2014 Julan Burnside Archives - Sydney Peace Foundation

Presentation of the Gold Medal for Human Rights to Christiana Figueres

Sydney Peace Foundation — Fri, 13 Mar 2020 04:17:00 +0000

We were so honoured to award the Gold Medal for Human Rights to Christiana Figueres on 12 March in the Lord Mayor’s Reception Room at the Sydney Town Hall. Christiana gave an impassioned speech about the need for urgent action on the climate crisis, explaining how human rights and climate change are intimately linked.

Here are some of our favorite snaps from the event, courtesy of our photographer Robin Walton who photographed this event pro bono in support of the Foundation. An audio recording of the event is available below, and all photos are available online here

https://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Sydney-Peace-Price-LMs-reception.mp3

The post Presentation of the Gold Medal for Human Rights to Christiana Figueres appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

2019 Sydney Peace Prize Announcement Breakfast

Sydney Peace Foundation — Wed, 01 May 2019 01:44:09 +0000

We were so pleased to offer a sneak peak unveiling of the Me Too movement as the 2019 Sydney Peace Prize recipient on 30 April before the news broke publicly. Thank you to everyone who woke up so early to join us, and a special mention of speakers Kate Jenkins, Kumi Taguchi, Tarana Burke and Tracey Spicer!

Here are some of our favorite snaps from the event, courtesy of our photographer Wendell Teodoro. All photos available online here.

The post 2019 Sydney Peace Prize Announcement Breakfast appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Statement: The UK should refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the USA

Sydney Peace Foundation — Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:14:44 +0000

The Sydney Peace Foundation calls on the UK Government to refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the USA, where he is likely to face serious human rights violations in pre-trial detention.

The allegations of rape and other sexual violence against Julian Assange in Sweden should be properly investigated, and Assange should be brought to justice if convicted in a fair trial. If Sweden requests his extradition from the UK to proceed with legal action on the basis of these allegations, they should give assurances that he will not then be extradited to the USA.

Julian Assange was awarded the Foundation’s Gold Medal for Human Rights in 2011 for championing the people’s right to know, and for exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights.

Please contact peace.foundation@sydney.edu.au for further comments.

The post Statement: The UK should refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the USA appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Special screening of Border Politics and live Q&A with Julian Burnside on 2 July

Sydney Peace Foundation — Fri, 18 May 2018 00:35:53 +0000

Join us for a special Sydney Peace Foundation screening of 2014 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Julian Burnside’s new documentary Border Politics, including a live Q&A with Burnside himself!

Border Politics follows Burnside as he travels the globe examining the harsh treatment of refugees at the hands of western democracies. This contemporary story is about the threat to human rights, the loss of democratic values and our increasingly heartless treatment of ‘the other’. Seventy years after the world constructed international conventions to ensure the horrors of World War 2 wouldn’t be repeated, Burnside finds it terrifying to see Australian and other western political leaders exploiting fears around border protection to extend political power.

Don’t miss this exciting opportunity to hear from Burnside on his experience filming Border Politics, and how we can turn the ship around and regain our humanity.

We are pleased to offer Sydney Peace Foundation supporters special discounted $15 tickets! Don’t miss out, join us for this exciting event.

Date: Monday 2 July 2018

Time: 6pm for 6:30pm

Venue: Ritz Cinema

Get tickets

The post Special screening of Border Politics and live Q&A with Julian Burnside on 2 July appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Julian Burnside on the failings of super-minister Dutton

Sydney Peace Foundation — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:55:08 +0000

Peter Dutton is arguably the most powerful person in the country. In his new ministry he has oversight for national security, for the Federal Police, Border Force and ASIO, for the law enforcement and emergency management functions of the Attorney-General’s Department, the transport security functions of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, the counterterrorism and cybersecurity functions of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the multicultural affairs functions of the Department of Social Services, and the entire Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

It is hard to imagine any member of federal parliament less suited to exercise the sort of powers now held by Dutton. It is easy to argue that no minister should be entrusted with such vast powers. But the fact that those powers are in Dutton’s hands is seriously alarming.

Ministerial powers are subject to limits. The rule of law means that the limits are subject to supervision by the judicial system. Most ministers understand that. Dutton apparently does not.

HE IS TRYING TO PERSUADE OTHER COUNTRIES TO BACK AWAY FROM INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION.

Ministerial decisions can be challenged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and, ultimately, in the courts. Challenging a ministerial decision is not simple, but the AAT is a bit more “litigant friendly” than the courts – the AAT makes challenging a ministerial decision a bit easier for people who can’t afford a lawyer.

In the middle of 2017, Dutton led an attack on the AAT, saying that it was making “silly” rulings – which, presumably, means decisions he did not like.

“Judicial processes are very important,” he said, and the legislation “still allows people to have their day in court. But it doesn’t give rise to the silly situations which we’re seeing at the moment …”

He advocated legislation that would give him the final say over citizenship decisions, subject only to the courts. He already has the final say over visa cancellations.

When Dutton took over the immigration portfolio from Scott Morrison in December 2014, he adopted Morrison’s misleading characterisation of boat people as “illegal”. Morrison had decreed that the people referred to in the Migration Act as “Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals” should in future be called “Illegal Maritime Arrivals”. Dutton has picked up the idea, even though it is a lie.

Dutton shamelessly uses the “illegal” tag.

At the very least, this shows ignorance of some basic facts; at worst, it shows dishonesty. Boat people do not commit any offence by arriving in Australia without a visa, without an invitation, seeking to be protected from persecution. On the contrary, they are exercising a right acknowledged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration starts this way: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

Australia made a significant contribution to the creation of the Universal Declaration, and it was Doc Evatt, an Australian, who presided over the General Assembly of the United Nations when it was adopted on December 10, 1948. More than half a century later, on July 27, 2017, Dutton wrote an opinion piece about Operation Sovereign Borders, which included these words:

“It’s now been three years since a people-smuggler’s boat loaded with Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) reached Australia …

“Had the Coalition not mounted OSB – the boats and illegal arrivals would still be coming.”

On October 31, 2017, he said: “The Coalition government has had a clear and consistent policy since coming to office: no one who attempts to enter Australia illegally by boat will ever settle here.”

Dutton is in charge of the offshore detention of boat people on Nauru and on Manus Island. Most of them have been assessed as refugees, legally entitled to protection. The Refugee Convention means they can’t be sent back to their country of origin, where they were being persecuted, and Dutton has made it clear that they will never be allowed to come to Australia. But Nauru and Papua New Guinea are not having much luck finding other countries to send them to. Billions of dollars are spent because Dutton is too cruel – or perhaps too ignorant – to allow them to come here. Presumably he justifies this by calling them “illegal”, which is false, and by describing the whole exercise as “border protection”, which is misleading.

Dutton told the public these refugees had received “an enormous amount of support” from Australian taxpayers for a long time, saying: “there is a very different scenario up on Nauru and Manus than people want you to believe”. Taxes cover the absurd cost of maintaining offshore processing arrangements. It costs about $570,000 per refugee per year to keep the men and women on Manus or Nauru. So in that sense, refugees receive support from taxpayers.

UN officials have repeatedly criticised Australia’s refugee policies. Our treatment of refugees on Manus breaches our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Every international organisation that has looked at our treatment of refugees has criticised us for it.

Dutton’s moral horizons can be seen by considering several recent cases. The boat people on Nauru include children. Most of them have been there for four years or more. Some of them have been driven to self-harm or have attempted suicide. The medical facilities available on Nauru are simply not able to cope with young children who are self-harming at the age of 10 or 11 years. In recent months, several young children have been in such desperate need that applications were made in the Australian courts for the children to be brought to Australia for proper medical treatment. Dutton paid lawyers to resist those applications.

It is important to understand what this means. Dutton, who spends billions of dollars to keep innocent people in misery for years, spends more taxpayer dollars to resist attempts to get appropriate medical care for the children the minister has harmed.

He also criticises lawyers who try to help the people he is harming. In August 2017, Dutton declared that lawyers helping asylum seekers were “unAustralian”. Speaking for myself, his comment made being “unAustralian” a badge of honour.

In September 2017, referring to the first group of refugees to leave Manus Island for resettlement in the United States, Dutton said: “We have been taken for a ride, I believe, by a lot of the advocates and people within Labor and the Greens who want you to believe this is a terrible existence”.

It is difficult for Australians to get into the processing centres on Manus and Nauru. We can’t see these places for ourselves. If Dutton really thinks life for refugees on Manus or Nauru is better than “people within Labor and the Greens” say, then perhaps he will explain why refugees have been attacked and killed in those places. Perhaps he will explain why international observers have been so critical of conditions in those places. Perhaps he will explain why so many refugees in those places have suffered such serious physical and mental damage.

In October 2017, Dutton accused advocates and the Greens of “aiding and abetting” detainees to force the government to change its policy through “subterfuge”.

In November 2017, Dutton attacked New Zealand’s offer of $3 million funding to provide essential services on Manus Island, saying the money would be better spent elsewhere. He also repeatedly rejected New Zealand’s offers of resettlement for people on Manus. He attacked New Zealand, saying it benefited from Australia’s tough border policies without paying for them: “If any boats arrive tomorrow, those people aren’t going to Auckland, they’re going to … Nauru.”

Dutton also threatened that, if New Zealand and Papua New Guinea bypassed Australia to strike an agreement to resettle refugees held on Manus, it would have consequences for Australia’s relationship with both countries.

On April 7, 2018, Dutton called for “like-minded” countries to come together and review the relevance of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

So, here it is: Australia’s most powerful minister is wilfully mistreating innocent people at vast public expense. He is waging a propaganda war against refugees and against the people who try to help them. And he is trying to persuade other countries to back away from international human rights protection.

He tries to make it seem tolerable by hiding it all away in other countries, so that we can’t see the facts for ourselves.

Dutton has often expressed concern about people drowning in their attempt to get to Australia. But his concern about people drowning is a lie. If he were genuinely concerned about people drowning, he might treat survivors decently. Instead, if they don’t drown, he punishes them: he puts them in offshore detention for years. He does this in order to deter others from trying to seek safety in Australia.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about Dutton is not his dishonesty, but his propaganda war, which already has led the Australian people to accept things that would have been unthinkable even 10 or 20 years ago. He has blinded us to the fact that we are now deliberately harming innocent men, women and children, in ways that are completely inconsistent with our view of ourselves. After all, aren’t we the nation that believes in a fair go for everyone?

By small degrees Dutton is inducing Australians to tolerate the intolerable. His campaign to make cruelty acceptable has the potential to lead Australia to very dark places. Invested in him is great power to do so, more power than any minister has had before.

This article was written by Julian Burnside AO QC, and was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Apr 28, 2018.

The post Julian Burnside on the failings of super-minister Dutton appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Julian Burnside: Everyday heroes compelled to break the law when government fails to protect us

Sydney Peace Foundation — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:50:19 +0000

This article is written by 2014 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Julian Burnside AO QC. It appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 March 2018.

What does it say about the state of our democracy when it falls upon everyday people to stop a billionaire building the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere?

And what does it say about our politicians that they will let Adani’s mine proceed when the vast majority of Australians don’t want it, and scientists are urging us to keep coal in the ground to avoid more dangerous climate change?

This month, nine people – many of them first-time offenders – were collectively fined more than $70,000 for their efforts in January to keep Adani’s coal in the ground.

They were each fined $8000 for their peaceful action at the Abbot Point coal terminal. These are extraordinarily high fines for civil disobedience actions.

While Adani fights a $12,000 fine for environmental pollution- small change for them – ordinary people have been hit with fines that could stop them putting food on the table, paying school fees and keeping up their rent or mortgage repayments.

Their actions stand in marked contrast with Adani’s, which released coal-contaminated water right next to the Great Barrier Reef and then, when it was fined, chose to appeal “on principle”.

Many companies have polluted our environment, and have suffered very little consequence.

In 2014, Santos was fined $1500 by the Environmental Protection Agency for a coal seam gas leak. The leak polluted an aquifer with lead, arsenic, and uranium.

In 2016, AGL Energy released 6000 litres of sulphuric acid into stormwater drains next to their Bayswater power station. They were fined $30,000.

The nine peaceful protestors who took action at Abbot Point all pleaded guilty. They acted out of conscience. One of them, a mother of two, said: “I won’t stand by while my children’s future is put at risk.”

Civil disobedience and protest are vital in a democracy. They open up political space for communities to intervene when the doors of governments are closed to them, and the price of entry to corporate boardrooms and political party fundraisers is beyond reach.

As Martin Luther King said: “One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

History is full of examples of principled law-breaking. The suffragette movement in the early 20th Century involved women breaking the law to draw attention to an obvious injustice: that women were not allowed to vote.

The impact of climate change is apparent across the world. We see it in the worst droughts in history; and we see it as our Pacific neighbours fight to protect cultural land from sea level rise. And half the corals in the Great Barrier Reef are dead.

Yet our national political debate focuses on scandal; our leaders toss lumps of coal around in parliament. The battle for our future barely rates a mention, let alone serious debate in parliament. Our lawmakers are failing us when ordinary people are compelled to break the law to protect us from disasters like Adani’s mine.

As companies like Adani fight petty fines, these ordinary people are fighting for our future in cities and towns across Australia.

They are the unsung heroes of our democracy: standing up for the future of all Australians where our political leaders will not. They deserve respect, not punishment.

When we look back on this period of our history, these are the people to whom we will give thanks for having the courage to fight for justice, even when that required them to break the law.

Julian Burnside QC is a barrister and human rights, refugee and climate change advocate.

The post Julian Burnside: Everyday heroes compelled to break the law when government fails to protect us appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

2014 Laureate Julian Burnside AO QC on the US Immigration Ban and the Refugee Deal

Sydney Peace Foundation — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:25:13 +0000

In the wake of President Trump’s travel ban, and the subsequent uncertainty surrounding Australia’s refugee deal with the US, 2014 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Julian Burnside joined Radio Adelaide to weigh in on the rise of nationalism and the growing apathy towards human rights.

“Little by little the idea of human rights has become less fashionable, less popular, less acceptable. And [a way of] thinking which is utterly incompatible with the idea of human rights has become increasingly acceptable and even main stream.”

https://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/refugee-ban-and-deal-with-us.mp3

The post 2014 Laureate Julian Burnside AO QC on the US Immigration Ban and the Refugee Deal appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

2012 Laureate Julian Burnside on Australia’s Response to Climate Change: What on Earth are we doing?

Sydney Peace Foundation — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:54:22 +0000

On 1 December, 2014 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Julian Burnside AO QC gave a stirring speech calling for Australia to uphold it’s climate responsibilities.

“I have long considered climate change the principal issue facing the world. It is a first-order issue. Refugees are a second-order issue. Here is the speech I gave.”

Climate change is the single biggest issue facing the world today.

Perhaps the biggest issue that has ever faced the planet.

Climate change resists simple solutions. To begin tackling it, we must first begin undoing the complex web of of factors that have existed for centuries and have brought us to this point.

These include:

Global structures that have been based on fossil fuels and the exploitation of cheap energy and labour for centuries
The inequalities and power dynamics that are the legacy of colonisation
Giant corporations that have more power now than ever before in history and will do anything to protect their profits: The East India Company once ran India: global corporations today make the power of the East India Company look modest.
And a new global economic system that has eroded the power of nation states to set and effectively enforce policy.

This complex web of factors makes it more difficult to solve the climate change issue: more interests are involved than, for example, in banning the use of CFCs in order to reduce the hole in the ozone layer.

For many people climate change is a relatively new issue. It was brought into public focus in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was reiterated by Kevin Rudd, who in 2007 called it the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’. And he went to Copenhagen in 2009 but somehow he lost his way after that.

But scientists have known for a long time that climate change was happening.

In the 1820s, the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier was trying to understand the various factors that affect Earth’s temperature. But he found a problem – according to his calculations, the Earth should have been a ball of ice.

The Sun did not seem to provide enough energy to raise the temperature of Earth above freezing. Fourier’s initial ideas, that there must be additional energy coming from the Earth’s core or from the temperature of outer space, were soon dismissed. Fourier then realised that the atmosphere, which at first seemed transparent, could be playing a crucial role.

In 1861, the Irish physicist John Tyndall demonstrated that gases such as methane and carbon dioxide absorbed infrared radiation, and could trap heat within the atmosphere. He recognised the implications and said that these gases “would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”

He was right. But in 1861 the amount of CO2 which was being released into the atmosphere was a tiny fraction of what happens today. Although CO2 levels started to rise with the industrial revolution, when Tyndall drew attention to the subject, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was less than 300 ppm. It now peaks at something like 410 ppm.

In the 1890s the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius identified the warming influence of water vapour in the atmosphere. This was the first indication of a positive feedback loop: more CO2 meant a warmer atmosphere; a warmer atmosphere can hold more water as vapour; more water vapour in the atmosphere traps more heat, and so on.

In the 1950s the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass confirmed that doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperatures of 3-4 decrees Celcius.

In the 1970s, Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet. This was years before it became a public issue. Exxon understood what this would mean for its business, and has since spent an estimated $30 million promoting the denial of climate change and questioning the science. Gosh: that’s how the tobacco industry defended itself: deny the science, create doubt, attack your opponents.

22 years ago the first UN Climate Change conference was held in Berlin. World leaders came together to work out what to do about climate change. In 1995 there was about 358 ppm of CO2 in the air.

Now, 22 years later when the first global climate agreement is finally in place, the figure is more than 400 ppm. That has locked the planet into 1 degree of warming even if we stop burning all fossil fuels right now.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause.

The rate of increase in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is startling. In the 150 years from 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of CO2 were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide. In the 112 years from 1901 to 2013 the figure was about 1,400 Gigatonnes: an average of about 12 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, but the rate has been accelerating. In 1990: 22.5 gigatonnes of CO2. In 2010, 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2.

Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. If fossil fuel companies were honest about the damage fossil fuels cause, we wouldn’t be in the situation where we have a 5 year window in which to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

But, thanks to the work of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies who put their own profits above the future of the planet, we’ve suffered through 21 years of policy inaction. Even worse, their climate denialism has muddied the water so much that people now believe climate change is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Chinese or a corrupt UN that wants to take over the world meaning that effective national policies that will have the least cost impact are often difficult or impossible to achieve.

In democracies, these tactics pose a very real threat.

At a time when entire nations are at risk of sinking below the seas, Donald Trump has committed to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement because quote: The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Here in Australia, we are no better!

The Australian Government continues to block any real action on climate change and our former Prime Minister claimed that ‘coal is good for humanity’ and our current Prime Minister seems largely beholden to the far right’s agenda on the issue: more coal and gas and no national strategy to reduce emissions or plan for a transition from fossil fuels.

This is compounded by the fact that developed countries like Australia, the UK and the US – whose centuries of reliance on coal, oil and gas have caused this climate crisis – are increasingly turning into national fortresses, leaving the most vulnerable to a changing climate stranded, quite literally, at sea.

Let’s take a moment to look at what Australia is doing — or not doing — on climate change.

A report in the Guardian Australia on 30 November illustrates the problem. An expert advisory panel reported that Coal-fired Queensland, with just 7% of its power generation from renewables, could lift that to 50% by 2030 with little appreciable cost to electricity consumers. The Queensland government would subsidise renewables. The federal energy minister, Josh Frydenberg criticised the report. The Guardian article continues:

Coal companies like Rio Tinto have called on Queensland to abandon its own renewables target to simply align with the commonwealth’s 2020 goal of 20%. But Bailey says it’s clear the state’s plan was “developed in the absence of federal policy” and with doubt that even the 2020 commonwealth target will be achieved.

He says the failure of the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to put policy daylight between him and his predecessor, Tony Abbott, shows conservative politics in Australia will be dragged kicking and screaming towards energy sector reform.

Antipathy towards renewables and acting on climate change among the hard right of the Coalition stands in contrast to moves by “conservative parties in other parts of the world”, Bailey says. He cites Germany and California as advanced economies already boasting more than 30% renewable power.

“You go to Europe, this is not an issue,” he says. “It seems to be a particular LNP [Liberal National party] Australian thing but they seem extraordinarily intransigent on it and, while we see more and more extreme weather events occur, they are stopping us from dealing with some of those big issues around climate change. …”

We are a uniquely embarrassing case on the global stage, in that early on, we put in place a fairly comprehensive domestic climate policy with a carbon price by the minority Gillard Government that was then dismantled and replaced with an impotent measure that pays polluters and has seen our emissions rise every year since.

Watching Malcolm Turnbull fade into the shadow of what he could have been is like watching the slow destruction of a man the country once respected on so many of our most important issues. He has been so unwilling to lead his party, and has granted so much power to the fringe right of his party – particularly on the issue of climate change and asylum seekers – that Australia’s global reputation on climate change has gone from global leader to global threat.

As a case in point, here is a short but non exhaustive list of what the Government has done since the world signed the Paris Agreement a year ago:

Fast-tracked the Adani coal mine in Queensland – one of the biggest coal basins in the world that if developed would blow any chance the world has of remaining below 2 degrees of global warming. This is more than just a climate fight. It is also a fight over land rights and how the government has granted mining leases on indigenous land and repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the claim by the traditional Wangan and Jagalingou owners on this land.
Attacked environmental groups standing up for our climate and to protect our natural environment. The Turnbull Government has launched a two pronged attack on environment groups – the first attack is by seeking to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act — or the EPBC. This act allows groups and individuals to legally challenge resource projects if they are a threat to water or the environment. This is an incredibly important provision – introduced by the Howard Government – that allows for a check and balance on Government’s power. The second attack is on the tax deductible status of environmental not-for-profits. This is an attempt to silence groups like 350.org and others who are standing up against fossil fuel projects.
Recently, investigative reporting discovered that the government censored a UN report on the extent of bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef and how much of a role climate change had to play in it. Even though the health of the reef recently got a “D” on the Australian government’s annual report card for the fifth year in a row and large-scale bleaching in the northern part of the reef threatens to see it never return to a productive state.
The Government has launched an ideological war on renewable energy after the recent South Australian blackout. This culminated in Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg attempting to bully the states out of their ambitious renewable energy targets and pushing them instead to focus on promulgating onshore gas production. As you, probably know, gas is in fact a non-renewable fossil fuel that releases methane into the atmosphere that is 86x more potent than carbon at warming the planet.
And then there was Tony Abbott’s asking the mining industry to “demonstrate its gratitude” to the retiring Federal Resources Minister – Ian MacFarlane – who dismantled the mining tax. The Industry duly listened, and MacFarlane broke a Parliamentary code of ethics by accepting a $500k per year job with the Queensland Resources Council — on top of his $140k Parliamentary pension — so that he can spruik for the Adani Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.
The Australian government actively resisted and watered down restrictions on financing of coal plants by OECD export credit agencies last year because the government wants more coal plants to be built so that there are new markets for Australian coal.
The Government has slashed the budget of ARENA — Australian Renewable Energy Agency — by $500 million– after trying to kill it off entirely. ARENA provides grants to innovative new renewables projects and is essential to keeping Australia at the forefront of research and development. If Turnbull was serious about ‘innovation’, ARENA would be the flagship organisation of this push. Instead, the Government created and funnelled money into a new major national fossil fuel research program called the Oil, Gas & Energy Resources Growth centre. You couldn’t dream this stuff up!

Australia’s political donation laws are outdated and not up to the task, so it is hard to get a clear view of how much is actually donated. But in the three years leading up to the 2016 election the fossil fuel industry donated almost $3.7 million to the major parties in direct donations.

In return, the industry saw $7.7 billion in subsidies comes its way, priority access to any land they desired to develop and unbeatable access to the ears of our decision makers, including some of the most plum and influential roles in the country on retirement.

Indirect donations and the revolving door of jobs — such as that of the former Minister Macfarlane — would show significantly more influence. Brad Burke, the former Corporate Affairs Director of Santos, is now Malcolm Turnbull’s senior strategist. Senator James McGrath is now a QLD Liberal Senator. Patrick Gibbons was the corporate affairs manager of mining company Alcoa was Greg Hunt’s senior adviser as Environment Minister. Josh Frydenberg’s current adviser previously worked for Shell and then Energy Australia.

That our Government is awash with former fossil fuel executives goes a long way to explaining why we are currently a global embarrassment on climate change. And as to why we are not addressing our biggest contribution to climate change: that Australia remains the world’s biggest coal exporter. To use a crude analogy: if fossil fuels are the drug, then Australia is the pusher.

This is a nice little arrangement between the fossil fuel industry and our Government. By exporting our coal, we are exporting our emissions to other countries that we are not required to take responsibility for under our UN climate commitments. Just Australia’s domestic emissions equate to 1.5% of the world’s carbon emissions – 16th in the world.

However, if we add emissions from our exported coal to our domestic emissions, Australia’s carbon footprint trebles in size and we become the 6th largest emitter after China, the USA, Russia, India and Indonesia – all of which have populations over 250 million.

Even worse is that if the above mentioned the proposed Adani coal mine and development of the Galilee Basin supported by the QLD and Federal Governments, we would be responsible for 705 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Opening up the entire Galilee Basin would see Australia become the world’s seventh largest contributor of emissions in the world!

This is at a time when reports are telling us that if there is any chance of avoiding the ‘safe’ two degree warming scenario, NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS can go ahead, and that current ones need to be scaled back.

Fundamentally, we have to do better. Globally Australia is under extreme pressure to lift its game on climate.

At the recent UN climate meeting in Marrakesh, we got more questions than any other country. Including questions from allies like the US and NZ. And from countries like China that want to know why we have no credible climate policy and what we are going to do about it.

BUT, the Turnbull Government, like the Abbott Government, is impervious to international pressure.

So, it is therefore up to us – Australian citizens – to lead the way on climate and make the moral case for climate change leadership.

We need to emphasise that by refusing to act we are missing out on the new jobs that the transition to clean energy is creating. China, Europe and the US are investing billions into this burgeoning industry, while Australia is cutting its funding to that same source of new jobs.

We need to emphasise that global warming is real, and if we let it run away from us we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. The Federal Treasurer emphasises that we must avoid creating inter-generational debt. He says this in connection with the Federal budget. He needs to speak to Josh Frydenberg: climate change is the biggest inter-generational debt imaginable.

We need to emphasise that climate change provides the biggest existential threat to our neighbouring Pacific Islands and across Asia. At least five reef islands in the remote Solomon Islands have been lost completely to sea-level rise. The rapid changes in the Solomon Islands has already seen whole coastal communities have to relocated. These are communities that have in many cases lived in these areas for generations.

Historically, Australia has been looked to as a leader in the Pacific region. Our recent approach to climate policy has severely weakened this view.

Responding to the scrapping of the carbon tax and the defunding of climate science research bodies, the Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said this:

“It just does not make sense, it goes against the grain of the world. Not only [is Australia] our big brother down south, Australia is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum and Australia is a Pacific island, a big island, but a Pacific island. It must recognise that it has a responsibility. The problems that have befallen the smaller countries are also Australia’s problems. You cannot remove Australia from the life and blood of the Pacific.”

For our conservative politicians climate change is a ‘wedge’ issue they can use against the Labor Party and the Greens to prove to their fringe right constituencies and their cheerleaders in the Murdoch press that they have the right mettle for the job.

We need to emphasise that climate change provides the biggest existential threat to the identity of Australia itself. What sort of country are we? Are we really a country that would do nothing to save the planet? Are we a country willing to destroy our region and mortgage the lives of future generations so we can continue to live prosperous, self-indulgent lives.

What we need to do is consider the precautionary principle. More particularly, we need to force our politicians to consider the precautionary principle. About 97% of the world’s scientists accept that climate change is real, anthropogenic and dangerous. Deniers would point out that science is not decided by popular vote. True enough, although it is often useful to listen to people who know what they are talking about. But let’s accept it: the scientists may be wrong.

Let’s give odds of 80% against the scientists: that is, let’s assume there is an 80% chance they are wrong. But if they are right, if the 20% chance comes in, the result will be catastrophic and could have been avoided. 20% chance of a catastrophic, avoidable result is worse odds than Russian Roulette. So next time someone argues the denialist case, ask them if they are willing to play Russian Roulette with their children or grand-children.

And let’s face it: if we spend the money to avoid climate change, and if the denialists turn out to be right, the worst you can say is that we cleaned up the planet for no reason…

In my opinion we have to make sure it never gets to this. We cannot trust the lives of millions of people to the whims of inward-looking fortress nation states.

That is why the current moment in history is critical. Until recently, the fossil fuel industry had a firm grip on the levers of power. They have been able to manipulate governments around the world to ensure that they could continue to drill, dig and frack for oil, coal and gas. But the world is rapidly changing.

A powerful global movement against fossil fuels is building. It is helped by the internet and a determination to build a better world. It includes local communities, first nations people, university students, farmers, politicians, business leaders, even politicians.

This movement is forcing a reckoning on the future of fossil fuels. It was behind the success of the Paris Agreement last year. It is why BP walked away from drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight. It was the cause of the ban on unconventional gas in Victoria. It is behind the states and communities announcing ambitious renewable energy targets despite every Federal Government effort to undo these targets.

The potential is huge. But its power rests with you.

Yes, 2016 has been a bad year for progressive causes and particularly for climate change at a time when we can least afford it.

But politics is like a pendulum and we need to be ready for when it swings back. Donald Trump will stumble. In Australia, the Turnbull Government has already lost the faith of the people just five months after the Federal election.

But, as Shakespeare said, When they fall, they fall like Lucifer – never to hope again.

They will resist.

We need to be resolute.

We need to be strong.

We need to be ready.

We need a robust and diverse movement of Australians ready to prove to our politicians that climate change matters. The movement against fossil fuels doesn’t have money or vested interests on our side. But we have the science, the evidence of the impacts already happening, and the liveability of our planet, our very future, as our authority.

Now we need to use it.

The post 2012 Laureate Julian Burnside on Australia’s Response to Climate Change: What on Earth are we doing? appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Julian Burnside: What sort of country are we?

Sydney Peace Foundation — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:38:44 +0000

This piece is based on the 2015 Hamer Oration, delivered by 2014 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Julian Burnside on September 28, 2015. It was published in The Conversation on 28 September 2015.

It was with some surprise that I found myself engaged in such a hotly political issue as refugee policy. I had never been involved in politics, nor interested in it. My best explanation of how this happened lies in a story I heard a long time ago. It involves a family whose ten-year-old son had never spoken a word. The parents had passed from anxiety to despair to resignation: there was no organic reason for his silence.

One morning, as a novelty, the mother decided to serve porridge at breakfast. She had never served it before.

The ten-year-old took a spoonful of porridge, looked up sharply and said: “I think porridge is revolting.”

His parents were astonished. “It’s a miracle! You can speak! Why haven’t you spoken before this?”

He said: “Everything has been satisfactory until now.”

Tampa, refugees and the collapse of values

The arrival of the Tampa in Australian waters was misrepresented to the public as a threat to our national sovereignty. The people on Tampa were rescued at the request of the Australian government. They comprised for the most part terrified Hazaras from Afghanistan, fleeing the Taliban. The Taliban’s regime was universally recognised as one of the most brutal and repressive in recent times.

The notion that a handful of terrified, persecuted men, women and children fleeing such a regime could constitute a threat to our national sovereignty is so bizarre that it defies discussion.

I was shocked to see Australia’s response to Tampa. The government denied the Tampa’s request to land is bedraggled cargo in Australia; it sent the SAS onto the ship. 438 men, women and children were held on the deck in the tropical sun, day after day. I knew nothing about our refugee policy, but I knew it was wrong to treat human beings that way.

By the time the case was over, I knew a lot more about refugee policy, and a lot more about the Australian character. I knew that it was not possible to stay in this country unless I tried to do something to combat these obvious injustices. It was my great “porridge moment”. On August 26, 2001, MV Tampa rescued 438 people whose boat, the Palapa, had sunk. It rescued them at Australia’s request. It acted according to the tradition of sailors the world over.

The people rescued by Tampa were, mostly, terrified Hazaras from Afghanistan: men, women and children. They were fleeing the Taliban. We knew all this. We also knew that the Taliban were a brutal and repressive regime. We knew that Hazaras, one of the three ethnic groups in Afghanistan, had been persecuted for centuries, but that the persecution had become increasingly harsh under the Taliban who come from the Pashtun ethnic group.

The captain of Tampa asked for medical help. Many of the women and children were ill or injured. When Tampa entered Australian territorial waters off Christmas Island, Australia sent the SAS and took control of the ship at gunpoint to prevent the refugees from coming ashore.

The arrival of the Tampa in Australian waters was misrepresented to the public as a threat to our national sovereignty. The notion that 438 terrified, persecuted men, women and children constitute a threat to national sovereignty is so bizarre that it defies discussion.

The idea that Prime Minister John Howard could revive his flagging prospects for re-election by using the SAS to keep those people from safety reflected a profound malaise in the Australian character.

The judgment in the Tampa case was handed down at 2.15PM Eastern Standard Time on September 11, 2001, nine hours before the terrorist attack on America. From that moment, the government ran two different ideas together: border control and security. The catch-cry “border protection” confuses national security with refugee policy. In that confusion we lost our moral bearings.

The Pacific Solution is born

During the Tampa litigation, the Howard government cobbled together the Pacific Solution. It is hard to believe, but the first incarnation of the Pacific Solution, terrible though it was, was more benign than the present version.

But it had its victims. One of them was Mohammad Sarwar.

On August 26, 2002, the Afghans who had been rescued by Tampa were preparing to commemorate the 12-month anniversary of their rescue. That morning, Sarwar woke, sat up, uttered two short cries and fell back dead.

His friends wrote to us:

We regret to inform you that in early morning of 26th August Mohammad Sarwar ID NO 391 an Afghan Tampa Asylum Seeker died.He was quite young and seemed to be in his mid 20s. He was a Hazara from Central Afghanistan. He was one of the 438 asylum seekers who were rescued from ocean by the Norwegian freighter MV Tampa. He spent almost one year on board the Tampa and Manoora and in detention on Nauru. He was hospitalised in Nauru for the first few weeks on Nauru.

He was refused refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Just a few days earlier to his death he was interviewed on his appeal to the negative decision he had received on his claim for protection. His close associates, who had seen him coming out of the interview room, had seen he was very concerned and unhappy for the ways he was asked question. In the recent weeks he was seen to be stressed, worried, depressed and almost isolated. But Mohammad Sarwar was proved to be a voiceless, quiet and would speak very little of his concerns and pains he might be suffering. Recently, he was seen sitting alone and thinking very deeply.

Eventually, he has sought the asylum only God can grant.

Both Australia and Nauru refused to conduct an autopsy.

At the time Sarwar died, the Australian government was forcing and cajoling Afghans to return to their country. Sarwar’s family asked that his corpse be returned to Kabul. Australia refused, saying it was unsafe to return a corpse to Afghanistan.

Sarwar was an early victim of the Pacific Solution. Another was Australia’s character.

Terror

In the wake of 9/11, the government sent a care package to every Australian household. It included a fridge magnet – a sure protection against terrorism – and a letter from Howard. The letter included this observation:

Dear Fellow Australian,

I’m writing to you because I believe you and your family should know more about some key issues affecting the security of our country and how we can all play a part in protecting our way of life.

As a people we have traditionally engaged the world optimistically … our open, friendly nature makes us welcome guests and warm hosts.

Don Watson wrote about this:

This rose-coloured boasting smells of some nightmare ministry of information … the phrase as a people might not be a lie, but it smells like one. And it sits askew to the element of conservative political philosophy that opposes all attempts to categorise people by class or historic tendency, or any other conceit that will serve as an excuse for eliminating them.

The people of Australia is not so rank because it does not carry the suggestion that some mythic or historic force unites us in our destiny. But if we must have as a people, then traditionally has to go, and not only because optimistically is sitting on top of it. It has to go because it is so at odds with Australian history it could be reasonably called a lie.

Traditionally we built barriers against the world we are alleged to have engaged so optimistically; traditionally we clung to the mother country for protection against that same world; traditionally … we took less of an optimistic view of the world than an ironic, fatalistic view of the world.

The smugness of the sentence about our being lovely guests and warm hosts is so larded by fantasy and self-delusion, it transcends Neighbours and becomes Edna Everage.

It will occur to some readers, surely, that it has been our nature recently to play very cold hosts to uninvited guests, the sort of people we don’t want here, who throw their children into the sea, who are not fun-loving, welcoming, warm, sunny, etc.

Given (our) recent history, we might wonder if the words are as ingenuous as they sound. The thought, even the subconscious thought, might have been of a piece with Medea’s “soft talk”. Thus – as a people Australians are very nice; people who don’t agree with this proposition are not nice people; people who are not nice are not Australians in the sense of Australians as a people. People who are not prepared to be Australian as a people should shut up or piss off back where they came from.

There is the problem: by our response to boat people since August 2001, we may have redefined our national character.

Hamidi

Mr Hamidi had fled Saddam Hussein’s regime. Within a couple of weeks of his arrival in detention in Australia, officers of the Immigration Department noted that he had suffered torture in Iraq at the notorious Abu Ghraib Prison and that the form of torture which most frightened him was being locked in a small room. In Abu Ghraib, he had regularly been held in a small cell where he was randomly electrocuted through water in the floor.

After about 15 or 18 months in detention, he fell into hopelessness and despair. It is typical for asylum seekers in Australia’s detention system to lose hope after about 15 or 18 months. When Mr Hamidi fell into hopelessness, he started self-harming. Whenever he could find a bit of broken glass or a bit of razor wire, he would cut himself.

When he cut himself, the Immigration Department did two things: they gave him Panadol (which seems to be the universal treatment in immigration detention) and they put him in solitary confinement – in a small cell. This did not help him.

After a couple of weeks in solitary confinement, he would come out even more desperate than when he went in. He would then harm himself again and the Department would give him Panadol and solitary confinement. This went on for five years.

Eventually, some lawyers in Adelaide took a case to the Federal Court of Australia seeking an order requiring that Mr Hamidi, and some others in similarly desperate circumstances, should be taken to the Glenside psychiatric hospital in Adelaide for assessment and, if necessary, for treatment. The Commonwealth resisted the application and fought the case for several weeks. Eventually, the judge determined that the detainees should be sent to Glenside for assessment and if necessary for treatment.

When Mr Hamidi was taken to Glenside he was assessed mentally and physically. The physical assessment showed that he had ten metres of scarring on his body from his self-harming in Immigration Detention. He subsequently got a protection visa, but his health is ruined. Saddam Hussein tried to kill him and failed. Australia tried to incapacitate him and succeeded. Chance bludgeoned him almost to death.

One girl

There was the case which, for me at least, forever changed my view of this lucky country. It concerned an Iranian family – mother, father and two daughters aged 11 and seven at the relevant time. They were members of a small, pre-Christian religion: a religion which, in Iran, is regarded as unclean. If ever you think chance has dealt you a bad hand, try being a member of a religion which is regarded as unclean. There are plenty of historical precedents which show what a hard time those people get.

This family stayed on in Iran for as long as they could bear it, because their parents and grandparents were buried there. But one day, after a shocking incident involving the 11-year-old, the family fled Iran and ended up in detention at Woomera.

After about 15 or 18 months, all of them were in a bad way but especially the 11-year-old. The 11-year-old girl had stopped caring for herself: she had stopped grooming herself, she had stopped brushing her hair; she was careless with her clothing; she had stopped eating. She was frightened to go to the toilet block, which was about 100 metres from their cabin, and she would wet the bed at night and wet her clothing during the day.

Back then, if you were held in Woomera and had serious psychiatric needs, you would get to see the visiting psychiatrist approximately once every six months. The 11 year-old-girl needed daily psychiatric help. A psychiatrist from Adelaide, who had heard about the case, went to Woomera and delivered a report to the Immigration Department saying that it was essential that the family be removed from Woomera and placed in a metropolitan detention centre so that the 11-year-old could get daily psychiatric help. The report emphasised that the child was at extreme risk.

Eventually, the Department agreed to move the family from Woomera in the South Australian desert to Maribyrnong in the western suburbs of Melbourne. There, although the purpose for moving them was that the 11-year-old should get daily psychiatric help, for the first two and a half weeks of their stay nobody came to see her: not a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a social worker – nobody at all. It was as if they hadn’t even arrived.

On a Sunday night in May 2002, while her mother and father and young sister were up in the mess hall having their evening meal, this little girl alone in their cell in Maribyrnong Detention Centre took a bedsheet and hanged herself. But she was only little and didn’t know how to tie the knot properly, so she was still strangling when the family came back from dinner. They took her down and she and her mother were taken straight away to the general hospital nearby. They were accompanied by two ACM guards so that, as a matter of legal analysis, they were still in Immigration Detention.

Kon from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, who had been looking after the family’s visa application, heard about the incident and went to the hospital at about 9.30 that night. He said hello to the guards, who know him well because he is a regular visitor of Maribyrnong. He said he just wanted to speak to the mother to see if there was anything he could do to help. They said: “No you’re not allowed to see them, because lawyers’ visiting hours in Immigration Detention are nine to five” and they sent him away. Kon then rang me at home and told me what had happened.

Are we a country which treats children that way? Apparently we are.

The 2013 election

By 2008 the boats had virtually stopped arriving. In July 2008, the first Rudd government introduced a number of reforms to the Migration Act which satisfied about 90% of the concerns of refugee advocates. A while later, however, chance played another wild card: Tony Abbott became opposition leader by one vote.

As soon as he became opposition leader, Abbott began complaining publicly and loudly about boat people. Kevin Rudd responded by mounting a ferocious attack on people smugglers. It seems that in the heat of the moment he had forgotten that his moral hero – Dietrich Bonhoeffer – had been a people smuggler, albeit a benevolent one. He had forgotten, it seems, that Oskar Schindler and Gustav Schroeder, the Captain of the St Louis, were both people smugglers.

When Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female prime minister, she ran a very ambivalent line about boat people. While expressing some concern for the circumstances which led them to flee, she said that she understood why Australians were concerned about boat people arriving in Australia. The asylum seeker debate went off on a new tack at about that time.

The lowpoint of the debate was seen in the campaign that preceded the federal election of September 2013. That election campaign, for the first time in Australia’s political history, saw both major parties try to outbid each other in their promises of cruelty to boat people.

Abbott won the election and made good of his promise to mistreat boat people. We now have the harshest imaginable policies in relation to boat people and arguably the harshest treatment of boat people of any country that has signed the Refugees’ Convention.

In broad outline it goes like this.

When boat people arrive

When boat people arrive at Christmas Island, they have typically spent eight or ten days on a rickety boat. They have typically come from landlocked countries and have typically never spent time on the ocean.

Typically, they have had not enough to eat and not enough to drink. Typically, they have had no opportunity to wash or to change their clothes. Typically, they arrive distressed, frightened and wearing clothes caked in their own excrement.

They are not allowed to shower or to change their clothes before they are interviewed by a member of the Immigration Department. It is difficult to think of any decent justification for subjecting them to that humiliation.

When they arrive, any medical appliances they have will be confiscated and not returned: spectacles, hearing aids, false teeth, prosthetic limbs, are all confiscated. If they have any medications with them, those medications are confiscated and not returned.

According to doctors on Christmas Island, one person has a full-time job of sitting in front of a bin popping pills out of blister packs for later destruction.

If they have any medical documentation with them, it is confiscated and not returned. The result of all of this is that people with chronic health problems find themselves denied any effective treatment.

The results can be very distressing. For example, a doctor who worked on Christmas Island told me of a woman who had been detained there for some weeks and who was generally regarded as psychotic. Her behaviour was highly erratic for reasons that no-one understood. The consultation with this woman was very difficult because, although the doctor and the patient were sitting across a table from each other, the interpreter joined them by telephone from Sydney.

Eventually, the doctor worked out that the problem was that the woman was incontinent of urine. She could not leave her cabin without urine running down her leg. It was driving her mad. When the doctor worked out that this was the cause of the problem, she asked the Department to provide incontinence pads. The Department’s initial response was “we don’t do those”. The doctor insisted.

The Department relented and provided four incontinence pads per day: not enough, so that the woman needs to queue for more but the incontinence pads made a profound difference to her mood and behaviour.

‘Pacific Solution’ mark two

Asylum seekers who arrive at Christmas Island are assessed to see if there is any medical reason why they cannot be sent offshore, to Nauru or Manus Island.

In either place, they are held in detention centres run by Transfield Services (an Australian company). Guards are provided by Wilson Security (another Australian company). Medical Services are provided by IHMS: International Medical and Health Services (an Australian subsidiary of a French company).

Nevertheless, Australia insists that what happens in offshore detention is nothing to do with Australia. That is not only absurdly false, it overlooks the small detail that we spend about A$5 billion a year on the detention system. If that number is unimaginably big, it is the equivalent of one million Geelong chopper rides a year.

Manus

A few days ago I got an email from a health worker on Manus:

… The situation as you can imagine is very grim. Around 80% of transferees suffering serious mental health issues. PNG staff are slowly being “trained” to take over various roles with mostly undesirable results. East Lorengau is not working. One refugee is lingering in hospital for over two weeks with undiagnosed stomach problems. One refugee doctor is suffering severe mental health issues…

Here is an extract from a statement by a doctor who worked on Manus whose professional experience includes the provision of healthcare services in maximum-security prisons in Australia:

… On the whole, the conditions of detention at the Manus Island OPC are extremely poor. When I first arrived at the Manus Island OPC I was considerably distressed at what I saw, and I recall thinking that this must be similar to a concentration camp.

The detainees at the Manus Island OPC are detained behind razor wire fences, in conditions below the standard of Australian maximum-security prison.

My professional opinion is that the minimum medical requirements of the detained population were not being met. I have no reason to believe that the conditions of detention have improved since I ceased employment at the Manus Island OPC.

The conditions of detention at the Manus Island OPC appeared to be calculated to break the spirit of those detained in the Manus Island OPC. On a number of occasions the extreme conditions of detention resulted in detainees abandoning their claims for asylum and returning to their country of origin.

At the Manus Island OPC, bathroom facilities are rarely cleaned. There was a lot of mould, poor ventilation, and the structural integrity of the facilities is concerning.

No soap is provided to detainees for personal hygiene.

When detainees need to use the bathroom, it is standard procedure that they first attend at the guards’ station to request toilet paper. Detainees would be required to give an indication of how many ‘squares’ they will need. The maximum allowed is six squares of toilet paper, which I considered demeaning.

A large number of detainees continue to be in need of urgent medical attention.

Formal requests for medical attention are available to the detainees. The forms are only available in English. Many of the detainees do not have a workable understanding of English and the guards will not provide assistance.

Reza Barati

In February 2014 Reza Barati was killed on Manus Island. Initially, Australia said that he had escaped from the detention centre and was killed outside the detention centre. Soon it became clear that he was killed inside the detention centre. It took months before anyone was charged with his murder.

Just a couple of weeks after Barati was killed, I received a sworn statement from an eyewitness. The statement included the following:

J … is a local who worked for the Salvation Army. … He was holding a large wooden stick. It was about a metre and a half long … it had two nails in the wood. The nails were sticking out …

When Reza came up the stairs, J … was at the top of the stairs waiting for him. J … said ‘fuck you motherfucker’ J … then swung back behind his shoulder with the stick and took a big swing at Reza, hitting him on top of the head.

J … screamed again at Reza and hit him again on the head. Reza then fell on the floor …

I could see a lot of blood coming out of his head, on his forehead, running down his face. His blood is still there on the ground. He was still alive at this stage.

About 10 or 15 guards from G4S came up the stairs. Two of them were Australians. The rest were PNG locals. I know who they are. I can identify them by their face. They started kicking Reza in his head and stomach with their boots.

Reza was on the ground trying to defend himself. He put his arms up to cover his head but they were still kicking.

There was one local … I recognised him … he picked up a big rock … he lifted the rock above his head and threw it down hard on top of Reza’s head. At this time, Reza passed away.

One of the locals came and hit him in his leg very hard … but Reza did not feel it. This is how I know he was dead.

After that, as the guards came past him, they kicked his dead body on the ground …

Australia regards itself as having no responsibility for Barati or anyone else held on Manus Island or Nauru. But we pay Transfield Services to run the detention centres there. We pay Wilson Security, the Australian company which employs the guards. When the government disclaims responsibility for what happens in offshore detention centres, it is deliberately misleading you.

Some will be aware that I have been running a campaign to encourage Australians to write letters to people held on Nauru and Manus. Just before Christmas last year, 2000 letters I had sent to Nauru were returned to me, unopened and marked “Return to Sender”.

So far, the Department of Immigration has not responded to the four emails I have sent them asking for an explanation why those letters had not been delivered to the people to whom they were addressed. They have told members of the press that the named recipients of the letters did not wish to receive letters.

Apart from being implausible, it stands awkwardly with the fact that, during the second half of last year, the Department assured me that the letters were being received and distributed.

International criticism

Australia’s system of mandatory detention has been trenchantly criticized by Amnesty International and UNHCR. In late 2013, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) delivered a report on conditions in the Regional Processing Centre (RPC) on Manus Island, saying:

UNHCR was deeply troubled to observe that the current policies, operational approaches and harsh physical conditions at the RPC do not comply with international standards.

It also reported on conditions in Nauru and said:

Assessed as a whole, UNHCR is of the view that the transfer of asylum-seekers to what are currently harsh and unsatisfactory temporary facilities, within a closed detention setting, and in the absence of a fully functional legal framework and adequately capacitated system to assess refugee claims, do not currently meet the required protection standards.

Just as a person’s character is judged by their conduct, so a country’s character is judged by its conduct. Australia is now judged overseas by its behaviour as cruel and selfish. We treat frightened, innocent people as criminals. It is a profound injustice.

It is a hard thing to be forced by circumstances to leave the country of your birth in search for a place that is safe. The play of chance is worse again for those who must seek protection in a country whose language and culture is radically different from your own.

How much worse must it be to find that your bid for freedom ends up with punishment as harsh as anything you might have experienced at home. I have received messages from many refugees from many countries over the course of many years which say, in substance: “In my home country they kill you quickly; in Australia they kill you slowly”.

Our politicians lie to us

One of the most distressing things about the present situation is that it is based on a series of lies. When politicians called boat people “illegals” and “queue jumpers” they are not telling the truth. When politicians say that they are concerned about people drowning in their attempt to reach safety, they are not telling the truth.

The Abbott government reintroduced temporary protection visas (TPVs). Temporary protection visas offer only three years’ protection, and they include a condition which denies they prospect of family reunion.

That has one obvious practical consequence: families who wish to rejoin the husband or father who is living in Australia on a TPV are not allowed to come to Australia by any orthodox means, so the only way in which the family can be reunited is by the women and children using the services of a people smuggler. TPVs are a positive incentive for people to use people smugglers.

Quite apart from that, there is something indecent about the idea that in order to prevent people from drowning in their attempt to reach safety you punish the ones who don’t drown. That is precisely what this country is doing right now.

Conclusion

Like most of you, I am aware that Donald Horne was speaking ironically when he wrote of Australia as “the lucky country”. But in most important ways, compared with the boat people who try to reach safety in Australia, we are indeed lucky.

Over the past 15 years, 94% of boat people have been assessed, by us, as refugees genuinely fleeing the fear of persecution. In Australia, most members of the community never have to fear persecution; never have to fear for the late night knock on the door; never have to fear for their human rights.

But it is all because of the play of chance. Imagine for a moment that you are a Hazara from Afghanistan. You have fled your country and you have come down the northwest corridor through Malaysia and Indonesia. You can travel through both of those countries because they give you a one-month visa on arrival.

While you are in Indonesia you can go to the UNHCR office in Jakarta and apply for refugee status. If you are a Hazara from Afghanistan, you will almost certainly be assessed as a refugee. But when your one-month visa expires, you have to hide because if you are found by the police, they will jail you.

You cannot work because if you work you will be found and then you will be jailed. You cannot send your children to school because if you do you will be found and then you will be jailed. If the UNHCR has assessed you as a refugee, you can wait patiently in the shadows until some country offers to resettle you. That may take 20 or 30 years.

Now, for just one minute, imagine that chance has put you in that position: you are that person. Will you wait in the shadows for 20 or 30 years or will you take your courage in both hands and get on a boat? I have never met an Australian who would not get on the boat. It’s a very strange thing that we criticise, revile and punish those who do precisely what we would do if by chance we had not the luck to belong to this country.

Whether this thinking will bear fruit may soon be tested. In the last weeks of its existence, the Abbott government shifted its position quickly in response to public opinion. It had initially resisted the idea of receiving Syrian refugees.

Public opinion could see however that bombing Syrians and turning our backs on them was not a good look. Germany conspicuously agreed to take 800,000 Syrian refugees, with very few questions asked. That made our claim to be “the most generous country in the world” look a bit hollow. Given that Germany’s population is about four times ours, we would have had to receive 200,000 refugees rather than the present quota of 13,750.

Abbott volunteered that we would take 12,000 Syrians. Whether the Turnbull government engages in cherry-picking remains to be seen. There is a real risk that the Howard government sentiment will survive: “If they come in the front door, they are (more or less) welcome; if they come in the back door, we will jail them”.

It’s too early to tell whether community attitudes have actually changed. If they have, government attitudes are likely to change.

The second matter was equally surprising and even more encouraging. Melbourne responded swiftly and decisively against the idea of Border Force officers cruising the streets and “speaking to anyone who crosses our path”. The original idea, apparently, was to have squads of public transport officers, police, and Border Force officers who would intercept people at places like Flinders Street Station and check their Myki card, their identity and their visa status.

Melbourne heard of the proposal on the morning of Friday, August 28. Melbournians turned out in force to protest. By mid-afternoon, the exercise had been cancelled, in a flurry of buck-passing.

In my view, Melbourne’s reaction – so swift and decisive – showed that we know when and where to draw the line. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I think it showed what sort of country we are. I think that, at heart, we are still the country that David Hamer and Dick Hamer served with such distinction. Perhaps someone should tell our politicians.

The post Julian Burnside: What sort of country are we? appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Photos from the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize events

Sydney Peace Foundation — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:27:48 +0000

On Wednesday 5 November 2014, the Hon Professor Marie Bashir, former Governor of NSW, presented Julian Burnside with the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize, Australia’s only international prize for peace. At numerous events surrounding this ceremony, the community of Sydney celebrated the great contribution of Julian Burnside AO QC to peace with justice, and listened to his wise words.

We listened keenly to Julian Burnside’s 2014 City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture. We toasted his achievements at the Gala Reception. We witnessed him let go of a dove at Cabramatta High School Peace Day. And we engaged in conversation with him at smaller gatherings around Sydney. We felt inspired to want to change the world, and stand up against injustice.

The media loved his speech. It was filmed by ABC Big Ideas and will soon be broadcast across their network and online. If you wish to be notified of this then please join our mailing list. A copy of Julian’s written speech “Without justice there will not be peace” can be downloaded here.

Photos of the events can be found on the Sydney Peace Foundation Albums pages:

– Sydney Peace Prize Lecture, Award Ceremony and Gala Reception (Wed 6 Nov)

– Cabramatta High Peace Day – Champion the Voiceless (Fri 7 Nov)

A selection of photos from the Lecture, Award Ceremony and Reception are below:

The post Photos from the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize events appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Sydney Peace Prize winner Julian Burnside in the thick of battle for human rights

Sydney Peace Foundation — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:07:39 +0000

By David Hirsch

It’s a good thing peace prizes are not given for results; hardly anyone would qualify.

Since 1901 the Nobel committee in Oslo has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to 128 peace laureates. The award recognises those who have tried, against the odds, to advance the cause of peace in an often violent and hostile world.

Winners have included Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, and Nelson Mandela.

Organisations, rather than individuals, have also got the Nobel gong: for example Amnesty International and Medecins sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders).

Recipients aren’t always celebrities. Many lesser-known people working for causes like arms control and disarmament, humanitarian projects, negotiation and the peace movement have been recognised.

Respect for human rights is an essential ingredient to peace. That is why this year’s co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize was Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai.

At the age of 17 Malala is the youngest ever Nobel laureate (the average age is 61) so she could hardly be said to have devoted a lifetime to the cause. But she chose to put her young life at risk by insisting that girls have a right to an education. The Taliban shot her in the head for her efforts. Malala survived and is now a beacon of hope, an inspiration to millions who believe girls’ rights to an education equal to those of boys’. Education, as we know, is an essential step in creating a more peaceful world.

The Nobel committee is not the only one that awards an international peace prize.

Since 1998 the Sydney Peace Foundation, a foundation of the University of Sydney, has been awarding an international peace prize as well.

The first winner of the Sydney Peace Prize was a virtually unknown Bangladeshi banker, Muhammad Yunus. He had the idea that in order to lift rural people out of crippling poverty they should be able to borrow money to start their own businesses. So he set up the Grameen Bank, which provided microcredit loans, almost exclusively to women, to help them help themselves, their families and their communities.

The Sydney Peace Foundation found Yunus in 1998, eight years before he was found by the Nobel committee and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

The Sydney Peace Prize recognises those who have made a significant contribution to the ideals of peace with justice, respect for human rights and the philosophy, language and practice of non violence.

Beyond the acclaim and applause, the Sydney Peace Prize winner also delivers a public lecture that aims to enlighten, inspire and challenge Sydneysiders to think about big ideas like Peace. It’s a respite from our preoccupation with real estate prices or the latest sporting scandal.

The winner of the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize is Julian Burnside, AO, QC. His story is one of transformation from corporate lawyer for “the big end of town” to human rights advocate.

Most recently Julian Burnside has been arguing the case for asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia by boat fleeing conflict in their homelands.

Burnside has been a persistent thorn in the side for governments on both sides. He explains with infuriating calm how existing policies against asylum seekers are not just cruel but represent an astonishingly expensive legal and moral failure.

Burnside acted for the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties against the Australian government in the MV Tampa affair, arguing that Howard government’s treatment of those asylum seekers denied them rights afforded under the Migration Act and international treaties. He is also a staunch opponent of indefinite, mandatory detention which current policy permits.

It has been an uphill battle all the way, but Burnside has been in the thick of it. He is an inspiration to those of us who believe that Australians are better than those policies make us out to be.

The citation for Burnside’s award reads: “For his brave and principled advocacy for human rights and for those wronged by government, for insisting that we respect our international legal obligations toward those seeking asylum, and for his unflinching defence of the rule of law as a means to achieve a more peaceful and just society.”

A peace prize is necessarily aspirational. It is a signpost; a marker of a direction to follow. As the ancient Chinese poet Lao Tzu observed, “If you do not change direction you may end up where you are heading”. What he meant was that if you do not like where you are headed, you need to change direction.

On the very day when we reflect on the accomplishments of Gough Whitlam, whose grand visions for a progressive, fairer and more tolerant Australia transformed this nation, it is fitting that we reclaim our better selves and move in a new direction. Recognising Julian Burnside does that.

David Hirsch is a barrister and Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation. Julian Burnside will deliver the City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture at the Sydney Town Hall on Wednesday.

This was first published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 November 2014.

The post Sydney Peace Prize winner Julian Burnside in the thick of battle for human rights appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Videos and Media

Sydney Peace Foundation — Mon, 26 May 2014 15:43:00 +0000

Julian Burnside’s City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture was filmed by ABC Big Ideas. You can watch it online here: ABC Big Ideas Julian Burnside – 2014 City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture. This was broadcast on ABC1 on Monday 24 November 2014 at 11am.

A copy of Julian’s written speech “Without justice there will not be peace” can be downloaded here.

Photos of the events can be found on the Sydney Peace Foundation Facebook Albums.

Media coverage:

Award Ceremony media highlights

On Wednesday 5 November the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize was awarded to Julian Burnside AO QC. Some highlights from media coverage of the award ceremony, Julian Burnside’s City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture, and surrounding events:

13 October 2014, Watching Watchers and Saving Lives, Burnside was on ABC Q&A

3 November 2014, Jane Singleton on the Sydney Peace Prize, Karen Swain ATP Radio (radio)

4 November 2014, Sydney Peace Prize honour for Julian Burnside, Ron Sutton, SBS World News Radio (radio)

5 November 2014, Julian Burnside in the thick of battle for human rights, David Hirsch, Sydney Morning Herald (print)

6 November 2014, Immigration Minister denies claims asylum seekers were offered deal if witness statements on Reza Barati’s death withdrawn, Sue Lannin, ABC News

6 November 2014, Peace Prize winner alleges Manus Island witnesses encouraged to keep quiet, Sue Lannin, ABC The World Today

6 November 2014, Australia rejects Asylum offer claim in riot death case, BBC News

6 November 2014, Asylum Seeker Advocate Wins Sydney Peace Prize, Pro-Bono Australia News

7 November 2014, Cabramatta High School celebrates Peace Day, Bianca Perez, Fairfield City CHAMPION

8 November 2014, Julian Burnside Fighting from the Bar, Mark Dapin, Sydney Morning Herald

18 November 2014, Listen to the children” Sydney Peace Prize winner Julian Burnside declares at Cabramatta High School, Daily Telegraph SOUTH WEST

19 November 2014, Important Voice for our Future: Students can find peace, Rosaline Walters, News Local p. 16.

25 November 2014, Sydney Peace Prize – Without Justice There Will Not Be Peace, Carolyn McDowall, The Culture Concept Circle

February 2015, Burnside, Julian. Briefs: Pearls of wisdom [online]. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb 2015: 22-23.

Announcement media highlights

On Tuesday 27 May 2014, the Sydney Peace Foundation officially announced that Julian Burnside AO QC has been selected to receive the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize. Some coverage of the announcement included:

26 May 2014, “Julian Burnside selected to receive Sydney Peace Prize”, SBS News (video)

26 May 2014, “2014 Sydney Peace Prize”, Late Night Live with Phillip Adams, Radio National (radio)

4 August 2014, Sydney Peace Prize for ‘brave and principled’ Burnside, Sydney University News and Events (online)

11 June 2014, Julian Burnside AO QC wins 2014 Sydney Peace Prize, Centre for Policy Development (online)

Julian Burnside AO QC to receive the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize, Monash University News (online)

Highlights from Julian Burnside’s advocacy and articles in 2014:

20 September 2014, Julian Burnside: Alienation to alien nation, Julian Burnside, SBS / The Conversation

13 September 2014, Asylum seeker advocate Julian Burnside floats ‘Tasmanian solution’, Julian Burnside, ABC News

18 July 2014, You’ve been misled on boat people: Here are the facts, Interview and article, Sydney Morning Herald

9 July 2014, Julian Burnside says Government could be guilty of piracy for holding 153 asylum seekers at sea, Eliza Borrello, ABC News (online news)

2 July 2014, Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation, Julian Burnside, Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper)

18 June 2014, Asylum seekers can be managed with cheaper and more humane options, Julian Burnside, Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper)

13 June 2014, In Australia, animals have better rights than asylum seekers, Julian Burnside, The Conversation (online news)

Julian Burnside AO QC joins Bill and Steve’s Radio Adventure on 774 ABC Melbourne – on Evenings with Lindy Burns (radio)

7 April 2014, The reality of boat people and a solution to the asylum seeker “problem”, Julian Burnside

17 March 2014, How we treat the vulnerable is a moral test beyond politics, Julian Burnside, The Conversation (online news)

13 March 2014, This refugee story will break your heart – Julian Burnside AO QC, Australia Cares (Youtube Clip)

The post Videos and Media appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Julian Burnside AO QC wins 2014 Sydney Peace Prize

Sydney Peace Foundation — Mon, 26 May 2014 14:00:20 +0000

MEDIA RELEASE
For Tuesday 27 May 2014

Julian Burnside wins 2014 Sydney Peace Prize

Australian barrister, human rights advocate and author, Julian Burnside AO QC has been selected to receive the 2014 Sydney Peace Prize. The Prize will be awarded at the 2014 City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture to be given by Julian Burnside at Sydney Town Hall on the evening of Wednesday 5 November.

The Sydney Peace Prize Jury’s citation reads:

Julian Burnside AO QC: “For his brave and principled advocacy for human rights and for those wronged by government, for insisting that we respect our international legal obligations toward those seeking asylum, and for his unflinching defence of the rule of law as a means to achieve a more peaceful and just society.”

The Sydney Peace Prize is Australia’s only international peace prize and has been awarded for sixteen years to the most eminent, brave and effective workers for peace throughout the world including Desmond Tutu, Patrick Dodson and Arundhati Roy.

The Prize is specifically directed at peace with justice which means the practical realisation of human rights: food, health, education and freedoms not just a lack of oppression. It means children can walk to school without being shot and asylum seekers seek freedom without being murdered, it means food security… the very broadest sense of human rights.

“Julian Burnside is a splendid choice. All nominations were remarkable people doing extraordinary things in a myriad of ways, but the Jury chose Julian Burnside for his unflinching advocacy and commitment,” says Jane Singleton AM, the Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation.

“I am deeply honoured to be selected to receive this year’s prize, especially in a year when Australia’s reputation is being tarnished by its intentionally harsh treatment of asylum seekers. I have long admired the work of the Sydney Peace Foundation. It continues to advocate for human rights and to promote peace. It helps keeps our focus on the importance of the rule of law, the need to treat all human beings with compassion and the need to ensure that human rights are respected,” says Julian Burnside AO QC.

“Australia is currently marooned at a moral and legal crossroads over policies towards asylum seekers and refugees,” says the founder of the Foundation, former Director, Chair and current Vice Chair, Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees AM, “Julian Burnside’s decades long advocacy of the of the human rights of some of the world’s most vulnerable people makes him an extremely worthy recipient.”

Nominations are now being called or the 2015 Sydney Peace Prize and for next year there is a clear theme for the Prize “The Art of Peace”.

“Choosing from so many splendid human beings in so many areas is daunting. This year we are trialing a themed approach for the 2015 award. The field may be narrower but it will be focused and highlight a particular way of expressing and advocating for peace whether it be in music or art. Art has been enormously important – whether it be Picasso’s Dove of Peace, an image imprinted on our consciousness; Sibelius’ Finlandia, his Song of Peace; or John Lennon’s Imagine,” Singleton explains. “Sydney is not just about glitz, corruption and boys behaving badly, but has a serious and heart-felt commitment to the world we live in and the conditions we live in. The Sydney Peace Foundation proves this.”

Beyond awarding the Sydney Peace Prize, the Foundation works to develop community, corporate and international understandings of the value of peace with justice. The Sydney Peace Foundation is a non-profit organisation of The University of Sydney, wholly dependent on the generosity of our financial and in-kind supporters. Our major supporter is the City of Sydney and we are grateful also to Singapore Airlines for their assistance.

Information/interviews: 9351 4468 / peace.foundation@sydney.edu.au

Buy your tickets here: http://tinyurl.com/SPPtickets2014

To receive our news please join our mailing list here.

_________________________________________________________________________

Statements from supporters and previous Sydney Peace Prize recipients:

Governor of NSW, Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir AC CVO: “I have greatly valued being Patron of the Sydney Peace Prize. To recognise those individuals who contribute to a way of life which is so very important to us all – in every country and in every situation – is one way of highlighting the vital importance of peace and how peace with justice can change lives. We must ensure that we do whatever we can, in what ever way we can, to work for peace. Peace is central to achieving fair and just livelihoods with adequate access to food, health, education and most certainly freedom. Through these basic rights, each individual has the opportunity to realize their full potential. The Sydney Peace Prize is truly an inspirational contribution.”

Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore: “The City of Sydney is a proud supporter of this prize, Australia’s only international award for peace. In recognising outstanding contributions to peace, justice and nonviolence and to human rights, the Sydney Peace Prize advocates for peace and reminds us of the urgent need to take action to address conflict and discord. On behalf of the City of Sydney, I congratulate the Sydney Peace Foundation on the continued success of the Sydney Peace Prize.”

Chancellor of The University of Sydney, Belinda Hutchinson AM:
“This is an important prize, not only for our city but for this nation, and as Chancellor of the University of Sydney I am pleased that we have been associated with it from its inception. Higher education institutions have an important role in advocating for a more peaceful society – as Nelson Mandela said, ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world’ – and so it is fitting that our Sydney Peace Foundation works for peace with justice both in our own communities and across the world. The Sydney Peace Prize recognises outstanding contributions to this goal.”

The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG: “My recent work on human rights violations in North Korea has challenged my thinking about peace. Peace which is silent, accepting of great wrongs and ignoring accountability of those responsible, is ultimately meaningless. Perhaps even counter-productive. The basic needs for shelter, food, civil justice and rights to receive and express divergent opinions are the essence of peace. So is human dignity. The Sydney Peace Foundation understands this. I support its notion of peace with justice.”

Sir William Deane AC KBE QC, recipient of the 2001 Sydney Peace Prize: “I personally have no doubt that the Sydney Peace Prize is the most important and prestigious award of its kind in this country. Through it, the Sydney Peace Foundation, acknowledges and promotes the direct and conscious pursuit of true peace at both the international and the domestic levels. Equally important, through the annual award of the Prize and its other activities, the Foundation recognises and encourages the fight against the underlying causes of international and domestic conflict, namely, entrenched disadvantage, racism and other intolerance and discrimination, injustice, aggression and oppression. The Foundation has my gratitude, admiration and support.”

Olara Otunnu, recipient of the 2005 Sydney Peace Prize: “Peace is of course about the absence of war, of bloodshed, of people being killed, of armed conflict… But peace is about more than that. It’s about ensuring that people are not …stuck in a situation of injustice: structural embedded injustice. That people are not condemned to a life of indignity and poverty on a permanent basis.”

Irene Khan, recipient of the 2006 Sydney Peace Prize: “…you have a contribution to make to peace…. I think people can work actively to promote diversity, to promote justice, to promote understanding of human rights, equality and dignity. I think peace is not a noun; it’s actually a verb. We have to work towards it, we have to make it happen….”

Hans Blix, recipient of the 2007 Sydney Peace Prize: “In being awarded the Sydney Peace Prize I feel humility and a great delight …and I am impressed to see who has received this prize before… it is an encouragement for others in the world to dedicate themselves to peace work.”

The post Julian Burnside AO QC wins 2014 Sydney Peace Prize appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.