On November 15, Indonesian authorities said they had shot and wounded two Afghan refugees they said were trying to escape after their boat was intercepted three days earlier.
A text message received by a refugee advocate from one of the 61 Afghan's on the boat said the shooting took place in international waters as the boat headed towards Australia. The message said the Indonesian coastguard had extracted a $50,000 bribe before the shooting.
Australian finance minister Lindsay Tanner described the shooting as "regrettable". However, it is a direct result of his government's "Indonesian solution": the policy of pressuring Indonesia to crackdown on refugees trying to reach Australia.
Meanwhile, the saga of the 78 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees on an Australian customs ship, the Oceanic Viking, moored in Indonesian waters still dominated the headlines.
Twenty-two of the refugees went ashore on November 13, where they would be imprisoned in an Indonesian detention centre.
Meanwhile, 260 Tamil refugees on a wooden boat in the Indonesian port of Merak are still refusing to disembark in Indonesia, which is not a signatory to the United Nations refugee convention.
The Australian government offered a deal to the Oceanic Viking refugees that guaranteed them resettlement. The government has denied reports they will all come to Australia.
All Australia agreed to do was resettle the asylum seekers "somewhere" — a right they already had under international law.
Many of those on board have been certified by the UN as bona fide refugees, but had languished in Indonesia for up to eight years waiting to be resettled. Eventually, they tried unsuccessfully to seek refuge in Australia by boat.
The 61 Afghans on the boat shot at by Indonesian authorities were also UN-certified refugees waiting to be resettled.
Sometimes, you need to look at the foreign press to read straightforward reporting about one's own country.
The Australian mainstream media has promoted the hysteria about hordes of refugees descending upon Australia.
But the headline of the November 5 New York Times article on Australia's Christmas Island detention centre was to the point: "Australia puts its refugee problem on a remote island, behind razor wire".
That the refugees on board the Oceanic Viking demanded to be taken to Christmas Island said a lot about conditions in Indonesia's detention centres.
The NYT stated the facts about Christmas Island. The detention centre is an overcrowded, high security jail. Its remote location left refugees isolated from supporters and services. Most refugees are from persecuted minority ethnic groups — especially Tamils from Sri Lanka and Hazaras from Afghanistan. Refugees on Christmas Island are denied the right to appeal decisions.
Refugees that arrive by boat are automatically sent to the Christmas Island detention centre, but those arriving by plane (90%) are not.
The distinction between refugees arriving by plane and boat has a purpose — it panders to, and reinforces, the xenophobic hysteria about "boat people". The reality is there aren't that many of them.
In a recent report on asylum seekers in Indonesia, lawyer and refugee advocate Jessie Taylor said: "On one thing, the Australian government and the asylum seekers agree completely: that it is a terrible idea to attempt the boat journey to Australia.
"Asylum seekers are horrified at the prospect, and are driven to make an attempt only after they are convinced at the hopelessness of their situation. At the moment, there is just no viable prospect of a safe, formal resettlement into Australia."
Most of the refugees are fleeing problems Australia helped create. This is particularly clear in the case of refugees from Afghanistan, where Australian troops are fighting a brutal and useless war.
The Australian government has also consistently supported the Sri Lankan Army's genocidal war against the Tamil people.
Not one of the Tamil refugees has left their homeland voluntarily. People become refugees only if they have no other option.
One would not think so from the statements of former prime minister John Howard and other members of his government such as Philip Ruddock and Alexander Downer, who have risen zombie-like from the political graveyard, seeking vindication for their record of abuse.
But despite Coalition attempts to label Kevin Rudd's Labor government as "soft" on refugees, Labor's "tough" refugee policy is mostly indistinguishable from Howard at his worst.
The major party "tough" versus "tougher" debate seeks to manipulate public opinion and convince people they should fear refugees. Aided by the hysterical ravings of the shock jocks and hack journalists, it plays on the deep-seated racism that has always been a part of white Australia.
However, some trade unions, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, have come out in support of the asylum seekers.
The Maritime Union of Australia, whose members have been involved in rescuing refugees from unseaworthy boats, has, together with the Construction Forestry MiningEnergy Union, donated $10,000 to the refugees on the Oceanic Viking.
The refugee rights movement played a role in the downfall of the Howard government. Rudd's adoption of Howard's "hard line" means, in response, the refugee rights movement must reignite.