Extract from The Guardian
Surely it would be smart to deny the reports that we’d handed over
money so other people smugglers wouldn’t be encouraged to set sail in
pursuit of Australian cash?
To summarise the government’s position on paying $30,000 to people
smugglers: they now won’t speak about it even though last week they
denied it. It may have breached international and domestic law but voters won’t care because the boats have stopped.
And right there, in that astonishing rationale, is a test. Is there any limit to the “whatever it takes” when it comes to Australia’s asylum policy? And is there any way to force accountability or transparency on a government that simply refuses to answer questions.
To be clear, we don’t know for sure that the payments occurred. Asylum seekers have said they did – they told that to both Indonesian and United Nations officials. And photographs have been produced of money in plastic bags. The people who could clear it up are the Australians on the customs vessel, who report to the government. And the government isn’t saying.
Tony Abbott’s defence, this week, is that all governments refuse to comment on intelligence and national security matters. But this isn’t a “national security” matter – it’s a question of whether someone acting on behalf of the Australian government paid what seems to amount to bribes.
Surely if they hadn’t, and if we have no intention to do so, it would be smart to deny the reports that we’d handed over cash. That way other people smugglers wouldn’t be encouraged to set sail in pursuit of Australian cash and Indonesia’s anger would be calmed and moves to investigate possible breaches of Australian and international law would be unnecessary.
One of the many reasons given by the prime minister for his refusal to comment on the allegations was “this government does not feel the need to broadcast our intentions and tactics to our enemies”. But surely if the government hadn’t paid and had no intention of paying, it would make sense to broadcast that tactic.
And last week both the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, said Australia had not paid any cash, so if it was reasonable to comment then, why is it no longer reasonable now?
The former minister Philip Ruddock offered another defence – that $30,000 was cheaper than the cost of processing the asylum seekers on shore. Except cost isn’t usually the determinant of legal and international obligations.
An unnamed source told the Daily Telegraph it might have been an Asis officer on the customs vessel offering the payments, and no one would be able to talk about that, except the unnamed source, who was, of course, talking about it.
Both Labor and the Greens are pursuing the issue, but the ALP’s outrage is somewhat undermined by the fact that they don’t currently have their own policy – something the government will continue to use to its advantage.
So many explanations, so few facts. The curious case of the possible payments to people smugglers will reveal whether a government can get away with refusing to provide any information because its goal – “stop the boats” – justifies the use of any means.
And right there, in that astonishing rationale, is a test. Is there any limit to the “whatever it takes” when it comes to Australia’s asylum policy? And is there any way to force accountability or transparency on a government that simply refuses to answer questions.
To be clear, we don’t know for sure that the payments occurred. Asylum seekers have said they did – they told that to both Indonesian and United Nations officials. And photographs have been produced of money in plastic bags. The people who could clear it up are the Australians on the customs vessel, who report to the government. And the government isn’t saying.
Tony Abbott’s defence, this week, is that all governments refuse to comment on intelligence and national security matters. But this isn’t a “national security” matter – it’s a question of whether someone acting on behalf of the Australian government paid what seems to amount to bribes.
Surely if they hadn’t, and if we have no intention to do so, it would be smart to deny the reports that we’d handed over cash. That way other people smugglers wouldn’t be encouraged to set sail in pursuit of Australian cash and Indonesia’s anger would be calmed and moves to investigate possible breaches of Australian and international law would be unnecessary.
One of the many reasons given by the prime minister for his refusal to comment on the allegations was “this government does not feel the need to broadcast our intentions and tactics to our enemies”. But surely if the government hadn’t paid and had no intention of paying, it would make sense to broadcast that tactic.
And last week both the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, said Australia had not paid any cash, so if it was reasonable to comment then, why is it no longer reasonable now?
The former minister Philip Ruddock offered another defence – that $30,000 was cheaper than the cost of processing the asylum seekers on shore. Except cost isn’t usually the determinant of legal and international obligations.
An unnamed source told the Daily Telegraph it might have been an Asis officer on the customs vessel offering the payments, and no one would be able to talk about that, except the unnamed source, who was, of course, talking about it.
Both Labor and the Greens are pursuing the issue, but the ALP’s outrage is somewhat undermined by the fact that they don’t currently have their own policy – something the government will continue to use to its advantage.
So many explanations, so few facts. The curious case of the possible payments to people smugglers will reveal whether a government can get away with refusing to provide any information because its goal – “stop the boats” – justifies the use of any means.
No comments:
Post a Comment