Back in mid-February I had to perform the unpleasant task of taking apart a Glenn Milne column about asylum seeker statistics, where at the behest of the Coalition he purported to show that UNHCR figures undermined the Government’s claim that “push factors” were the main reason behind the rise in asylum seeker applications in Australia.  In fact the figures clearly demonstrated exactly what the Government was saying.

Now the same line is being pushed by the Opposition and getting another run in the media, this time not from the now ex-News Ltd commentator but from journalists with more credibility, Paul Maley and Paige Taylor at The Oz and Yuko Narushima at Fairfax.  Unlike Milne, however, all three actually made an effort to provide some context to the numbers.  Still, The Oz sufficiently liked the yarn that they gave it the front page, neatly obscuring the unfortunate turn of events at the National Press Club yesterday.

What occasioned this new effort by the Coalition?  Some compelling new report?  Some new source of data?  Alas no, it was merely the finalisation of the same data we discussed back in February.  A small number of countries hadn’t finalised their asylum seeker data for the last months of 2009 when the previous set of statistics was published by the UNHCR, but yesterday the final data for 2009 were released, with the missing data from November and December from many countries and some minor adjustments.  In most cases, it’s the same figures with no or minimal changes.

Same data, same story: while there hasn’t been a global rise in asylum seekers, what is happening on a regional basis is more important. Regions are what matter in asylum seeker data, not the world.  There isn’t one giant refugee camp somewhere from which all asylum seekers come.  When there are large increases in our own region, there are large increases in asylum seekers coming to Australia and other countries. And when big increases occur in other regions, they don’t come to us, they go elsewhere.

Take Somalia: that failed state continues to be one of the major sources of refugees worldwide, and the numbers increased further in 2009, to over 22,000 asylum seekers.  But Australia is too far away to be a viable destination for Somalian refugees.  Last year there were 19 Somalia applicants for asylum in Australia, up from 15 before.  They head instead for the EU, where there were over 18,000 applications for asylum from Somalis.

Ditto Russia, from where more than 20,000 people again sought asylum last year.  7 sought asylum with us.  They aim to reach Europe, of course.  France by itself had over 3,000 applications.

Scott Morrison was trying to knock that line on the head, sniffing to The Australian “”Afghanistan is hardly a regional neighbour of Australia.”  Much of the increase in asylum seekers coming to Australia in the last 18 months has indeed been from Afghans.  Last year Afghanistan took back the unwanted title of the world’s biggest source of refugees from Iraq, with a 45% increase in worldwide applications.  And as Morrison seems to suggest, Afghan asylum seekers, many of whom are in refugee camps in Pakistan, indeed have a “choice” of destination because they can try to reach Europe, or they can head eastward, in which direction Australia is one of only a handful of countries that is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.  And that’s what happened – not merely did Afghan refugees try to reach Australia, they tried to reach Europe.  Applications from Afghans in Germany increased five-fold to over 3,000.  Applications in Norway tripled to over 3,000. They went up tenfold in Hungary.

The more asylum seeker numbers you see, the clearer the evidence: the biggest reason for changes in numbers of people seeking asylum in Australia is because people who can get here are being forced from their homes – just like anywhere else.

The best take on this entire debate I’ve seen for a long time came this week from Chris Berg in the CIS’s Policy and I urge you to read it. Berg’s elegantly-reasoned application of the principles of classical liberalism to immigration stands in rather stark contrast to Bob Birrell’s nationalistic incoherence on the topic in the same publication. And you don’t have to agree with Berg’s throw-open-the-borders approach to recognise that Australia has a long way to go before it can even begin to compare itself to other countries in terms of its intake of asylum seekers.