The problem with the current debate on refugees and the Government’s policy that no boat arrival will be settled in Australia is that it sees the problem as how to prevent people making the trip to Australia by boat.
As I listen to the rhetoric it seems that boat arrivals are considered problematic on four counts: 1) safety – some of the boats sink and their passengers drown; 2) equity – those who arrive by boat gain an advantage over those in camps around the world; 3) fear – a sense that our societal well-being is threatened by boat arrivals; 4) sovereignty – boat arrivals violate the principle that we should control our migration program.
It is difficult not to be cynical about most of these. Most years we have just as many asylum seekers arriving by plane as by boat, yet no-one is proposing policies that penalise them. This renders invalid the logic of reasons two and four, reducing them to emotive rationales. Likewise reason three, fear, is a visceral rather than rational response as there is no empirical evidence to back it up – in fact the 2011 Hugo report found that refugees add to our economy.
So we are left with only one valid rationale for the rash of political announcements concerning boat arrivals – deaths at sea. The best estimate of these comes from the Monash Australian Border Deaths Database which estimates that since 2000 there were 1575 deaths at sea. With 28,209 boat arrivals in this same period (Australian Parliament House Library) this means 5% of those making the journey to Australia are drowning at sea. This surely is a real concern and something our policy should seek to mitigate.
But by making this the driving policy challenge we have developed a perverse solution. We are exporting asylum seekers to impoverished nations and then selecting the refugees we want from where we want to be part of our humanitarian immigration intake. We have dealt with the first and last policy challenges – ie preventing deaths at sea and providing refuge to a portion of the 14 million of the world’s refugees, but we have abdicated responsibility for the middle portion – ie welcoming asylum seekers, processing their claims and ensuring they find safety.
Moreover we are exploiting PNG. Here is a country ranked right near the bottom of the Human Developed Index. One of two outcomes is likely: 1) asylum seekers sent to PNG will be subject to inadequate food, shelter and safety; 2) asylum seekers will receive adequate food, shelter, job opportunities, etc which will create resentment among locals.
So is there a way we can meet all our obligations and avoid deaths at sea? Yes there is. The vast majority of boats depart from Indonesia, yet we take virtually no refugees from there – between 2001 and 2010 Australia accepted only 560 UNHCR referred refugees from Indonesia (APH library). Given Indonesia has only 3,000 [correction: 8000] or so asylum seekers and refugees (APH library [correction: UNHCR]) we could simply agree to take them all and fly them to Australia for processing and resettlement.
Would this see an influx of asylum seekers to Indonesia? The tyranny of distance makes this unlikely. The vast bulk of the world’s refugees stay in countries bordering their own. Contrary to popular misconception, most do not want to come to Australia, the US or the UK.
This approach may not work, but nothing anyone’s tried so far has, so it’s worth a crack. It allows us to achieve all policy objectives…it just needs a courageous political leader to champion it.
Scott, making sense as usual.
The UNHCR suggests the number of refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia is closer to 8000, but your logic still absolutely applies.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488116.html
I agree totally, the only thing I would add is that if they can’t find enough aircraft we have several large troop ship carriers at the navy’s disposal, one very new as of last year . I did suggest to the special Government think – tank that they run a publicized ferry service to Australia on a monthly basis thereby putting the smugglers out of business and making travel both free and safe.
great idea!
Having worked with asylum seekers and UNHCR reconized refugees in Malaysia, the majority from Burma, over the past nine years I cringe at the rhetoric of our politicians expressing their major concern is preventing asylum seekers risking their lives by getting on boats. Then punishing them when they do. The majority of those who flee Burma risk their lives in the jungles of Thailand and Malaysia and on fishing boats travelling down the west coast of Thailand and Malaysia. Many of those boats sink. It’s much the same for the asylum seekers and refugees in Indonesia. Your suggestion would, I have no doubt work, but I doubt either political party would implement it. It’s to simple and would not win any votes.
Hear! Hear! This is the only answer.
The real problem with boat asylum seekers that the Government does not wish to share with the public, which causes more confusion amongst ‘Asylum Seekers Supporters in Australia” is that the question of are we really and truly getting genuine refugees on our shores? Or are we allowing the Trojan Horse into our Utopia (Democracy) The unspoken and hidden facts about Asylum Seekers is that many, if not all of them have enough financial resources within their reach not only to meet hefty monetary demands of the illegal smugglers, not only for themselves but in some instances for family members also. In addition, they have enough financial resources to pay (bribe) many Government Officials back in their country to forge legal papers, issuing death certificates, new birth certificates and being given completely new identities, not only for themselves, but also for their family members in some instances. Furthermore, meeting all expenses for the trip abroad, etc, etc… This in turn puts many question marks in relation to how genuine Asylum Seekers are? If they give us no way of accurately and truthfully ascertaining who they really are and what were the dangers, oppressions, etc they allegedly faced in their homeland, then how can we be so certain that what they claim to have suffered is truly what they have gone through? Asylum Seekers leave many questions open and unanswered. At the same time, there are reports of many oppressed and suffering minority groups around the Globe (e.g. Christians in Pakistan who die long, merciless and torturous deaths through being burned alive for their faith) who have absolutely no means of seeking asylum as they are not allowed any education, or to be employed in any jobs that would help them save the amount of monies required to bribe those who demand bribing and meet all the other required expenses also; that the only way to help them is for Australian Immigration Workers to fly over to those countries and seek them to fly them here, as opposed to waiting for them to find some type of means to come here whether legally (their applications will not even be looked at by Australian Embassy front staff, for although it is Australian Embassy, their front staff are usually employed from the Majority of the population of the relevant country. For example, Australian Embassy in Pakistan front staff are all Muslim Pakistani people who choose to keep minority Pakistani People there to be persecuted for their faith and process Muslim Pakistani papers as the only priority, even if they are fully aware that those Applicants are indeed not genuine), or the far fetched possibility of illegally coming here. You see, things are not always as they seem and there is always more to the story than what is even allowed to meet the eye, because of Public Relations (not to displease Oil Owners who are mainly of Islamic Ideology and/or neighboring countries, such as Indonesia which is also an Islamic country). I am all for GENUINE refugees coming here and starting a new life for themselves and/or their families. I just think we need to go out of our way to seek and bring them here, as allow for Asylum Seekers, who may not even be genuine, to continue to invade our shores, in my humble opinion.
I’m sorry, I don’t see any evidentiary basis for your claims about asylum seekers.
I am a Migration Agent and a Solicitor. I am sharing insider insight into what happens 🙂 I am indeed unable to share my sources, as they are protected by Client’s Confidentiality. In addition, the Government being unwilling to share their real fears with the Australian Public through communicative discourse and dialogue for the reason I gave previously; that is being, Public Relations, puts me in a position of hiding my own identity because my post indeed reveals insights that are taboo for us to talk about. In any case, the insight is there and it is up to you to take it or leave it 🙂 Your choice does not add, nor does it take away any value from the facts shared in my post 😉
So let me get this right. These asylum seekers arriving by boat are really very wealthy frauds who rather than seeking regular migration or flying in, elect to take a dangerous journey by sea. And when they arrive and are assessed they manage to fool those undertaking assessments. And apparently lots of people on the inside know about this but, despite the public interest and news worthiness no one will come forward. And the political parties for whom your case would be political manna from heaven strangely stay silent….mmm your story doesn’t add up
Brilliant! Simple! Achievable! Humane!
Scott, my insider insight does not add up simply because your subjectivity is blinding you and not giving an option of persuasion through communicative discourse and dialogue which require and open mind in order for it to take place.
Yes, Asylum Seekers as presented on our shores today either have brand new identities or in some instances have no papers to prove their identities. In this case, we rely on them providing us with contacts in their home land to investigate their stories. Of course, as in the event of a potential employee being asked for reference contact details, naturally they would give contact details of those who would support them.
The Government knows about this and the illegal malpractices that are spread in many developing countries (including but not limited to, Pakistan, Egypt, etc) . But as I said, for the sake of Public Relations, it remains silent. It chooses to deal with the situation in an underhanded manner as to not jeopardize our public relations. Is this suitable and/or appropriate? I do not know, nor can I offer an opinion, as I did not reflect on this aspect of the issue as yet. In any case, I accept that you may reject my insider insight – this is completely fine by me. What I do not accept is you hinting that I made up a “story” that does not add up. Hope you have a nice day.
Scott, if you do have particular/specific questions in relation to my insider insight that you believe further clarifications are needed, by all means please ask me. If I know the answer, I will provide it. If I do not know, then I will research it in an attempt to find the answers if I could. I think this may be a better way to keep the debate going and indeed keeping me honest by scrutinizing the statements I make in my posts. Sometimes, due to many restrictions, constraints and assumptions, I write my statements thinking that I have given satisfactory details for the reader. If this is untrue and/or inaccurate, then I do encourage you to seek further explanations and/or clarifications and this way we may be able to have some positive impact on each other’s views instead of letting our personal passion turn this debate into a personal attack on the other, in which case it would only serve but one purpose; that is being, proving ourselves right in spite of the other’s views which may also be as valid as our own. This, we call in Egypt, to be the phenomenon of the conversation amongst the deaf. Where both parties are unable to listen to one another by virtue of being deaf, yet they keep on pointlessly speaking to one another just for the sake of it.
Hi Trojan Horse
As long as you hide behind a cloak of anonymity you should expect your claims to be an “insider” to be treated with scepticism, even more so when you adopt a pseudonym like “trojan horse”. I am not attacking you personally. What i am suggesting is that an anoNymous source who makes big claims without any substantiation lacks credibility.
Hi Scott, thank you for your response and I do appreciate the reasons for your skepticism. I believe they are valid in this context. I believe I explained the reasons for this. I am happy to share my identity with you personally through email so that you can check my details on the NSW Law Society web site (Find a Lawyer section). If this would help somewhat, then please let me know. Cheers, Me 🙂
Scott, an opinion is an opinion and no matter whether it is anonymous. I think your view is completely out of touch with reality and if I want to be brutally honest, stupid.
Among all the absurd things you said, I just couldn’t believe seeing you arguing we should fly all the refugees from Indonesia over to here. See the mounting number in the past few weeks. I’m sure you are not paying much tax as you are so aloof and generous with other people’s money, just like the academics and the government, none in real productive sectors.
Hi Anna,
Feel free to critique my argument, but counter-argument rather than personal abuse is preferred.