Where is the PNG Debate on Manus Island?

With the successful passing of legislation by the Australian government to reinstate offshore processing in the Pacific, it is likely that Papua New Guinea and Nauru will be receiving Australia’s asylum-seekers within a month.

The Gillard government was so confident in achieving this outcome – a total back flip from its 2007 stance of abolishing it – that it confirmed that it had approved advance parties consisting of Australian Defense and Government officials who would be visiting Manus and Nauru – before the legislation had even passed.

That advance party touched down in Manus late yesterday afternoon.

The announcement that advance parties were being sent to PNG also indicated that an agreement of some sort had been in place between Julia Gillard and Peter O’Neill for some time – and most certainly well before the 2012 National Elections.

The speed by which developments have taken place to date, and in particular the dispatch and acceptance of Australian officials to PNG has been surprising, and to some degree – frightening.

Surprising and frightening – because our newly elected parliament has yet to even sit for its first official session of parliamentary debate, which has been announced to take place on Tuesday, August 21.

Furthermore, apart from the election of a prime minister and the announcement of a cabinet, PNG is still waiting for the official election of a Leader of the Opposition to take place.

It is imperative that sensitive issues like asylum seekers, which have important international ramifications and domestic obligations too, be discussed in full and with the participation of PNG’s entire House of Representatives.

One of the main functions of the the Office of the Opposition is its role in scrutinizing the decisions and operations of the Executive – but how is that possible when that office remains vacant and the Parliament has yet to sit?

Furthermore, it is impetuous of Australia to have us believe that the problem of asylum-seekers is a regional issue, and that therefore, the Manus Detention Centre is a partnership between PNG and Australia helping to address this issue.

This so called partnership consists of nothing more than Australia funding the detention centre and PNG providing the location and a band-aid solution to a problem that is Australian.

In reality, the PNG government and Manus’ new MPs are not particularly worried about Australia’s boat people but support it because they view the detention centre as a boost for Manus’ stagnating economy – and very possibly for Peter O’Neill, as a favor in return to Julia Gillard for her support of him as PNG’s legitimate prime minister over the past 12 months – under the guise of enhancing our bilateral relations, which it will most certainly also achieve.

And it seems that my view is shared by some senior politicians – albeit former cabinet ministers.

Former Attorney-General Sir Arnold Amet has come out today blasting Australia:

“Australia has debated this over many years as to whether they [asylum-seekers] go to Malaysia or go to Nauru or come to Papua New Guinea.

We cannot overnight be expected to rubber-stamp. It’s like a patronizing attitude towards Papua New Guinea and we cannot simply be expected to do this. And I think that Australia has handled this very poorly.

Struggling Pacific island states cannot be presumptuously treated like Australian territories with the token gestures of development dollar for removing this problem from Australian soil.

This is a moral dilemma. We can’t simply be forced upon to take these people.

They’re Australia’s problem, they want to go to Australia.”

But the reality is that Australia would not be sending its asylum-seekers to PNG had our government not consented to the request in the first instance.

And it is precisely Peter O’Neill’s consent which is concerning – because there has been no consultation outside of NEC chambers; and no opportunity for sincere and transparent debate to occur on the floor of our parliament.

Manus’ new MPs – Governor Charlie Benjamin and Manus Open MP Ronny Knight – need to re-look at the re-hashed economic argument which seems to trump humanitarian concerns time and time again when asylum-seekers are concerned.

Instead of profiting from the misery of others in the short-term, Benjamin and Knight should creatively be thinking of sustainable ways to generate organic economic growth for the people of Manus. It is no wonder that some Manus citizens have come out publicly stating that they are happy to receive Australia’s asylum seekers.

Their people’s statements that it will be good for them economically says it all.

~ by Tavurvur on August 17, 2012.

18 Responses to “Where is the PNG Debate on Manus Island?”

  1. Regarding O’neil and Gillards agreement on the relocation of aslym seekers in manus is not a good Idea. This issue should be debated on the floor of parliament before taken into consideration. I for one disagree’s with O’neils decision. There are aslo some negatie aspects of this issue, such as overcrowding, introduction of new religion by the asylm seekers, confiscation of culture ,racial discrimination and other social problems related to the issue. Why not Gillard deport tis people back to their own country instead of dumping it in a place like PNG and create its own living space and leaving us in disaster and turmoil after some period of time.

    • ‘Jacin’ – Fair points raised. These issues could all be addressed if PNG actually had a proper discussion on the issue of asylum-seekers. How many people have had input into this? The Prime-Minister and his Cabinet – em tasol ah? Rgds, Tavurvur.

  2. This people want to go to Australia why send them to PNG. PNG is not a jail camp for Australia

  3. Prime Minister Peter O’Niell needs to think twice before making any move.
    I very much agree with Sir Arnold Amet’s statement.
    We cannot be used as a dumping place for Australia. Also there Needs to be a full discussion in Parliament so we can have opinion’s from everyone(Govt and Opposition).

    • ‘Stern Cootes’ – From memory, National Alliance was against reopening the centre, or held up the process for some considerable time, when Amet was part of government. I’ll have to look it up, but it’s interesting to see these comments now – as opposed to when Amet was in government. Rgds, Tavurvur.

  4. Dooms day has not reached our shore as yet,could we be patient. and check out. the P.M ‘s motives, I know for this is an international issue,P.O’niel will never jeopadise his reputation,the governments and PNG’s.He gets the best advices avaliable to execute his decisions.Am not being bias or political in my opinion but this is what I see.Ooops ! and ya who said the opposition did not debate this issue,we have the media use it,we can’t sit and wait around for bills to be passed ,parliment to sit,leaders to be appointed etc. ,wake up be real.

  5. Do our leaders have any clue about what’s goin on?. Manus island is not some empty atolls in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to be used as a transit point. I agree with Jacin that this issue should be debated in parliament and a vote should be taken. It’s not just about overcrowding etc. This is a sovereign issue between two countries (and many countries from where these people come from) and therefore warrants proper parliament debate. On humanitarian grounds, we help but at the same time protect our Manusians.

    • ‘Tony’ – It is clear that Peter O’Neill and his government have accepted Australia’s asylum-seekers. Denying the opportunity for debate to happen in PNG is a travesty. Amet is right in pointing out that Australia have debated hard and long about the issue – and I think we too need to consider very carefully the implications of receiving asylum-seekers. Peter O’Neill obviously has not through all possibilities, because Hon Powes Parkop will be challenging the new agreement – and we all know what that means. Rgds, Tavurvur.

  6. I agree the lack of Parliamentary debate is wrong. But the lack of debate should not be a surprise. The denial of debate is not unique at all to this latest asylum issue. Remember the previous Parliament when oneil rammed through all sorts of crazy bills with limited or no debate? How Somare’s Kitchen Cabinet rarely consulted others? The absence of good debate on many issues and Bills-it’s just a reflection of how government operates.

    Im guessing genuine asylum seeker debate on floor of Parliament would show up many different views within govt ranks – oneil wont allow that because he wants to maintain the theatre of unity for his new government.

    • ‘Tommy Pukpuk’ – Yes, we have seen this in the past with O’Neill. One difference is that those previous bills were actually pushed through parliament, and although very little, there was at least some type of bare minimum discussion regarding the bills.

      Asylum-seekers have never been discussed on the floor of our parliament – and I think that’s important for the country. In addition, there are many different views within this government on the issue – e.g. Powes Parkop who will be bringing the agreement to court because he believe it’s against the law. More the reason why PNG’s needs our own debate on the issue.

      Rgds, Tavurvur

  7. Totally agree with you all, our PM cannot just agree with his counter part PM over the phone on the asylum seekers arrangement. This is not a private business matter but one that impacts on the sovereignty of PNG, therefore it must be properly debated on the floor of Parliament by all MPs.

  8. I perceive that this time around there is something in it for the Manus people as compared to the past arrangement. However, watch out for powes parkop, the guy is serious on issues of human -rights and fair justice and i agree, citing our constitution pertaining to same. The Australian or PNG Constitutuion to be invoked to detain these Boat people
    The Australian one, jurisdiction wont hold on PNG soil and the PNG one , fine, but detention for what crime.??? Its going to be another Luther Wenge vs PNG Gov & ECP. Go P Pakop……. sta wande yu..wanples.. yegiura.

    • ‘Yegiura’ – Agreed that it’s going to be another one like ‘Wenge vs State’. And after doing some background checks on the legislation concerned, I think Parkop has a very good chance of winning this case. Rgds, Tavurvur.


    In Australia the Labour Party led by their PM Gillard are now making a 180 degree bout turn on their Refugee Policy. They appear to have abandoned the Malaysian solution and have now embraced the Pacific Solution, which they went to the elections opposing Liberal-National Coalition Parties on. How fickle and untrustworthy Politicians can be anywhere, let alone Australia!

    What this signifies is a shift for processing of boat people and Refugees in PNG ( Manus ) and Nauru.

    In the past the NA led Somare government has opposed the processing of Refugees in PNG. There were very good legal and human rights reasons for this policy. This refusal was based on proper legal advice. That it is unconstitutional and unlawful to have an asylum processing centre in PNG, like the one in Manus.

    The Manus processing centre is a closed jail like centre where there is heavily armed security, and is out of bounds to the public and the media. It is a strictly controlled environment where the Refugees are not allowed to mingle with locals. They cannot leave the site. There is a very strong fence that cannot be assailed and armed guards are posted everywhere. No one, including lawyers, are allowed access to any Refugee under the Bi-lateral arrangements between Australia and PNG. Most of the contractors and suppliers of food and consumables are companies out of Australia, so there is very little tangible economic benefit back to PNG for this exercise.

    The UN Convention & Protocols Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention)1951 & 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) clearly outlines that a signatory government like Australia cannot transport refugees to a third location like Manus or Nauru, unless there is a guarantee that these countries will not persecute them, they would not be oppressed, and that their human rights will be protected. Until PNG can give a guarantee that the human rights of the refugees will be guaranteed and protected, Australia is obliged by the Refugee Convention not to transport them at all, but to process them on Australian soil. Irrespective of whether a person’s status as a Refugee has been determined or not, the processing of boat people who entered Australia or apprehended by Australian authorities, must principally be done in Australia and on Australian soil, under the Convention. This is an implied international obligation of Australia under the Refugee Convention. The decision to transport them out of Australian legal jurisdiction can only be done if the Australian government can guarantee the physical safety, security, human rights, and speedy processing of their Applications to enter and remain in Australia as Refugees. Past experience shows clearly that Manus is an oppressive environment for the Refugees.

    For a long time the Australian government has been looking to curb or discourage boat people flooding its shores by deliberately employing cruel and inhuman treatment of asylum seekers, boat people or refugees. In some cases children and babies have been held in captivity and jail like conditions for years and years without any ounce of recognition or consideration for their humanity. Families have been rendered asunder, and in some cases lives have been destroyed. Many people held in captivity in jail like conditions in Australia have been left with permanent psychological scarring. Others have gone on hunger strike, committed suicide, or even sown up their lips to demonstrate that they are a people without a voice discarded as garbage by the Australian Federal Government and its leadership.

    Last Christmas, we watched in horror as the remains of a boat carrying over 300 men women and children smashed mercilessly against the rocks on Christmas Island, were gathered up piece by piece and limb by limb. The Australian Navy, Coast Guard and its surveillance system picked up the boat many hours before they struck tragedy. They knew the heavily laden boat was headed for the rocks in bad weather. Yet, they stood by and allowed these people to sail directly to their death. The Prime Minister of Australia and the Defence Minister of Australia at that time may have been made aware of the impending tragedy, and may have chosen to turn a blind eye. This is not the first time Australia has deliberately allowed boat people to drown. This policy of watching and waiting and turning a blind eye to people in peril at sea does not sit well with the Australian Navy, who has made it known to the politicians that they have sworn an oath as seamen and women to save lives of other seafarers. The manner in which the politicians in Canberra appear to expect the Navy to break a time honoured code of ethics of seafarers is not sitting well with the higher ranks of the Australian Navy. Some servicemen and women have suffered psychologically as a result, having watched and stood by while innocent men women and children whose only crime was to come to Australia, daring to dream of happiness and to seek a better life and a better future, being plunged to their certain deaths.

    The Refugee Convention is very clear that it is not a crime for human beings, people of one country to leave their country and go seek a better life in another country if they suffer persecution in the original country on grounds of race, religion or political belief. As a matter of fact it is a fundamental human right to live in peace in a safe and secure environment, and the Convention provides for and gives effect to this right and the sacred sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of every person.

    Australia has over the years done everything under the sun to persecute, desecrate and demonize asylum seekers, refugees and boat people. Yet when it comes down to it, Australia is a country of boat people. White Australia is a country of boat people and their descendants. What gives Julia Gillard and her Cabinet any more right to Australia than those latterly arrivals on Aborigines soil? It is only a matter of timing. That is all. White Australia has no more legal, ethical or moral high ground to claim Terra Australis than these boat people. This behoves Australia to adopt a position, a moral and legal position that is concomitant with a full understanding and appreciation of the full surrounding circumstances causing plight of people around the globe; and in this sense their own part in the invasion of other countries and causing demographic political religious and economic instability in certain parts.

    Australian Leaders equally fail to see the full benefits of a healthy Immigration Policy that treats people with dignity. The policy is ridden by every political jockey as if to ensure the next load of boat people do not get in at all was a virtue worthy of the highest political goal score and inverse personal credibility, be it government or opposition. The fact that they don’t have an open quota system, prescribed open criteria, and aggressive selective migration policy, allows for some people to capitalize on it to set up money making operations to do boat runs with people who would otherwise be decent and skilled human beings in any society. The front page right hand column of The Australian last weekend says Australian Government internal studies reveal that it will need 800,000 new skilled workers in 5 years’ time! It expressed grave concerns for the Australian economy that it cannot be in a position to meet this demand. How poetically paradoxical was this page as it had right across the top in bold was the headline “Labor floats Nauru solution”. Now even if every able bodied Australian female, and every hot blooded beer swirling meat pie eating fly swatting footy crazy Aussie male, start fornicating non-stop for the next 6 months, they still will not produce the 800,000 skilled workers needed in 5 years’ time to meet the demand forecasted. That is one reason why, Australian Migration Policy as closed discriminatory and insular as it is, driven by a psyche of isolation and out-dated phobias, need to be sat on its head and overhauled to meet the challenges of the next century, or it will surely suffer being left behind as a land of red necks.

    Clearly the Manus solution in Papua New Guinea is illegal and unconstitutional under international law as well as under PNG law. Among other reasons it is illegal because:

    1. It deprives the liberty of people to be held in Jail like lock ups. Under the PNG Constitution we cannot deprive the liberty of persons unless they are convicted of a crime, or the Police charge them with a crime, and the courts cannot grant them bail. Where a person is suspected of a committing an offence, he can be held for a short time for interview. There is no other basis in law in PNG for us to hold a person captive. Any asylum seeker so held can sue the PNG Government for damages for false imprisonment and for breach of his rights under Section 37 of the Constitution. Yet, the Manus Refugee processing centre is exactly that. It is an establishment set up for an unlawful purpose.

    2. PNG is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it is obliged to protect and process refugees speedily, and where necessary allow the Refugees access to Lawyers and the courts to have their claims heard and settled speedily. The manner in which the Manus Centre is set up with High Security perimeter is very clearly designed to deny the basic human rights of the Refugees guaranteed by the Refugee Convention. This happened the last time and there no guarantee that it will be any different. The denial of human rights entailing the Manus processing Centre, locking up of men, women and children who have not broken any law in PNG, is harsh, oppressive and inhuman, which is a breach of Section 41 of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea. This is so especially when these people do not know when they will be processed and they are held in abeyance for months and years at a time, sometimes separated from their families. It is also oppressive when they have no access to lawyers or courts, especially Australian courts applying Australian Law in respect of their Applications to remain in Australia. PNG Courts cannot apply Australian Law. An aggrieved refugee in Manus is automatically denied access to Australian lawyers and Australian Courts to have his case reviewed. Denial of proper Jurisdiction and facilities is a form of oppression that is Unconstitutional under PNG law.

    3. Australia will have breached its obligations under the Refugee Convention by transporting these Refugees to Manus. Australia has an obligation to receive refugees, grant asylum and resettle them. Australia has an obligation to facilitate safe travels of Refugees to safe destinations. Australia also has an obligation at law to process the Refugees speedily on Australian soil. The very fact that the Manus centre is like a maximum security jail, and the fact that the people do not have access to welfare services, lawyers, Journalists, access to Australian Lawyers and Courts, with their human rights unlikely to be protected, should oblige Australia not to send these people in the first place to Manus.

    Australia proudly sends its soldiers to other countries to fight and bring democracy to these countries, now it must stand up and show what a model democracy it is. Julia Gillard and her Cabinet must not make excuses for their generation of Australians and co-opt compliant leaders like Peter O’Neill to condone and carry on breach of International law and PNG law. Papua New Guinea must not become party to Australia’s inhuman, discriminatory, oppressive and illegal activities. The O’Neill government must not stoop to illegal and unlawful conduct.

    4. Australia is very backward in human rights laws and protection of lives of asylum seekers. They do not have a codified bill of rights as we in PNG do in our Constitution. However, even when we do have a Bill of Rights, our past experience of Manus has been that if we cannot meet or speak to Refugees or asylum seekers and know about their grievances, we cannot help them under our law. That is why Australia has designed Manus to ensure minimum outside access and maximum security. They have in the past even prevented Australian lawyers and journalists access to the refugees both in Manus and in Nauru. The Australian government wants to make Manus and Nauru as oppressive as possible to deter further asylum seekers, even if it is against the law.

    The Asylum seekers rights under our Constitution likely to be breached without any remedy include:
    a) Freedom from inhumane treatment,
    b) Right to protection of the law,
    c) Right not to be held in custody unless charged with an offence known at law,
    d) Right to be heard quickly, and by a fair and impartial tribunal,
    e) Right to respect for the inherent dignity of a person,
    f) Freedom from harsh, oppressive and unwarranted treatment.

    Peter ONeill may feel obliged to keep doing favours for Julia Gillard for the political recognition granted to his illegitimate regime last August, but this is not a matter of politics and political favors. The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and indeed the office of Prime Minister is not Peter ONeill’s personal business enterprise. The Office is set up under the Constitution as a public office and it must be run in accordance with the laws of this country. Infact it is not a decision for pliable Peter O’Neill to make personally by directing the Foreign Minister Pato to facilitate Peter and Julia’s wishes and most ardent desires. etc. This is a matter of law, and NEC should be the appropriate body to look at and debate the full ramifications of this decision. Thereafter, Parliament should sit and consider this whole issue, thereby allowing clarity and common sense and the wishes of the nation to be carried in a public and informed atmosphere. What Peter ONeill has done so far is clearly illegal, and is a gross abuse of public office.

    Any aggrieved party can as a matter of public interest challenge this by way of a Supreme Court Reference for the Courts to give their opinion on the Constitutional ramifications of this decision. We will now sit back and see the true colours of some of these national Leaders as to whether they will fall for this trick or not. The Opposition should knock this on the head, and call on Australian Leaders to respect human lives and treat their inherent person with dignity, not like some piece of garbage to be transported all over the Pacific ocean and discarded in some disused former military facility. If they want to be a model democracy and a great nation one day, Australian leaders must first show the world that they have joined the rest of humanity, and have become a people of dignity and decency in their Refugee and Immigration policies. That would be a good starting point.

  10. Australia will have its way. Boat people are illegal settlers. They need to be sent packing back to where they came from. We have enough of our own problems to deal with. But I support the Manus People on their plight to have equal opportunity in relation to any deal. Why? Because there is nothing going on in Manus. Good luck with that. We are still unable to process the 500 000 odd illegal settlers here in Port Moresby. Powes Parkop doesn’t want his backyard become like Port Moresby where the Traditional People have become bystanders in their our land.

    • ‘Pom Observer’ – Here’s a brief thought which I need to consider in more detail – but as a long-term solution to Australia’s asylum seekers, Australia could push for West Papua Independence, get West Papua to sign the relevant UN conventions, then establish a processing facility right above the Torres Strait and extend the boundary of surveillance that Australia is currently doing in that area. Asylum-seekers will not stop – so what’s the best way to address the flow? Rgds, Tavurvur.

  11. Australian asylum-seekers to PNG? So will it solve the regional issue or because of other hidden motives? Is PNG more developed than Australia? We are no way near..we are still working towards it. Australia only wants to use PNG as a dumping ground. PNG Politicians, are you desperately needing those help that will be given to us when the asylum seekers are here?? We have rich resources as we all boasted about, if we managed it properly without frequent misappropriation of funds or for personal interest etc.. we can see some REAL CHANGES in our blessed country. This is a critical issue and the decision should not be done over night by a very few people.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: