Predictably all the media pundits are viewing the High Court decision through the prism of “politics of sport” and not taking pause to consider how the matter of continuing boat arrivals should be handled. It’s always been difficult to have any reasonable public discussion of options because the opposition and the former Howard government have been so successful in demonising boat-arriving asylum seekers and Labor, from Beazley onwards, have never had the courage to stand up to them and follow a humane rather than a punitive policy (although Rudd’s initial policy until he was panicked by Abbott wasn’t too bad).
It seems to me that there are only really two long-term options for handling asylum seekers who arrive by boat:
1. Accept that they will continue to arrive by boat and treat them pretty much like those who arrive by air, i.e. let them live in the community until their claims are finalised. The difference would be that they should probably be detained initially for health, ID and some level of security checking.
The current approach of detaining everyone until their claims are finalised is expensive, bad for the mental health of detainees and does not have any of the deterrent effect it is supposed to have.
Nauru and TPVs are no alternative, despite Scott Morrison’s constant destructive and ill-informed rabbiting on about them.
The Nauru solution may be ruled out by the High Court decision (so for those saying the Labor is incompetent in proposing the Malaysia solution should give pause for thought that this ruling may have made against the Nauru solution in the Howard era if a challenge had been mounted along these lines). Nauru was never a deterrent to boat arrivals and it had the same role in the scheme of things that Christmas Island does now. Whether it is a signatory to the UN Convention is irrelevant as the government of Nauru had no role, and would not have a role under a Coalition government in processing asylum seekers. It was/would be purely an Australian government operation, possible with the fig-leaf of IOM (International Office of Migration) administration. Nauru was never a deterrent to boat arrivals and the vast majority ended up in Australia anyway.
TPVs are not a deterrent and they are inhumane. Because they only grant a three-year stay with no certainty of being extended, they do not allow holders of the visa to get on with their lives. The Howard government TPV also denied holders access to English classes but expected them to go and get a job and “pull their weight”. They were punitive, bad for mental health but in the end no deterrent.
TPVs also do not allow family reunion and in that regard they actually lead to greater numbers coming by boat. It is common practice for one male member of a family, a person who is considered able to travel relatively safely on their own (this includes those coming as minors) to come to Australia, obtain refugee status and then sponsor their family who follow them out by air with humanitarian visas issued offshore.
When families are denied the option of safe family reunion, then they hop on boats as well. With the previous Nauru solution, there was the farcical and disgraceful situation that the families of men already living in Australia on refugee visas had to apply for refugee visas in their own right because the government was not prepared to acknowledge that they were coming to join a family member who already had the right to live in Australia.
Coming to Australia by boat will continue people smuggler activity. But if it is accepted that people will continue to come that way, then the government needs to consider whether it is a good idea to continue to prosecute the hapless Indonesian fishermen who earn some much-needed income providing the ferry service.
2. The other solution is to attempt to process refugee applications before asylum seekers get on boats. The logical place to do this is Malaysia. Malaysia is the point of entry in south-east Asia for travel to Australia. Those seeking to coming to Australia can get into Malaysia quite easily. Anecdotally (because I don’t know for sure the extent of this) many asylum seekers spend quite a long time in Malaysia and I am aware that at least some of them work, possibly illegally.
I assume that the government’s decision to return those who arrived by boat to Malaysia was an attempt to stop future boats arriving by sending the boat arrivals back whence they came and then increasing the number of refugees it takes from Malaysia.
It has been pointed out elsewhere that there are refugees in Malaysia who have been waiting many years for a country to offer them resettlement and that is the nub of the issue really, the sheer numbers, the millions, of refugees and asylum seekers waiting in other countries hoping that a wealthy country will offer them a place to live.
I assume that the rationale of the Malaysia policy was that the Australian government would work with the UNHCR in Malaysia to identify those in most in need of resettlement rather than those who, to use a Howard government term that I don’t like, “self-selected” and got on a boat.
Possibly there is a place for a combination of both solutions, as John Menadue has argued elsewhere: deal with those who arrive by boat in a humane rather than punitive fashion, but work with countries in the region to work out ways of trying to stem the numbers, including through more offshore processing.
[“Nauru was never a deterrent to boat arrivals and it had the same role in the scheme of things that Christmas Island does now.”]
In 2001 before the Pacific Solution was introduced there were 5500 boatpeople who arrived.
In 2002 after the introduction of the Pacific Solution there was just 1.
Arguing any further on Nauru’s deterrent effect would be wasting everyones time with stats like those. Absolutely undeniable.
[“TPVs are not a deterrent and they are inhumane. Because they only grant a three-year stay with no certainty of being extended, they do not allow holders of the visa to get on with their lives. “]
Sounds like a deterrent to me if it’s something they don’t like.
Chris Bowen also said if boatpeople burn down our detention centres they will be given only TPV’s. If it stops people burning down detention centres, why wouldn’t it stop people getting on boats?
[“Nauru was never a deterrent to boat arrivals and the vast majority ended up in Australia anyway.”]
Ahhh this little lie doing the rounds again… time for a fact check:
www .scottmorrison.com.au/info/speech.aspx?id=192
[“The predecessor of Mr Bowen, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship at the table, issued a statement on 8 February 2008 which went into the outcomes of the Pacific solution. That statement said that of the 1,637 people who were detained on the Nauru and Manus facilities, 705 people were resettled in Australia. That does not sound to me like an overwhelming majority. It actually does not sound like a majority. In fact, it is not; it is 43 per cent. Fewer than one in two people who were subjected to the Pacific solution as implemented by the previous government ended up in Australia. But this government likes to parade around saying, ‘They all ended up here.’ It is simply not true. “]
If you got on a boat during the Pacific Solution you had almost a 60% chance you would never see the Australian mainland.
@TheTruthHurts – I think there was a bit more going on between 2001 and 2002 than the Pacific Solution. Don’t suppose you remember the fall of the Taliban in November 2001? The best way to stop refugees is to stop persecuting people. The drop in refugees between 2001 and 2002 was also attributable to people staying in Afghanistan to see if things would change under the transition government.
As for the number of Nauru-assessed refugees, the numbers should include those who were granted NZ residency and then travelled to Australia as NZ residents. The outcome is the same (majority ended up in Australia), it’s just the process was different.
As for the comment “Sounds like a deterrent to me if it’s something they don’t like” – TPVs are not something people “don’t like” like they “don’t like” hot weather or a particular ice cream flavor. They are inhumane, ie they treat people as less than they, as human beings, deserve to be treated. Inhumane treatment is not a deterrent. It’s why we don’t torture people for fare evasion.
Well done to Jenny on one of the most senisble articles written about the asylum seeker issue.
The debate between Push and Pull factors causing boat numbers to go up or down, will continue forever. I am with Felinecyclist here: Push factors have to be looked at and given more weight.
Pull factors are a reality and the High Court Decision might encourage some to come by boat who might not otherwise have done so. But push factors are very very significant.
If there is peace and hope, in ones home country, then people dont leave everything, risk everything, and sometimes die doing so – in the hope of a better life. Most people in the world do NOT want to live in another culture where they need to learn a new language, put up with some customs and behaviours that they will find difficult and even offensive; leave behind family and friends; leave behind the graves of their loved ones; leave behind a familiar culture … all to start again somewhere else. But when Push factors are bad enough: war, natural disasters, persecution, poverty…. then people make the call.
You want to stop the boats? Then have peace in our region. Have justice and opportunities for ordinary people to live ordinary happy lives.
I know… tell him he’s dreaming. There have always been people movements all through history, and they will continue into the future, because we just cant seem to work out how to live in peace and justice with each other.
I am reposting this since the other article have gone somewhere.
It’s a case of glass half full or half empty. Refugee resettlement process is only partly ‘queued’, although there is a ‘long’ waiting list of registered refugees many newly registered might get resettled quicker before those who have been waiting for years while there are also those who who have not been registered but seek imminent protection from persecution directly from the host country get accepted in little time.
There can be millionaires or royal family who seek protection from another country when fleeing persecution from their own country. So the perception that people who can pay a lot of money to travel to Australia whether by boat or plane are not genuine refugees is totally misguided; but this should bring into question of should there be a separate category of refugees who can pay for their own transport to come to Australia and are able to demonstrate that they are able to resettle without relying on social security? Why not, there is nothing wrong with means testing given that there is constraint on the Commonwealth budget and we Australians are means tested for many things, if we are able to allocate a certain number of resettlement placement base on this criteria it would free up the budget and we can even accept more refugees.
There are non-genuine refugees who might look for better economic opportunity which have muddled up the process and it is reasonable to think about how to prevent this but it is very unproductive of the Left and the Right to be shouting at each other instead of recognising the reality of the situation as well as the recognition of Australian law and come together to find a solution. Also, it is true that if we don’t place a strict process of identifying who the asylum seekers are we could get a war criminal wanted for war crime against humanity in their own country slip in although it is not something I would worry about.
If we want to take out the unregulated transported industry which sometimes provide unsafe travel on crowded leaky boats then may be we should establish a category of refugees who are able to pay for their own transport to Australia and provide transport for them on an Australian airline. They can register in Indonesia or any other third country and put money in as much as they can. Their case for resettlement can be determined by the length of time in waiting as well as the amount of money they demonstrate the length of time they can be independent without social welfare when they arrive in Australia. Anyone else who came here by either boat or plane and seek asylum should be placed in this category and be put in that waiting list.
Instead of sending asylum seekers to Malaysia they could send them to Cocos Island, it is Australian territory but the inhabitants are of Malaysian stocks, or just to some island set out for our naval base and they can run the administration. On this island the asylum seekers should be free to roam but are required to perform certain hours of work as well as education as this is not only being productive in paying their own keep but they will be much more ready to adapt if they get to be resettled in Australia.
The US actually have Green Card lottery award for immigrants, I think we should also allocate a certain number of lottery for refugees so those who wait for years in the third world might have some hope and not feel so helpless and desperate that they have to jump onto a crowded leaky boat and risk their lives.
Spending billions on stopping the boats whether it be Rudd or Gillard or Howard is a waste of money. Those billions could have gone to better programs or be used to accept more refugees. The people who want to stop the boats are just as irresponsible with the budget as the people who want to let them in easily.
Well, I’m sure the lefty and the righty won’t be happy with my comment. I can’t please all the world just let it be, whatever!!!
Good article which hopefully promotes a reasonable and rational discussion about the whole topic and other possible, palatable approaches.