What I actually said about asylum seekers

by Rawdon Dalrymple - 27 August 2012 5:29PM

Rawdon Dalrymple is a former Australian ambassador to Israel, Indonesia, the US and Japan.

Hugh Wyndham, in his comment on my post about the limits of our moral responsibility for the increasing numbers of people coming here by boat and seeking entry by by-passing UN refugee channels, claims I am guilty of ill-informed errors. He writes that, of these errors...

...(t)he worst is the statement that 'there is no evidence they are seeking asylum from persecution or other danger'. Firstly, over 80% of boat people are eventually found to qualify for protection.

I made no such statement. What I wrote is quite consistent with the claim that 80% of boat people 'are eventually found to qualify for protection'. Wyndham has simply taken the above-quoted statement out of context to grossly misrepresent the meaning of what I said.

I was making a point about the moral freight of different terms. What I wrote was that the people who were formerly called boat people are now 'routinely labeled "asylum seekers" even when there is no evidence they are seeking asylum from persecution or other danger' (emphasis added).

I went on to mention how the Houston Report referred to the people who turned out not to need international protection as 'asylum seekers'. At no point did I suggest that there is no evidence that all or a majority of such people are seeking asylum from persecution. By excising 'even when', Wyndham has quite distorted my meaning.

It is an old and shabby trick to take a part of a sentence out of context to make it appear that the author has said something quite different from, or even the opposite of, what in fact was written. My post was directed to the broad issue of the extent of Australia's moral responsibility for people seeking illegal entry from very far away, transiting countries less affluent than ours where they would be in no danger. There is nothing in Mr Wyndham's post to suggest that he thinks our responsibilities and obligations are limited.

Australia has assumed obligations under the relevant UN conventions. The Houston report, and both sides in the federal parliament, have accepted that we could increase the number we take through the regular UN channel. But my concern, like that of probably the majority of Australians, is with the rising numbers of irregular seekers of settlement in Australia through 'people smuggler' channels. It is surely time to establish the moral limits to Australia's geographical and administrative responsibilities and to put in place systems to deter people from far away from seeking to breach them.

Lowy Institute for International Policy
Australia in the Asian Century

An Interpreter feature which ran from March to September of 2012, published to debate the Gillard Government's 'Australia in the Asian Century' White Paper, then in its research and consultation phase. Click here to see every post published in this series.

For commentary on the published White Paper, click here.

Australia's Defence Challenges

An Interpreter feature exploring Australia's defence challenges as the 2013 Defence White Paper planning process begins. Click here to see every post published in this series.

Selected Interpreter posts also appear in:

 
Business Spectator Caing online The Diplomat
 

Keep up-to-date with The Interpreter through:

iPhone App   iPhone App

RSS Feed   The Interpreter RSS Feed

Email Digest  

To receive a digest of posts from The Interpreter via email, enter your email address:

Receive a daily digest ->
Receive a weekly digest ->

Preview   |   Powered by FeedBlitz

Interpreting the Aid Review

This is the archive of a Lowy Institute blog which ran from January to April of 2011. It was published to debate the Gillard Government's independent aid review, which was then in its research and consultation phase. We offer this archive as a service to researchers and the general public.