and then we hear reports of one. Not to mention that at times it appears amply clear that the boats are simply going elsewhere, or perhaps nowhere at all. But we can't be sure because the government 'doesn't comment on on water matters'. Which is an implicit admission that something is out there on the water.
Secondly that if we have stopped them from coming to Australia it is because we are torturing people and not because we have boats stationed in our northern waters turning them around and sending them back to where they came from.
Thirdly, that the only way to prevent said drownings is to torture people. Not, say, to maintain an active search and rescue fleet, or process people in Indonesia and fly them here.
And finally, that an increased number of people seeking asylum by boat is a Bad Thing and must not be allowed. Which is a bit odd, because since we 'stopped the boats' we have seen a surge in people applying for asylum after arriving by plane. This doesn't appear to be anywhere near as alarming.
So for all these nonsensical reasons, and also to expunge the humiliation of their defeat back in February, the government has been intent on repealing the legislation and ensuring that people who don't have any medical knowledge regain the upper hand in these medical decisions. Because after all we know that doctors are just a bunch of bleeding heart lefties. Just look at Kerryn Phelps.
To whom could refugees turn for hope to preserve this tiny shred of decency in the midst of their torture? Phelps is gone, the Greens are passionate but powerless, the Labor Party is a broken reed, brown people could hardly look to Pauline Hanson to save them. Their one last hope was Senator Jacqui Lambie. A woman with a strange, unique mix of compassion and xenophobia. A woman who feels equally free to air her ignorance about Sharia Law on national TV and to argue vociferously for greater generosity to welfare recipients. What would happen this time? Would they get Compassionate Jacqui or Paranoid Jacqui?
To be honest, despite the fact that in the end she voted in favour of the repeal, it is still not entirely clear which Jacqui we got. She said she would vote in favour of repeal on one condition. What was that condition? She would not say, because 'national security'. She swore with hand on heart that she empathised with those on Manus and Nauru. Advocates found her receptive and compassionate. But in the end she voted for repeal, so obviously she felt she got what she wanted, despite the government's denial that any deal had been done.In the absence of information, rumour takes over. There are three main rumours; one that makes Lambie a canny champion of humanity, a second which makes her a cynical manipulator, and a third which makes her a bit dim.
Champion Jacqui has insisted that the only way she will vote to repeal Medevac is if the Government accepts New Zealand's resettlement offer for those still on Manus and Nauru. This deal must be secret to save face for the Government, which has persistently refused said offer, and also to not send that mythical signal to the people smugglers to restart operations. This may also be why the New Zealand government denies any knowledge of it, but perhaps it's just that the Australian Government hasn't got around to calling them yet.
This would be nice. It could even be true. And Santa could be real.
Cynical Jacqui, a former soldier herself, has insisted that the Government make some unspecified changes to the organisation of Australian troop movements in the Middle East. These need to be secret for the sake of troop safety. The changes have nothing to do with asylum seekers, who are merely bargaining chips in a political game. As they have been from the beginning.
This would be business as usual. Therefore it could also be true.
Dumb Jacqui, whatever it was that she has asked for, has been taken in by some weasel words from the Government, which doesn't actually intend to do anything in return for her vote. The secrecy of the deal provides plausible deniability - in a few months time, when Angry Jacqui accuses the Government of failing to honour the deal, the government will reply, "What deal?". As, in fact, it already has.
Nothing would surprise me.
***
Meanwhile, let's not forget that people have been imprisoned on Manus and Nauru for SEVEN YEARS, and that there is as yet no end in sight. This imprisonment is not as a result of their crimes, since they have committed none. It is a result of them being unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and hence be used as an example to others. If you have any doubt about the level of cruelty involved in their incarceration, have a read of Behrouz Boochani's No Friend but the Mountain.
The government knows how cruel this regime is. This is why staff who work in these places can be prosecuted for talking about what they have seen, even long after they have resigned in disgust. This is why visitors are severely restricted. This is why mobile phones are forbidden items for detainees. This is why the government refuses to answer questions about what is going on in these places.
Despite this, there is more than enough evidence of the cruelty of the regime and the trauma of those subjected to it. This is why they are sick. Seven years of indefinite detention will make anyone sick, physically and mentally. This is why they need to be medevaced.
Except that they don't. Medevac is a terrible policy. It takes traumatised people from detention on tropical islands with poor medical facilities, and moves them to detention in Australia where medical facilities are better. It treats the illnesses that result from their detention while leaving the cause in place. Medevac is a bandaid on a broken limb.
The tragedy - or rather the crime - is that this is the best our parliament could do. Both our main parties, Government and Opposition, are determined to continue the torture. Much as it is convenient to blame Peter Dutton for this cruelty, back in February there was a chance, when the Government lacked a majority in either chamber, to close the system altogether, but the Labor Party would never agree to this. They would only agree to the bandaid option.
No wonder Behrouz Boochani has taken the opportunity of a visit to New Zealand to request asylum and vow never to return to PNG. He knows he can expect nothing from Australia.
We can do better. And we should.
Comments