|
|
[Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback] |
|
Human Rights Defender |
David Leung
On Tuesday 3 September 2002, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, attended the University of New South Wales (UNSW) to deliver a speech on the Government's approach to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers. The address was organised by the UNSW Law Society. However, the organisers may not have predicted the huge chorus of protesters seeking to express their anger at the Government's policies. The Ruddock protest was certainly one of the bigger student events on campus for some time.
The UNSW Refugee Action Campaign (UNSWRAC) was an instrumental group in calling the students to arms. It is a testament to the power of the electronic medium that other organisations (notably students from Sydney University and the University of Technology, Sydney) were marshalled so quickly to support the protest. Organised with no more than a week’s notice, the protest had a certain quality of spontaneity about it.
In spite of a late venue change (which was immediately branded as 'Ruddock tries to escape us'), the protesters began gathering around the entry to the designated venue at about 12.30 p.m. The venue was the Leighton Hall of the Scientia—an impressive ceremonial hall constructed for the 50th anniversary of the founding of UNSW.
The number of people arriving just kept building up and soon a loudspeaker was set up calling everyone to gather around. An indication of the fairly ad hoc nature of the organisation was the attempt by the protesters to hold an impromptu strategy meeting over the loudspeaker. Ideas and suggestions were sought on how best to disrupt the impending speech by the Minister. It did not take long, however, before the meeting turned into a soapbox rally. Quite a number of energetic protesters got up to speak and whipped up the crowds; banners were unfurled and placards raised into the air.
It was not clear at first whether the protesters would be granted entry into Leighton Hall. However, following some negotiations and upon the request that the front rows be reserved for law students, everyone filed in around 1 p.m. The atmosphere in the hall was jubilant: the crowds chanted almost incessantly and many placards were waived about vigorously. There were enough people to fill up Leighton Hall, which I estimate can hold at least two hundred people, if not substantially more.
Eventually the president of the UNSW Law Society, Nick Hume, got up to prepare the crowd for Minister Ruddock's arrival. In defending allegations from the crowd, he denied any connection with the Liberal Party. He then pleaded for the crowd to uphold the principle of free speech. Unfortunately, his plea merely inflamed the crowd, igniting strong accusations that it was Minister Ruddock who denies free speech to the asylum seekers.
Finally, Minister Ruddock arrived to intense jeering, booing and slogan chanting. Amidst the shouting, it was nearly impossible to decipher the speaker who introduced Minister Ruddock to the lectern. As Minister Ruddock stepped up to the lectern, there was a surge of angry chanters towards the front of the hall. Federal security personnel gathered and stood guard around the Minister and it was interesting to onserve the tension in their stance and faces. NSW police officers were also present inside and outside the hall.
Minister Ruddock stood and waited for some time with what seemed like an amused smile on his face. At last, he attempted to speak over the voice of the protesters. As he spoke, a video was projected onto the screen above showing Minister Ruddock visiting the Lukole and Kakuma refugee camps in Africa. The chorus from the protesters grew and they quickly found assistance from slapping the timber panels lining the walls of Leighton Hall.
It was very difficult to hear the Minister speak, but I managed to record the following points:
| • | The Minister said he wanted to provide an outline of the migration program and explain its core values; |
| • | He acknowledged the history of migration to Australia and stated that 600,000 refugees have been received into Australia since World War II; |
| • | He noted that the current intake of refugee is about 12,000 per annum; |
| • | He stated that Australia's national and economic interest must be borne in mind; |
| • | He stated that Australia had limited resources to process and accept asylum seekers, and that the Government wants to devote its resources to those with the greatest needs and those who are most at risk; |
| • | He stated that this goal is frustrated by the diversion of resources to illegal immigrants; |
| • | He said that some of these ‘illegal immigrants’ (sic) arrive without any documentation; |
| • | He stated that these ‘illegal immigrants’ (sic) are able to pay their way to Australia and take the place and resources of other asylum seekers who follow proper procedures and wait in refugee camps such as Kakuma; |
| • | He stated that Australia has the right to determine who is most in need of help and that this task should not be left to people smugglers; |
| • | Further, he commented that people smugglers endanger the lives of asylum seekers, which have led to many deaths in the past; |
| • | He said that the Government is concerned with the safety and security of those arriving in Australia illegally by boat. |
The Minister indicated that he had intended to explain the recent legislative changes to the Migration Act, including the excision of parts of Australia from the migration zone and the judicial review changes (i.e. the introduction of privative clauses into the Migration Act and the placing of time-limits on appeals to the High Court) however, due to the level of disruption, he stated that he would no longer deal with those issues, nor did he feel able to enter into a discussion about any of the matters raised.
On that note, Minister Ruddock quickly shook hands with the UNSW Law Society representatives and left the hall. Despite the heavy presence of police and other security personnel, there were a couple of minor scuffles in the hall, particularly when some Liberal Party supporters showed up and came towards the front during Minister Ruddock’s speech. Also, a few people nearly turned on the president of the UNSW Law Society when he tried to draw the presentation to a close following Minister Ruddock’s departure.
All in all, the atmosphere in Leighton Hall was highly charged. Minister Ruddock was not impressed with the reception that greeted him and he had a gibe at the unreasonableness of some university students. I wouldn’t be surprised if afterwards he got straight onto Dr Brendan Nelson (Minister for Education, Science and Training) and demanded that university funding be cut.
Considering the ad hoc organisation of the protesters, the turnout was terrific and effective. The outpouring of anger demonstrates that the plight of asylum seekers is an important issue. It shows that there are many people out there who disagree vehemently with the Government on its policies against asylum seekers. This is contrary to some of the views expressed in the popular media that Australians are little concerned with the plight of asylum seekers. If there is an insufficient level of concern about the issue, it could well be sheeted home to the Government’s attempt to stifle media coverage of the detention centres—which brings me to the point on free speech.
There has been much discussion amongst the protest organisers about the tactic of drowning out Minister Ruddock’s speech. Some have argued that the protest was a successful and effective way of demonstrating disgust for the Government’s policies. For these people, it is appalling that Minister Ruddock should be allowed to sprout the Government’s ‘racist’ propaganda on a university campus. For them, the purpose of the protest was to drown out Minister Ruddock and to send the strongest possible signal of dissent to the Minister—a desperate and spontaneous attempt to give voice to views and emotions that have been ignored for so long.
On the other hand, some people have suggested that the protesters had simply played right into the hands of the Minister. The Minister may well have expected the protest, and by living up to the expectation, it enabled the Minister to portray the students as left-wing radicals who were unable to conduct themselves in civil discourse. Moreover, the protest gave the Minister an excuse to escape without being confronted with any difficult and incisive questions from the floor. It could also be argued that such a protest was offensive to the notion of free speech.
However, in light of the reality of Minister Ruddock’s position, the former view is a justifiable one. It is important to remember that Minister Ruddock is not a helpless individual unable to disseminate his views effectively. To the contrary, the Minister has at his disposal all the resources of being in government not only to promote his views, but to stifle dissenting views. Indeed, in terms of the mainstream media, his views, if not dominating, are at least never sidelined. Certainly there was nothing in the speech that the Minister delivered that had not been announced previously, or was not readily accessible through the Government’s websites.
Furthermore, it is well known that the Government has implemented steps to restrict media coverage of the detention of asylum seekers. Such media coverage is essential in presenting the human face of asylum seekers. So, while the Australian public is prevented from hearing the human plight of asylum seekers, the Government floods the media with false and ‘demonising’ stories about a group that has no effective voice. It is no wonder why the other side of the debate gains so little media currency.
In this light, the Scientia speech would have been no more than another platform from which to espouse the Minister’s rehearsed views—another measure that would have tipped the scale further away from the voiceless asylum seekers. Nor would any questions from the floor have raised any new issue that had not been presented to the Minister before. The Minister’s address added nothing new to the discourse on asylum seekers and the students were more than justified in denying the Minister another avenue to spread his biased views. It is not that the students are against the right to free speech; but when all is said and done, there comes a time when it becomes necessary to take a principled stance.
David Leung is a second year graduate law student at UNSW and a volunteer at the Australian Human Rights Centre.