Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees (from SC 11/01)

Archbishop Peter Jensen | 29 June 2002

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

Border control

Archbishop Peter Jensen has received media attention for criticising Australia’s bilateral policy towards the boat people. Amy Butler asks him in depth about his views on the issue.

AB What ethical framework does the Bible provide to assist our understanding about the treament of asylum seekers?

PFJ The Bible directs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. We then ask the question, ‘who is our neighbour’? In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus taught that our neighbour is any other human being in need of our help. This is so in the case of those who need help, especially across cultural bounds. In the parable the Samaritan helped the Jew. It’s not a matter of religion, nor ethnicity, it’s a matter of our common humanity that we love our neighbor as ourselves. The test and the stimulus for our actions then, is to ask ourselves ‘what would we want done to us in a similar situation’? There should be no barrier to help others whom we see in need.

Another strand of biblical teaching are passages in the Old Testament which teach us to take particular care of the alien and foreign person living in our midst. Their needs will be greater than ours. We have our families, we have our established way of doing things, we have our language and our culture. The alien person in our environment doesn’t have these things and is therefore all the more in need of help.

We need to distinguish between two sorts of persons here. First, those persons who are able to alienate themselves in the sense they have become migrants, travelers, pilgrims, or are making journeys for commercial gain. The standard of care we adopt towards such people is that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

The refugee situation is slightly different. Here a person does not move out of their own accord. They move because they cannot remain any longer in their own territory or country because of political and social discrimination. The classic example is the Jews in Nazi Germany. We have a special duty of care towards such persecuted people for they have moved out for the sake of their own lives.

AB What should be the attitude of Christians towards those who arrive in Australia with no papers of identification?

PFJ Our attitude should be the same as the Government’s. That is to say, we do not operate an open door system in this country, nor does any other country so far as I’m aware. We are careful about who enters our country, and we have every legitimate reason for discriminating at that point. Therefore, when people arrive without papers there is no reason at all why they shouldn’t be detained for investigation. The inquiry should ascertain whether they have legitimate asylum seeker status or whether they’re simply changing countries for criminal or other reasons.

There are some difficulties in the present situation. One difficulty is the nature of the detention. As a civilised country, we must make sure that, if we are going to use detention centres, they are suitable and not punitive. There may be other methods that could be deployed rather than detention.

Second, the process should not take an unconscionable amount of time. If it does the person can be detained in punitive circumstances, perhaps for several years, while their case is processed. This cannot be right. So there is the policy itself and there is the way the policy is administered.

AB What about people who move from their own country to a country of refuge, and then pay people smugglers to bring them to Australia. Are they circumventing the asylum system to achieve a migration outcome for themselves and their families?

PFJ We can’t approve of breaking the law, yet on the other hand, we appreciate that there are occassions when necessity knows no law. That’s to say, if it is absolutely necessary for someone to move to another country because they are no longer able to survive in their home country, then this is understandable.

Many Australians seem to be convinced that there are huge numbers of such people about to descend upon Australia. This is overstating the case, the numbers are not so very large in the context of the global refugee scene.

The frequent references to a ‘queue’ is misconceived. It implies there’s an orderly passage of refugees wating to come here yet this is not the case.

Though it is both uncomfortable and difficult for us to process asylum seekers who arrive here by unauthorised means, nevertheless we must do so and in as brief a time as possible. We must not welcome those who are simply law breakers from another place, but we mustbe welcoming to those who are genuine asylum seekers.

AB Parliament has passed a new law since the Tampa crisis. An implication of this law is that a person who escapes their country of origin, and via another country comes to Australia - even if their claim is found to be genuine – will never be able to obtain a permanent visa in Australia. This excludes them from family reunion rights. Some refugees say this means they will never see their children again. Since Christians advocate the importance of the family, how should we respond?

PFJ This is unduly restrictive, and on the surface of it at least, lacking in compassion for others. I presume that the people we are talking about here are genuine asylum seekers. The situation has forced them to leave their home country. They should be allowed to become permanent residents in this country with the consequence that they will be able to take part in our family reunion scheme. Otherwise we will be punishing people for things which are not their fault.

There is no doubt the conditions people endure in the huge refugee camps in some parts of the world - for example inside Pakistan on the Afghani border - drives them to desperation and to seek a more healthy and hopeful living environment for them and their children.

AB Is the term‘asylum seekers’ appropriate to use to refer to these people, or should we use the term‘illegal immigrants’?

PFJ The answer to that is yes to both. I usually use the term ‘asylum seekers’. ‘Illegal immigrants’ carries the assumption that people are guilty before their claims have been tested. However the words themselves can’t help much, for sometimes they are genuine asylum seekers and other times they are definitely illegal immigrants. What must be determined as quickly as possible is which is the appropriate term in each case.

AB Let us return the the detention situation. When asylum seekers come by boat should they be placed in detention or should they be allowed to live in the community while they are being processed?

PFJ Either is possible, there’s no ethical grounds for one or the other. The difficulty with allowing people to live the community is that they can disappear and become uncontactable. The difficulties with detention are first, the conditions under which people have to live, and second, the financial cost to the community, which is considerable.

AB Some Australians have made a connection between the boat people and international terrorism. Is this a logical connection, or does it arise out of peoples fear in the present world context?Putting it simply, are the boat people potential terrorists?

PFJ We cannot say who the boat people are until their claims are tested. But on the surface it appears implausible that potential terrorists would come here by boat, a very unsatisfactory way to arrive. It is much more likely they will arrive by regular means and come with apparently legitimate papers. The avenue that is being chosen, namely leaky boats across a considerable stretch of water, seems to be a very uncertain and potentially dangerous way for terrorists to go about their business.

AB In some ways it is implausible to make that connection because these people are fleeing terrorism in their own country.

PFJ That is true. Though it is also conceivable that people claim they are fleeing when they’re really not. You can’t simply assume that they’re not terrorists. But the panic that has arisen in the Australian community on this matter seems unwarranted.

AB The US has been dropping bombs and food packages simultaneously. Is this an example of how to carry out acts of war ‘compassionately’?

PFJ There is no way to conduct acts of war compassionately. War is terrifying and horrendous. Even the so-called rules of war invented in the Middle Ages can scarcely be followed in any combat, because war is irrational and people commit appalling and atrocious acts in war. It may or may not be good policy for the Americans to drop both bombs and food at the same time, but this is not an example of compassionate warfare, because no war is an act of compassion. There are always innocent victims.

AB So they’re mutually exclusive terms.

PFJ I fear so.

AB In your statement about the Tampa situation in August you said, “The custom of the sea is to rescue people…but then to care for them,”. Do you have any further reflections on this after recent reports indicated that people fabricated situations of crisis by throwing themselves and children overboard?

PFJ The throwing of children overboard must be condemned outright. It is an absolutely wrong thing to do under any circumstances. Every human ethic and custom insists that the lives of children are to be especially protected.

Yet those acts could signal the depths of despair of those people who arrived at this point on their journey after many difficulties and then found themselves being turned away. It works both ways. But the act itself must certainly be condemned, it can’t in any circumstances be viewed as an appropriate act.

AB There are an estimated 22.3 million refugees and people of concern to the UNHCR. We should also note that 9000 asylum seekers have come to Australian in the last two years, and our humanitarian program has provisions to take in 12000 refugees annually. In light of these figures, is Australia doing enough?

PFJ The statistics must be put into the context of the number of migrants we’re receiving from all sources. However there is no need for us to be particularly frightened of a great number of refugees landing on us here. Contrast our comparatively easy situation with other places, Pakistan for example, where they are coping with hundreds of thousands of people coming across the land border.

Secondly, the statistics self-evidently demonstrate that we are not doing enough to assist with what is a major global problem, that is the situation of displaced persons, refugees, asylum seekers, people who are unable to live in the place they were born. We have been rather too restricted in our policies.

AB Could our political leaders do more?

PFJ I believe both Mr Howard and Mr Beazley have captured the deep sense of worry and unease the in Australian electorate as a whole over the inflow of so-called illegal immigrants. This demonstrates the close connection between the feelings and beliefs of the electorate and the behaviour and policies of the politicians. I don’t agree with either party about this but I recognise they are forced to adopt the stand they do in order to be elected to office. Therefore, the problem is not with our politicians but with ourselves and our individual attitude to those who come to these shores seeking asylum.

AB A high proportion of asylum seekers are from Muslim countries. Should Christians be concerned about the increasing numbers of Muslim adherents in the Australian community?

PFJ This goes back to the question of multiculturalism and assimilation and whether Australia believes itself to be a multicultural society or a society which practicses assimilation. I think we believe we are multicultural but in fact we practise a form of assimilation. That is probably inevitable given there is one language spoken in Australia. Also there is no established State religion though we have long standing Christian roots and history. So there are no grounds for forbidding people of other religions or other races to come into this country.

We cannot forget that people from ethnic backgrounds have made significant contributions to Australia throughout our history. For example we read news of the war in Afghanistan as though we have bever heard of that country. Yet there have been Afghanis in Australia for over 150 years. They made a notable contribution to the opening up of Central Australia bringing camels here for transport and trade. Their descendants are true Australians and their legacy is recognised with The Ghan, the great train which provides a spectacular journey from Adelaide to Alice Springs.

Further to this the advent of Muslims in Australia has given Christians the opportunity to challenge the adherence to Islam with the truth of the gospel. I hope Christians will take up that challenge and quietly, tolerantly, persuasively seek to evangelise Muslim people. And I hope that Muslim people will recognise that being here in Australia, where we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech means that this can happen quite legitimately.

AB Should the Australian Government put more effort into hunting people smugglers?

PFJ Yes, that must be done. More importantly though we must support the United Nations in the resettlement of refugees. The heart of the global problem is the millions of refugees and displaced persons in the refugee camps of the world. After the Second World War, every effort was made to assist people to find their way home or to a new country. We must be more active in that area of assistance rather than in planning to set up coast guards to keep people away, or to track down the criminal people smugglers.

I agree those criminals who exploit the despair of others must be hunted down, but our primary efforts must be to assist with the global problem of refugee resettlement.

AB It was very sad to hear that more than 350 asylum seekers drowned after their boat, which was on its way to Australia from Indonesia, sank. What is your response to this terrible tragedy?

PFJ This demonstrates the fact that we are not dealing with people who are trying to enter Australia by easy methods. It is a measure of their desperation in using such a dangerous method to arrive. If they were queue jumpers or terrorists they would not choose to come in such unseaworthy boats.

It is fortunate for the Government that this happened before they reached Australian waters and were turned away. If they had been turned away from our waters and then sank it would be hard to exonerate the Government of blame. This may happen one day but I hope it doesn’t.

AB Mr Ruddock says this incident gives us more reason to try and deter people from coming to Australia because of the risk involved.

PFJ Even though we have clamped down to try and deter people from coming to Australia by unauthorised means, they are still coming because the alternative choices they face are so horrendous. They are without hope and this causes them to decide to risk everything even if it means only making it as far as Nauru.

Click here to comment on this article for the next edition of Southern Cross