Response by Michael Johnson, MP

I was surprised today to receive a response from Federal Member for Ryan and Opposition Whip Michael Johnson MP to my email of 5 November 2009.

The contents of his letter are not surprising. As a member of the Liberal opposition party, Mr Johnson (or whoever wrote the letter) takes a party line stance against the Prime Minister and Labor government. I am, however, encouraged by his comments at the bottom.

I have today written the following response:

24 November 2009





Dear Michael

RE: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S POLICY ON REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

Thank you for your letter of 21 November 2009. I was very pleased to receive a reply to my email of 6 November 2009, which raised my concern about the government’s stance on asylum seekers, particularly those who were aboard the Oceanic Viking at the time.

I found your letter educational, if somewhat propagandised. I certainly appreciate the Liberal Party’s view on the government’s approach to immigration and refugee issues, and I plan to take the issue up directly with the government’s representatives. Unfortunately, comments such as ‘As ever, Mr Rudd is all talk, no action’ do not compel me to the Liberal Party line and, if anything, detract from the (as I see it, worthy) arguments you make about of the softening of border protection laws encouraging people smuggling.

Of most interest to me, however, was your personal note that you believe that Australia should increase our formal refugee program from 13,000 to 50,000. This is precisely the kind of progress that is required for international human rights to prevail. I take this opportunity to challenge you to raise this as an issue with your colleagues, and build it into the political platform upon which you stand.

What needs to be addressed is the ideology of that (I hope) minority of people chanting words to the effect of ‘Go home – we’re full!’. I wonder how these people would feel if their family of 14, including elderly grandparents, aunts, uncles and children, were crammed into a one room apartment where they lived in fear of reprisals from insurgent leaders. Australia is, geographically, a huge country. Whilst most of the interior is uninhabitable, and the urban centres are begin to suffer from overpopulation, there are certainly ‘boundless plains to share’, as our national anthem espouses.

Mr Johnson, this is not an issue that only refugees and families of refugees care about. Every day Australians such as myself continually ask why our government refuses to share the privileges of ‘the lucky country’ with those less fortunate than ourselves. In your letter, you state ‘Labor’s policies are not tough or hardline. They are not fair or humane ... The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his failed policies and move immediately to end this debacle’.

You are correct. The government must immediately and radically alter the legislation in respect of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants to reflect the just and humane attitude of every day Australians. Those who seek entry to our shores by means other than the correct processes must be afforded every protection of the law, including conventions on human rights.

However, as an elected Member in Opposition, it is your obligation, your responsibility to challenge the government on these issues in order to catalyse the change that is necessary to grant freedom and opportunity to humanity.

Thank you again for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Politics and Sex Scandals - who gives a flying f***?

I have Google set as my homepage, and like any good interwebophile (is too a word!) I have it customised to my tastes. This includes a black and white backdrop (very sophisticated), clocks for around the worldand news headlines.

Apparently today's top story here in Australia is the so called 'sex scandal' of the Premier of South Australia.

Quick lesson in government for those non-Aussies out there: the Premier is the head of state for Australian states (eg. Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia). Whilst there are six territorial 'states', there are only six Premiers, because the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are technically not 'states'.

Mike Rann, now Premier of South Australia (SA), has been accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman working as a waitress in Parliament House a year after he became Premier. He was not married at the time, although it appears that the woman, Michelle Chantelois, was. She accuses him of asking to kiss her, asking him for her measurements so that he could buy her underwear, and having sex on his desk.

Unsurprisingly, Premier Rann denies the allegations. He is now married and admits to a friendship with Ms Chantelois, and that his now wife knew about the friendship at the time. But he does not admit to any further relationship between himself and Ms Chantelois.

Again, unsurprisingly, Ms Chantelois has sold her story to the media. Two media outlets known for their 'hard hitting coverage' (read sensationalised BS) have paid for her story, which apparently today has hit news stands.

Each time I've opened up my browser today (which admittedly, is more than a few times), a new development in the saga has occurred. 'SA Premier to address allegations'. 'Rann arrives for meeting admist sex scandal'. Play by play, Premier Rann's day is being broadcast to me in one liners.

And each time I read a new headline, the same question crosses my mind:

Who gives a flying f***?

I understand that when you go into public office, your private life comes under scrutiny. The higher the office, the closer people look at you. The public will generally forgive you many things, because (generally) they understand that even politicians are human (or human-like spawn of the underworld). But they are held to a higher level of accountability and a higher standard of morality. And woe betide the politician that lies - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

But come on. Six years ago Mike Rann was a 50 year old divorcee. If the allegations are true - he met a woman who he liked, and he attempted to woo her. Sure, if she was married, and he knew she was married, it perhaps wasn't the best choice on his part. But he's only human.

How does this impact on his ability to do his job? So what if he shagged her in his office? If my sources are correct, this happens on a daily basis across the globe. Right now some high powered politician, businessman, lawyer, engineer, accountant or someone is shagging his/her wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/lover/mistress/toyboy on the desk. Rumours abounded in my school that it was happening between my principal and deputy principal regularly. Did it make my principal any less of a principal? No. Probably it made him a bit of a legend to the boys at school - the deputy was thought to be a bit of a hottie. But our school was still one of the most prestigious government schools in the state, maybe even country, and much of that success was attributed to the principal.

Ultimately - why should any of us care what happened between Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois six years ago? If it impacted or continues to impact his ability to do his job, then yes, we should care. If he lied about it then or continues to lie about it now, then yes, we should care. But if it's just a bit of gossipmongering, why pander to it?

What would you say if a complete stranger came up to you, pointed to a random guy on the street and said 'Oh my gosh, you'll never believe this, but six years ago that guy had sex with me in his office'. I know what I'd say.

'Good for you love, but I don't give a flying f***.'

Nor should we all.

Oceanic Viking - My Letter to Federal Member, Michael Johnson

Dear Mr Johnson,

This is the first time I have ever canvassed a politician about an issue that I feel strongly about, so I apologise in advance for my lack of form.

I am a 28 year old lawyer living in The Gap. For four months early this year, I spent time in Kenya, working with a legal NGO advocating for women’s rights. My time in Kenya opened my eyes to the universality of the human spirit, and ignited in me a passion for human rights.

The purpose of this email is to communicate my dismay that the situation aboard the Oceanic Viking continues after 19 days of these asylum seekers being detained. Whilst I understand that the issue surrounding refugees, asylum seekers, and other immigration issues are complex and diverse, I am disappointed that the human rights of these people are being abrogated whilst politicians dally in making a decision.

Perhaps I do not truly understand the implications of allowing these people to be ‘processed’ (and what a demoralising, dehumanising term that is) on Australian soil, but I cannot help but ask the question ‘what is the harm?’ Surely the inconvenience of having these people swiftly moved to a more suitable holding facility is vastly outweighed by their rights as human beings?

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution. Article 9 states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. These two pivotal rights afforded to all people are being blatantly disregarded as those of us who enjoy complete and utter freedom from persecution watch – some, like me, in disgust that we can allow people to be treated thus, and others who jealously ‘protect’ those freedoms, denying the humanity in those who seek a better future on our shores.

During my time in Kenya I learned about an African philosophy called ‘Ubuntu’. You may be familiar with it – it is a philosophy talked about by Nelson Mandela, but most famously espoused by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He describes it thus:

“Ubuntu is the essence of being human. It speaks of the fact that my humanity is
caught up and is inextricably bound up in yours. I am human because I belong. It
speaks about wholeness, it speaks about compassion. A person with Ubuntu is open
and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that
others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes
from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when
others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed,
diminished when others are treated as if they were less than who they are. The
quality of Ubuntu gives people resilience, enabling them to survive and emerge
still human despite all efforts to dehumanize them.” (Tutu, Desmond
(1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. ISBN 0-385-49690-7.)

Perhaps these people are not genuine asylum seekers, and perhaps they do not deserve admission to our beloved country, but they do deserve every human right that you and I are entitled to. They certainly do not deserve to have their human rights extinguished.

Mr Johnson, I urge you to take a stand on this issue in the spirit of Ubuntu. Denying the human rights of our brothers and sisters upon the Oceanic Viking not only communicates our selfish disloyalty to their humanity, but it dehumanises us as well.

Humbly yours,

Litte Miss Random