Posted on 08/10/2006 6:23:18 PM PDT by blam
MPs revolt over plan to put asylum seekers on an island
By Nick Squires in Sydney
(Filed: 11/08/2006)
Australia's prime minister, John Howard, suffered the biggest parliamentary revolt of his decade in power yesterday over a proposal to send asylum seekers to remote island detention centres while their claims are processed.
Three members of his Liberal Party voted against the Bill and one abstained. It was the worst breach of party loyalty confronted by Mr Howard since he won office from the Labour prime minister Paul Keating in 1996.
John Howard shrugged off the party rebellion
Despite the MPs' rebellion, the Migration Amendment Bill was passed in the lower House of Representatives, where the government has a strong majority.
But it could easily be rejected next week when it reaches the upper house, the Senate, where the government has a majority of just one.
The Bill would overturn existing legislation under which boat people who manage to reach the Australian mainland are entitled to stay in the country while their asylum applications are heard by a refugee tribunal.
They would instead be denied the right to lodge their claims in Australia and sent to detention camps on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea, or Nauru.
Even those eventually deemed to be genuine refugees could be refused asylum in Australia, and denied the right to pursue appeals through the country's courts.
Critics say the Bill has been designed to appease Indonesia, which was furious earlier this year when 43 political refugees from disputed West Papua reached the coast of Queensland in a large outrigger canoe and successfully claimed asylum.
One of the government MPs who voted against the Bill, Petro Georgiou, described it as "the most profoundly disturbing piece of legislation" he had ever encountered.
Another dissenting MP, Bruce Baird, condemned the amendment as "draconian" and said it had compelled him to cross the floor for the first time in his 19-year political career.
A fellow rebel, Russell Broadbent, said the Bill had no place in a country which had established a reputation as "a place of hope for generations of new immigrants".
The policy of detaining asylum-seekers on Nauru and Manus Island - the "Pacific solution" - was introduced in 2001 after an influx of boat people, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, created immense public concern in Australia.
Under pressure from backbenchers last year, Mr Howard agreed that children and families would no longer be detained behind barbed wire while their claims were heard.
Rebel MPs now fear that the new Bill will once again allow women and children to be locked up, in breach of Australia's international refugee obligations.
Shrugging off the dissent, Mr Howard said he would not allow the Bill to be watered down.
The prime minister, who last week announced that he will stand for a fifth consecutive election, owes much of his electoral popularity to a hard-line stance on asylum seekers.
95% of the asylum seekers are Muslim and Muslims have been awful for Australia. Even if the parents are OK the children are awful. Same as the UK plotters who were just rolled up. They were all born in UK of Muslim immigrants
I'm with John How rd on this one
Mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, now isn't that interesting.
This is not a sign of insurrection in the ranks, but an indication of just how strong the Howard Government has been over the past decade.
We need a man (really a lot of men) like Howard in the US
We're very fortunate to have him.
A new Botany Bay?
"We need a man (really a lot of men) like Howard in the US"
And the UK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.