There are two distinctive issues here:
(a) the detention of minors and their treatment
(b) the detention of adults and their treatment.
In (a) the minors are the ward of the minister and the minister representing the
Government (and us) has a special duty of care to ensure that these minors
are not damaged by commission or omission. If this duty is neglected and
as adults that these minors can prove damage, then they have a legitimate
claim to remedy.
In the case of (b) adults the issues of duty of care is less clear.
Unfortunately, illegal refugees (refugees arriving here where Australia is not
their first country of refuge) seem to use minors as shields so that they can
have a better chance of being accepted and settled in Australia.
This leaves the authorities here with the dilemma here:
-to separate children from adults
-or to treat adults with children the same way as children.
"Refugees' who transit via a second country such as Indonesia are arguably
not refugees because once free from their original country of risk/torture, they
are argubly no longer at risk and are essentially economic migrants.
If Indonesia is the initial country of refuge, then arguably Indonesia has the
responsibility of offering refuge under its UN charter.
Our long term guiding principal , however, should be:
"If we do not want refugees or economic refugees from a country where
we have militarily interfered wit for whatever reason, then we should not send
in troops there in the first instance.
This is particularly relevant where we intervened unsuccessfully in Vietnam,
Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply cannot go in shooting from the hip behind
Uncle Sam and supported by rednecks here and then when the deal goes
pear shaped, our troops return home and then the same rednecks say "no refugees".
Its a package deal and if its is not ok to take refugees from a country
whose regime we don't like then we should stay at home , period.
