Crikey is collaborating with the Centre for Policy Development to track the major parties’ and The Greens’ election promises. Yesterday, we cast an eye over promises around the Newstart allowance. Today, immigration and asylum seeker policy …
Refugee policy and the plight of asylum seekers continues to inflame passions on both sides of politics, nearly 12 years after the Tampa incident. The drama continued unabated this week, after Four Corners exposed sub-optimal conditions on the Papua New Guinean outpost of Manus Island and cost blowouts and cramped lodgings on Nauru.
The arrival two weeks ago at the West Australian port of Geraldton of 66 Sri Lankan asylum seekers shone a spotlight on ethnic Tamils who continue to be “screened out” and flown home before their application for asylum can be lodged. This week 42 Sri Lankans were flown from Christmas Island to Colombo, taking the total number returned since last August’s Houston report to 1071, 862 of which have been involuntary.
Following the Rudd government’s decision to ditch John Howard’s Pacific Solution, the Labor government has copped a sustained broadside over its response to what immigration bureaucrats refer to as Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs).
The government commissioned a report, led by former defence force chief Angus Houston, to address the issue and mollify critics. Released last August, it made 22 recommendations for Australian Irregular Immigration policy, including a “no advantage” principle meant to deter asylum seekers from getting on boats in the first place. This doesn’t appear to have worked. As Four Corners noted, since the recommencement of offshore processing, a total of 15,543 people have arrived on 259 boats.
The Houston panel set out a plan that seeks to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat journeys to Australia. It called for government policy to be “hard headed but not hard hearted” — the full Houston report can be read here. Key points included:
- An increase in Australia’s humanitarian program to 20,000 from 13,000 places per annum;
- Continuing bilateral communication with Indonesia so as to improve cooperation on “joint surveillance and response patrols, law enforcement and search and rescue coordination”;
- Strengthening ties with Malaysia and pursuing amendments to the arrangement negotiated in 2011;
- Re-establishing detention facilities in Nauru and PNG;
- Prevent IMAs from applying for family reunion visas, so as to discourage participation in irregular migration.
The reopening of old offshore detention facilities was the government’s response to the increase in requests for asylum over the past 10 years. After reaching a low point in 2004 at 3208 requests, the numbers rose to 11,491 in the calendar year 2010-11. In comparison to other industrialised countries, Australia’s intake has been quite low. Despite having less than half the population of Australia, Sweden received 31,819 applications for asylum in 2010, a number more than double Australia’s 12,673 applications.
The estimated cost of implementing the report’s recommendations will be several billion dollars, to be divided thusly:
- Increase in the humanitarian program visas — $1.4 billion
- Increase in the family migration visas — $0.8 billion
- Nauru processing facility — $1.2 billion – 1.4 billion
- PNG processing facility — $0.9 billion
- Implementation of Malaysia Agreement — $80 million
The overall stated aim of the Houston report was to prevent further loss of life at sea by asylum seekers. To this end, the panel has recommended “strategies need[ed] to shift the balance of Australian policies and regional arrangements to give greater hope and confidence to asylum seekers that regional arrangements will work more effectively, and to discourage more actively the use of irregular maritime voyages”.
So where do the parties officially stand on immigration and asylum?
Labor:
Julia Gillard announced the government’s response to the Houston report on August 13, 2012. Gillard endorsed, “in principle”, all the report’s recommendations and expressed a commitment to “working through those recommendations and the implementation of dealing piece by piece with those recommendations”.
As detailed by the report, the government pledged to:
- Expand Australia’s humanitarian program;
- Expand offshore detention facilities in Nauru and PNG;
- Reopen talks with Malaysia over possible refugee transfers (although this unlikely at this point after the High Court ruled the agreement null and void owing to Malaysia’s human rights’ issues);
- Only return boats to Indonesia with the full agreement of the Indonesian government.
The Gillard government has not released a detailed policy platform on its Irregular Migration Policy, aside from their initial response to the Houston panel. However, they have expanded the humanitarian program to 20,000 places in 2012-2013 and have announced a refugee transfer agreement with New Zealand in February 2013. The agreement will identify 150 “genuine refugees” from the Australian system, and relocate them to New Zealand for resettlement. The Government has also released many asylum seekers into the community on bridging visas that have been compared to the Howard Government’s controversial Temporary Protection Visas.
The recent 37 nation Bali Process agreed to introduce “more effective law enforcement” measures to crack down on the “vile trade” of people smuggling. Foreign Minister Bob Carr told reporters ”that means these nations are committed to more effective control at airports and more effective border protection, seeing that this is defined as a law enforcement issue with the full weight of the laws of these nations coming down to bear on the people smugglers”.
The Coalition:
The Coalition released a preliminary policy platform for the 2013 election in February. The document advises that a Coalition government would:
- Establish a dialogue with Indonesia in order to cooperate against people smugglers;
- Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas;
- Order the Navy to turn back boats when it is safe to do so;
- Give priority for offshore humanitarian visa processing;
- Offshore humanitarian visa holders to be given preference in obtaining permanent residency;
- Boost offshore processing;
- Presumption against asylum seekers who come by boat for refugee status;
- Denial of benefit of doubt to asylum seekers claiming refuge if they have deliberately discarded their papers;
- Establishment of mandatory minimum jail sentences for people smugglers;
- Plus, 11,000 of the 13,750 humanitarian visas would be reserved for those processed offshore.
In relation to the Houston report, Tony Abbott and his shadow minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, have promised to:
- Reverse the government’s commitment to increasing the humanitarian programs to 20, 000 places, thus saving the government $1.4 billion dollars;
- Refuse visas to asylum seekers who arrive by boat;
- Force asylum seekers receiving welfare benefits on bridging visas to work for the dole;
- Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas.
The Greens:
The Greens have published a comprehensive list of principles in relation to their immigration policy on their website. These included celebrating diversity, non-discriminatory immigration and an adherence to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The party says seeking asylum is a humanitarian issue, rather than one of border security, and that all applications for asylum must be assessed irrespective of their mode of arrival. It says Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where defence personnel are deployed in conflict situations, including Afghanistan.
The Greens are at odds with many of the recommendations of the Houston panel. After the release of the report, Greens Leader, Senator Christine Milne, noted that “the Houston Panel has disappointed many of those across Australia who were hoping for a humanitarian response to refugees, instead backing a return to the brutal policies of the Howard government now echoed by Tony Abbott”. The party opposes offshore processing and maintains that it breaches international law.
Check out the Centre for Policy Development’s Refugee Facts website.
Why do they try so bloody hard to pervert the law and waste billions in the process though?
The law is very simple. The refugee convention is part of domestic law and we have an absolute obligation to all and any person who arrives here and claims refugee status.
Why the hell is that so difficult to understand even for our dumb media.
I know he’s not the most popular person, but is Crikey able to look into the reality of Clive Palmer’s policy idea, as mentioned in the SMH last Sunday 28 Apr, regarding asylum seekers.
Quote: “…people can board a plan, whether or not they have a visa, and then they’re shuttled to the airports where there are people in facilities waiting to meet them. They are then interviewed, they are given a hearing and if they are found to not be legitimate refugees, they are put on the next plane back.” …we don’t believe in separating families and mothers and children and putting them in jail, when they have done nothing.”
Is this achievable whilst still ensuring humanity and respect towards asylum seekers?
@fiona – The reality is that an airport is not the place to check people’s bonafides re making a claim for refugee status. People require health checks and security checks also. I could see an awful situation where young children/babies/pregnant women/elderly people etc, exhausted from a long flight etc then have to advocate on their own behalf in a language foreign to them. Clive Palmer, as in many comments he makes is insulting to those who seek asylum here, and to those whose task it would be to assess their claims.
Also, the reality is, that only 5% of people arrive by boat, but an overwhelming number of them are found to be in need of our protection. Too many are traumatized, exhausted and in need of good food, shelter and rest, not more hours of indecision. The rest arrive by plane, but a much smaller % of those are found to be in need of protection and shelter.
You need to keep in mind that people in such a state require medical/psychological attention also – usually immediately! After the necessary checks, they should be placed in community environments, afforded help/legal assistance in order to plead their cause.
What is happening now is a damned disgrace and makes me feel outraged and depressed. It’s hugely expensive and for what outcome? Not the humane treatment of traumatized and ill people; not even motivated by attention to cost? I am outraged that my taxes are being spent punishing people for leaving war torn and horrific despotic environs, sometimes that we helped to bring about!
I think the greatest hypocrisy is the ‘cry’ of politicians who are SO concerned about asylum seekers putting themselves in danger on the high seas? Obviously, they don’t consider that the bombs and guns we rain down on their country a threat to their lives on a daily basis, let alone destroying their countries for decades if not for good! Iraq & Afghanistan cases in point!
Again, good on you Marilyn! 4 Corners the other night brought home to me(once again) just how disgusting the major parties are on this issue. Imagine how that money could improve lives if it was spent on humanity, and provided productive futures. Imagine if just one billion went to creating jobs that would provide dignity and a decent life for asylum seekers and their children, and also add to every aspect of our lives too! I think of renewable energy options for sustainable and long term employment for many. Many if not all asylum seekers bring a myriad of experience with them, and yet we just lock them up and slowly drive them to mental illnesses which will hinder them, perhaps for life! How does spending money on those outcomes “protect our borders”?
Australians need to start looking at the asylum seeker debate from a different perspective, and to achieve this Australian’s need to be given some positive role modelling from the two leading political parties. The poisonous politicised nature of this clearly human rights issue needs to be removed, so that the true issue of human rights can be addressed. The dignity and human worth of other human beings can then be acknowledged and respected, and then Australia can stand up true to its commitment to the Refugee Convention, and provide these vulnerable groups of people with protection and a fresh start at life.
Seeking asylum is NOT illegal, Earlier this month Australia saw images of Opposition leader Tony Abbott unveiling a billboard stating that there have been 639 ‘illegal boat’ arrivals in Australia since the Australian Labor Party came into leadership. To the less ignorant, this statement is completely ludicrous; firstly because people are allowed to seek asylum under international law, so there is nothing illegal about the boats arriving with asylum seekers, people who are fleeing for violence and persecution and who are simply yet to gain refugee status or do not have valid visas or travel documents. The second reason this claim is ridiculous is due to reality that 639 in two terms of government is a tiny number of asylum seeker arrivals compared to a vast number of other countries in the world, developed and undeveloped: “Australia’s 15,226 boat arrivals in the five years to the end of last year compares with Greece’s 56,180, Italy’s 91,821, Spain’s 74,317 and Yemen’s 185,810”. With such small figures compared to other developed western countries, why then does the opposition party keep running this campaign? The University of Western Sydney, ‘Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project’ compiled findings from twelve years of in-depth studies and comprehensive surveys of more than 12,500 Australians to generate findings surrounding the level of racism among the average Australian. The project reported that a staggering 41% of Australians have too narrow a view of who belongs in Australia, asking either agree or disagree questions such as “Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways” and “Are any cultural groups that do not fit into Australian society?” Politically the parties are in a tough spot because of the attitudes of the general public, but as stated above, it’s about time we saw some positive role modelling with some positive policy shift, and then perhaps, when we start letting more refugees into Australia and the sky doesn’t collapse, then perhaps the opinion of the general public may shift.
Yes Constance, The Rock and a very Hard Place. Another ‘crime’ against humanity, democracy and decency with Australians indoctrinated to entrenched bigoted ‘racism normal, perfectly OK’ by the LNP/MSM. How far back has the tide to equality been pushed?
Constance, please don’t use the figures for Greece, Spain and Italy. 🙂 The uglies will appear from the woodwork to prove their case, ‘see what happened to those economies it’s all those refugee’s fault, made their economies tank and Australia’s in the same situation’ LNP/MSM song book.