Illustration: Jamie Brown Photo: Jamie Brown
Australia's response to asylum seekers continues to generate heated debate and a wide range of views. When the decision to recommence regional offshore processing was announced, the Salvation Army offered to provide welfare and support services to the asylum seekers transferred to Nauru and Manus Island, despite its public opposition to this policy. This decision has been criticised by some commentators such as Bruce Haigh (''Salvos misplace moral compass on way to Nauru''), but it has always been the mission of the Salvation Army to serve where people are suffering or in distress.
Haigh praises the Salvation Army for its presence and support of Australian troops during the war, yet fails to recognise that it is the same passion and motivation that leads our organisation to work with asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island. Where there is suffering you will find the Salvation Army, whether it is caused by a cyclone, war, poverty, illness or otherwise. We are not an organisation that just demonstrates and debates and discusses. Salvos have always been a people of action, who have been described as ''Christianity with its sleeves rolled up''. Where people are suffering, we are compelled to go.
Our presence on Nauru or Manus Island does not mean that we have endorsed this policy or given it ''legitimacy'', just as our presence on the front line, serving tea and coffee and offering emotional support to our troops in times of war, does not mean we support war or violence, but we cannot walk away from the vulnerable and do nothing.
We have spoken clearly and publicly about our opposition to offshore processing, but as Haigh knows, the implementation of offshore processing was inevitable. It was recommended by the expert panel and endorsed by both major political parties. Facilities were being built, and people were being prepared for transfer. Who was best placed to provide humanitarian support and care to these people? A security firm? A facilities management company? Or an organisation that brings to this task more than a century of experience and skill in working with distressed, vulnerable and marginalised people, and boundless amounts of faith, hope and love. Our two island managers for Nauru and Manus Island, of which I am one, have well over 50 years' combined experience running humanitarian services and working with refugees and asylum seekers in a number of countries.
We also understand Haigh's point that future generations might well look back on this policy and see it, like the removal of Aboriginal children and the care of children in large institutions, as flawed and inappropriate.
But concerns for our future reputation should not prevent us now from responding to the urgent need to bring some compassion and humanity to a tough policy. We are content to let the future judge our actions and response.
Haigh also claims that the Salvation Army is not noted for its involvement in the welfare of asylum seekers.
This is incorrect. Salvation Army officers have been visiting and supporting asylum seekers in mainland detention centres for many years. We also provide free immigration and legal advice to asylum seekers and others in Australia.
The Salvation Army has also conducted holiday programs for families and children in mainland detention centres and is a contracted provider of community detention, supporting vulnerable asylum seekers placed in the community with housing and casework services. We know these people well, and understand their journeys, their aspirations and the challenges of their situations.
Haigh's claim that we have defended conditions on Nauru is also inaccurate. The Salvation Army has supported and endorsed the comments made by Amnesty International and the recent UNHRC report. We recognise conditions are harsh, and any comments that could be considered as ''defending conditions'' were simply truthful answers to questions regarding the adequacy of food and water. Our staff are working hard every day to give every asylum seeker access to education, vocational training, recreational and social activities that will make the time awaiting the resolution of their asylum claims more meaningful and useful. Yet Haigh attacks us for seeking to employ professional and competent staff to do this. Would he prefer that people sit in these camps with no access to education, recreation or activities while he writes articles and waits for this policy to changed or be reversed?
Nor has the Salvation Army been ''mute'' on this issue. Not all advocacy happens through the media. The Salvation Army is continually advocating directly to the government for improvement in facilities and conditions, and we have seen positive responses. Only recently, on December 17, I travelled to Canberra to give evidence and provide members of the parliamentary joint committee on human rights an insight into the feelings and experiences of the asylum seekers at Nauru and Manus Island.
Ultimately everyone has to decide what response they will make to an issue they feel strongly about. Some will write to their local MP or send a letter or article to a newspaper, some will wave placards and loudly demonstrate their feelings, some will express their opinions through the ballot box, and a few might choose to leave their own comfortable world to stand and work with the people they claim to care so passionately about.
That is a costly choice. You are in danger of being misunderstood. You must live in the same environment and endure the same conditions as those who you serve. This is the choice The Salvation Army has made.
Major Moulds is on Manus Island heading the Salvation Army mission to Nauru and Manus Island.
No comments:
Post a Comment