Australia

The choice: facing trial for drug crimes resulting in a penalty of death or facing indefinite detention for no crime based on a secretive bureaucratic process… Which is crueller? 

THE choice: facing trial for drug crimes resulting in a penalty of death by firing squad or facing indefinite detention for no crime based on a secretive bureaucratic process… Which is crueller? If you had to, which would you choose?

The former option is the fate of two Australians, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, found guilty in Indonesian courts of attempting to export heroin from Bali to Australia. Final preparations underway, it looks as though the two will be executed in coming days.

The latter option is the fate of thirty-four refugees in Australia, mostly Tamil Sri Lankans deemed by the largest security agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), to be a threat. Those detained, as they are genuine refugees, cannot be returned to their country of origin. They are not allowed to settle in Australia due to the negative security assessment. 

Let's be clear: these refugees are not charged with any crime. They have no opportunity to counter the bureaucratic findings made against them by an agency of dubious decision-making ability, demonstrated most recently by ASIO's reported failure to properly monitor the gunman who perpetrated the Sydney siege last December, which resulted in three deaths.

The Australian government argues that refugees held under such circumstances may be resettled in a third country. Unsurprisingly no third country agrees to take them. 

The number of refugees in indefinite detention was over fifty a few years ago. A number has been quietly reassessed and released – a course of action that may suggest they were never a genuine security threat in the first place. It may reflect the Australian government's wishes to distance itself from a secrecy-riddled draconian policy that remains a perpetual international embarrassment. Yet thirty-four remain in indefinite detention.

Ethics is a funny thing. To be taken seriously requires consistency. It makes the vocal and persistent efforts of both the Australian government and the opposition Labor Party to save the lives of two Australian drug dealers confusing. Neither party advocates against indefinite detention. Neither advocates accountability for its past and present practice. 

Australians were entertained recently by two rousing parliamentary speeches against the death penalty: by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and her Labor Party counterpart Tanya Plibersek. Many Australians welcome efforts to save the lives of two citizens and for politicians the issue is without risk of voter backlash because both major parties have the same stance. But there's a problem: people can join dots.

While ever the country's security sector rules the roost over government policy favouring extrajudicial indefinite detention of some refugees, Australia is well-positioned as an international laughing stock in the realm of human rights. 

It's a significant price to pay for protection against Tamils, who would seem unlikely domestic terrorists in Australia, particularly these days. Potentially Sukumaran and Chan are about to pay for Australia's perennial lack of human rights credentials with their lives. After all, nobody is easily convinced by hypocrisy.

Furthermore, one wouldn't hold one's breath to see the same level of political action for any Australian held on death row in the United States. It's undeniable that defending the two is popular because it's happening in Indonesia. 

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's unfortunate comments linking the issue to foreign aid granted to help Indonesia recover from the 2004 tsunami aside, there remains the whiff of "white man's burden" in Australia's official response, of trying to "civilise" the Muslim-majority neighbour. 

Nor does such hypocrisy escape Australians. Australian politicians are held in low regard by most constituents, evidenced not least by membership of political parties sitting at a paltry 0.5 percent of the population. There are more than twice as many Australians waiting to join the Melbourne Cricket Club as there are members of all political parties combined.

While Australian politicians scratch their heads wondering why so few bright minds wish to take up their profession or join their beloved parties, one reason is certainly that decent-minded Australians do not wish to sign their name to fundamentalist policy. 

De facto indefinite detention without charge as a system, if not currently considered a crime against humanity, absolutely should be. Those refugees still detained must be released. Formal charges at an international level against those responsible must be considered.

Many Australians would love to see rousing human rights speeches in parliament not only for two convicted drug peddlers but for everybody. Australia as a wealthy, developed country certainly has the potential to adopt the world's best practice standards in many areas including human rights. It should be a leader. It could be taken seriously.

As such, ethical consistency would be a novel and welcome approach. At the moment, in observing due process Indonesia's police, gaolers, justice officials and also executioners seem to have an undeniable ethical upper hand over most of Australia's politicians. 

While one may be of the personal view that applications for clemency against the death penalty should generally find favour, Indonesia will and should consider the issue from their own sense of humanity and not because of any confusing noises emanating from the south.

The writer is a feature writer and English Language trainer at The Daily Star.