34
TOPICS
4622
VOTES
1166
COMMENTS
621
PARTICIPANTS
National Forum
In the National forum we cover a range of public issues of importance to all Australians. Is multiculturalism failing? Is our democracy damaged by corporate donations? Should the Melbourne Cup be a national holiday?
The Expert Panel's approach to asylum seekers should be adopted.
In Brief
Image: lewishamdreamer
On 14th August the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers presented its report, making 22 recommendations for how Australia should respond to the challenge of asylum seekers, particularly those arriving by boat.
The most controversial component of the approach is that all asylum seekers arriving by boat should be processed offshore, initially at Nauru and PNG's Manus Island. The approach is therefore a variant on the Howard Government's "Pacific Solution." It is also broadly in line with the Coalition's policies.
The panel stressed that their recommendations form an integrated package, and warned that "cherry picking" - accepting some parts and rejecting others - may result another failed approach to the complex problem of asylum seekers.
The Labor Government immediately indicated that it accepted ("in principle") all the recommendations, and would introduce legislation immediately to put the Panel's approach into effect.
However the approach has been condemned by refugee groups, human rights advocates, and the Greens.
Arguments For
The panel's approach offers a way to break the political deadlock.
The recommendations were produced by independent experts relying on expert submissions from a wide range of individuals and organisations. In moving to accept them all, Julia Gillard has shown a willingness to compromise in order to produce a stable, pragmatic national response. No other approach currently provided has anything like the same chance of allowing Australia to "move forward" on asylum seekers.
The approach will stop asylum seekers attempting to arrive by boat.
The report recommends a mix of "incentives and disincentives" intended to discourage asylum seekers from making the risky journey in a boat. In particular it introduces a "no advantage" principle such that a person arriving by boat will not receive any kind of preferential treatment as compared with those applying in other countries. Asylum seekers will then see that it is pointless to pay the costs and take the risks of a sea journey.
The approach is humane and fair.
The report recommends an increase in Australia's refugee intake to 20,000 and eventually to 27,000. It also urges a range of measures for protection of asylum seekers. Importantly, it is fair in this sense: all refugees hoping to reach Australia are treated equally in terms of their prospects for timely processing and acceptance; those seeking to arrive by boat don't secure an advantage for themselves.
Arguments Against
The approach amounts to indefinite mandatory detention for asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers arriving by boat will be shipped to a remote offshore location where they will be for all practical purposes in detention for an indefinite period while they await processing in the same time frame as others elsewhere. The panel has conceded that it does not know how long processing will take under these conditions. This is cruel and unjust.
The approach violates Australia's international human rights obligations.
As a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, Australia is obliged to offer protection to vulnerable people asking for our help. Providing "disincentives" (deterrents) to even approach Australia, and putting them into what is effectively an indefinite period of detention in third world countries which are not signatories to the Convention, falls far short of meeting that obligation.
The centrepiece of the approach - the regional processing system - may never be delivered.
The regional framework will be difficult and costly to create and will take many years. If the offshore processing in Nauru and Manus Island does stop the boats, then the political imperative to create the framework will be lost. This is especially true if an Abbott/Coalition government comes to power.
See also:
- Open Letter to the Prime Minister by a coalition of human rights and refugee advocate groups and individuals. "We are united in our opposition to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill currently before Parliament..."
- A change of heart. Panel member Paris Aristotle explains why he now supports a "Pacific Solution" approach.
- Greg Sheridan - PM's fig leaf of regional work on refugees has zero chance.
- Houston panel offers a circuit breaker in regional asylum crisis
- Houston panel ignores the evidence on asylum seekers
- Refugee Council of Australia fact sheets
Vote
Views (52)
Support YourView
YourView's mission is to enhance democracy in Australia by identifying the collective wisdom on major public issues.
It relies entirely on volunteer efforts and donated funds, and is independent of any government, corporate or political organisation.
Please consider helping YourView to build momentum.
FOR (27)
The more I read about this issue the more overwhelmed I have become by its complexity. Here are some examples of some arguments and counterarguments I have encountered so far:
We want to deter arrivals by boat through people smugglers because they result in significant casualties. The recent increase in boat arrivals coinciding with Labor's allegedly weaker deterrents suggests that the Howard era policy was working in reducing dangerous boat arrivals, but it has also plausibly been argued that so called 'push' effects (the conditions in the refugees' countries of origin) are more significant than 'pull' effects (the relative desirability of arriving at Australia by boat) in explaining asylum seekers' behaviour. A rebuttal to this argument is that once asylum seekers have escaped their country of origin, they will travel to the country that offers the best conditions they can find and Australia could still make itself a less desirable destination than others, even if it could never offer worse conditions than those asylum seekers are fleeing from.
It is argued that giving preferential treatment to those with the means to hire people smugglers is unfair to those on waiting lists in refugee camps in Africa and elsewhere. On the other hand, if the boat people will arrive no matter what we do then we are faced with the dilemma of spending resources to hold them in detainment indefinitely in order to avoid letting them jump the queue when both they and the Australian taxpayer would be better off if we allowed them to become productive citizens.
Stopping the boats from coming might prevent some visible casualties, but the alternatives for many of those deterred may be worse in terms of suffering and risk of death. Yet we cannot possibly alleviate the suffering of all those in such inhumane circumstances and giving people smugglers the power to select for us the recipients of our compassion is not only unfair to all those who are pursuing asylum through official avenues, but would be handing over a dangerous amount of control over immigration to criminals.
I honestly have no idea what the best strategy to deal with asylum seekers is. The question we are trying to answer, however, is not whether the Expert Panel's proposal is the best approach, but whether it should be adopted. It should be emphasized that our choice is not between this proposal and the best possible approach, but between the panel's approach and continued deadlock, or something made in the sausage factory of politics. My appraisal of the Expert Panel is that its three members posess competence and integrity and that they have put a great deal of thought into their proposal. I believe adopting their proposal would be a positive step forward compared to the alternatives.
Despite its inevitable oversimplified portrayal in the media, and the wilful misinterpretation of people like Graham Thom, http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4195746.html , this is actually a very nuanced and balanced approach to the problem. Having read through chapter 3 of the recomendations thouroughly, I can say that there are many good points to these recomendations, and the bad points are intended as temporary measures and are not as bad as they may seem. Firstly, to deal with the latter of the objections above; the recomendations clearly state (para 3.41) that the panel believes its recomendations to be consistent with Australia's international obligations. Importantly, the panel's recomendations regarding an increase to the humanitarian intake, focussing on asylum seeker source countries, and impleneting various measures to see that people arriving "irregularly" obtain no advantage over those who apply for asylum through official channels, should remove any incentive to attempt risky maritime crossings. Whilst simultaneously providing refuge to more people desperately in need of our help. Although I am concerned about the principle of ofshore processing, since the whole point of ofshore processing is to remove refugees from the legal protection of Australia's legal system, the provisions for protecting the rights of ofshore detainees (detailed in para 3.46) seem reasonable. Likewise, the panel recognises that the Malaysia deal in its current form provides insufficient protection for refugees, and so it recommends strengthening these and arranging appropriate oversight of asylum seeker treatment before such a deal should be considered.
I also read that piece by Graham Thom and I don't think he even mentioned the fact that Australia will nearly double its refugee intake. Surely this is the one big thing that anyone on the humanitarian side of the argument should be excited about. It's a big incentive for refugees to apply for asylum through the channels in the camps in South East Asia. On one thing I will dissent with you, @bkeniry, I don't think that getting out of legal obligations is the reason for off-shore processing. A reason, sure, but not the whole. The big thing is, in the words of the report, to create "no advantage" for those who attempt to come by boat over those who bide their time in a UNHCR supervised camp.
There are two issues with asylum seekers arriving by boat. The first and most important of these is to discourage them from making the journey in the first instance because it is demonstrably life threatening. Any solution that facilitates that has some merit. The second issue is how best to "process" asylum seekers once they do arrive. Whether the Expert Panel's approach is the best solution in that regard is another matter. I don't think any political party has a great postion on this and that includes the apparently morally principled position of the Greens. So, the Expert Panel's approach is as good as it gets at the moment.
We need to find ways to make refugee immigration safe. I think we can do that by increasing the intake at the staging camps. We also need to spread the facts of drownings - so people know just how dangerous it is.
Politics, as an old saying has it, is the art of the possible. This issue has been a vexed one for quite some time and had become a matter of political gridlock. It is a striking indication of how our democratic institutions can prove unable to resolve important issues that the Greens, the ALP and the Coalition were unable or unwilling to reach a tripartisan consensus on moral, legal and economic grounds about how to set a boundary around arrivals of people by sea. The appointment of an independent panel was a recourse available to the Government to try to break the deadlock, assuming that doing so is a public good, the taking of this recourse was, I think, a responsible thing to do. The panel surely consisted of three individuals of integrity and repute, so there judgement in the matter surely deserves being given the benefit of the doubt. And there is no indication - unless I'm missing something - that this solution could never be modified. Indeed, Angus Houston has made clear that certain things will need to be addressed and changes made: the solution is provisional and transitional, not dogmatic or inflexible.
It should also be borne in mind that the panel was given a very short space of time to consult, reflect and report. It could be that they did not get it completely right. It could be, also, that a very different onshore regime might be manageable, but if so the case for it needs to be made temperately, transparently and persuasively, rather than militantly and self-righteously. Plainly, there is a deep-seated resistance to the idea of larger or unhindered flows of refugees arriving by sea. That sentiment cannot be disregarded even if it sits uneasily with the protocols of the UN convention on refugees. I think that the panel's work should now be used to simmer down political partisanship and serve as a basis for a better structured and more systematic debate on the overall character of refugee policy.
The only reason the 'expert panel' was appointed was because our politicians insisted on taking immovable stances and were thus unable to reach a consensus. The 'solution' offered is nowhere near perfect, but the impasse had to be broken. This result is an indictment on the inability of our parliamentarians to govern in the interests of our country rather than to play politics with fixed positions. Governance is about compromise and if our politicians are unable to discuss, compromise and agree then they should not be in parliament. Now that the use of Nauru and Manus are indicated, the parliament should rapidly legislate a large-scale infrastructure project, in order that the protection-seekers, once cleared for admission to Australia, may be immediately transferred to the project - to be housed, given work and wages, education and healthcare for a specified time before being permitted to move to other parts of the country. Such a project would be one which transfers water from north of the Tropic of Capricorn to the upper reaches of the Murray River with the water being used to generate huge amounts of continuous hydro electricity along the way. Others could involve the parlous state of public transport, the need for more school buildings and a series of hospitals to replace those wrecked by floods and cyclones (or the needed ones which have never been built!)
I think you are absolutely correct in that these people need to be integrated into a productive part of society as soon as possible after being transferred. I think this is where the government has failed the most over the years resulting in new communities on benefits.
There will never be a perfect solution to the Assylum seeker situation that will continue to please everyone. There are humane, financial and political aspects to this subject and unfortunately everyone has a different viewpoint on what should happen. The panel's approach offers changes to current policy that will have an affect. It will have an affect because it is different to what has happened. Will this result in a better situation once implemented?...Only time will tell. But if it is not adopted then we will continue to have what we have now and that certainly is not in the best interest of all involved. I believe the outcomes should be regularly checked against the goals and the policies tweaked over time to continually improve the outcomes.
It is possible to implement a solution that is humane, cheap and effective. However in the current political climate this solution would not be acceptable to much of the electorate. The problem is the current political tone in the 'debate' characterised by dog-whistling (on both sides), hyperbole, barely disguised appeals to racism and downright lies.
If the politicians were able to stop the political point scoring with human lives and work towards communicating that asylum seekers are not a threat and are a minor issue in terms of overall immigration. Then work getting the issue off the front page of the daily telegraph and a current affair (which can go back to their staples of neighbours at war, old people getting ripped off and dole bludgers). With the political issue neutered we might be able to implement a cheap, effective solution that minimises the flow of boat arrivals (by creating or removing barriers to other safer means of travel), treats those that do arrive in a humane manner and ensure that those asylum seekers found to be refugees (as well as a larger off-shore humanitarian intake) are resettled in a manner that enables them to integrate into Australian society.
I agree with almost everything you say here except the adjective 'cheap'. Any 'solution' which is both effective and humane is not going to be cheap. The only cheap solution would be to abandon detention of asylume seekers (except in circumstances where there is good reason to do so), and to abandon efforts to provide safe routes of passage. The first of these would certainly be humane, but the second would not. I think however that, even if a humane and effective approach would be quite costly, as an affluent, and supposedly enlightened, nation, we ought to be happy to bear such costs if the alternative is the avoidable sufferring and deaths of countless people.
The expert panel state's clearly that the approach needs to adopted wholesale, not piecemeal. So I am not supporting the Australian Government's implementation. There are at least two significant omissions. The first is the question of developing sufficient capacity to humanely implement the no-advantage policy. Nauru and Manus Island alone don't seem capable of doing this. The other is the failure to address the significant push factors. However both of these are additions to or clarification of the report. So I tentatively support it.
I think you're right. The whole package will bring a much better net result for refugees. First because there will be fewer of them coming by boat - 900 of whom have drowned in the last five years. Second because there will be nearly three times as many of them being made welcome. But there's one condition we need to add to the New Pacific Solution. It can't be like the Old one where nobody had legal recourse to justice, no once could check on their visa's progress, and no one seemed to have access to any kind of pastoral or clinical care. It's no kind of solution if people are driven to despair and suicide.
I agree, government should adopt all recommendations not just the once which are favourable to the ruling government. Government was quick in introducing favourable recommendations when "Henry Tax Review" presented, till date many more recommendations were neglected hence we have not seen positive results.
Oddly enough, I know a couple from Shiraz in Iran, who've come to Australia via Christmas Island. They survived a shipwreck in June of 2011. I'm so glad they made it. Fine people. Super warm. Keen to work. Really glad they're here. But I don't want to see more families like them attempt to do it on rickety boats.
So the most important thing is that Australia accepts more refugees at the places where they are. Closer to the camps in Malaysia in particular. Malaysia was part of the Houston report, and that needs to be taken seriously. But much more importantly, the Report says we need to accept 20,000 refugees this year. Then we need to lift it to 25,000.
If those 25,000 turn out to be anything like our new friends, Australia will be much better off for it.
It's nice to hear from someone who has something nice to say about the people seeking asylum in Australia. Too often people see asylum seekers as nothing more than hordes of foreigners who will either steal our jobs or else bludge off our social security system. At best, many people see them merely as desperate downtrodden people who are to be pitied. When you never actually meet any of these people, it is hard to imagine that they can be pleasant, hard working people just like us.
I have reservations about this, and certainly respect the opinions of those who oppose it, but my view is that it is an improvement on the current situation, and provided all recommendations are adopted, I am hopeful that it might be a step towards a better approach to a difficult problem.
Hopefully this will break the gridlock and only be the first step towards a better solution as the Australian spirit of a 'fair go' reemerges from the polarization of politics.
Creating a market for putting desperate people in leaky boats because they know you will end up in Australia is not good public policy. This issue should be above politics and we need to listen to the experts.
Sometimes a debate does not result in something which pleases anyone. Topics like abortion, private education and many others simply do not have either an easy or even a difficult solution. When this happens, as a person and as a nation too, there are three choices only for moving forward. I believe these are gut feeling, morality of the issue, and sometimes, when both sides have a valid point, taking the path of the lesser evil.
No person who believes in the rights of all humanity will be comfortable with the experts' solution, but again few people who take the time to examine this complex issue will be able to accept the reality of onshore processing. So opposing the solution might make people feel good, Christian and caring. But the reality is that the path to hell is paved with good intentions and this solution is almost certain to fail, given our geographical position and relative prosperity.
I'm intrigued James. Does "the rights of all humanity" mean that if you are human, you have a right to Australian residence?
P.S. I don't know why the topic of private education doesn't have an easy solution.
OK, Ed, you've got me with the second point. I guess it does have an easy solution. Cut off all public funding to private education which, after all, restricts the children of those who cannot pay the increasingly expensive fees. But of course without private schools, the burden of educating all kids falls upon the State.
But I guess you knew this. I really only included the topic because it seems to generate the most heat when I hear it discussed with neither side achieving the moral high ground in my view.
As for your first point, I don't actually recall suggesting that every human had a natural right to live in Australia. As a person who came to this country from England, I have never stopped thanking my good fortune and this country's generosity in allowing me to live here.
I think the point I was making is that to me it seems inhumane to ignore the claims of people who flee here for fear of their lives. Having lived for a short time once in Afghanistan, I can easily empathise with those refugees who are willing to risk their lives. I am not saying "let everyone come in" because I have an idea that this country would struggle to accommodate one or two billion less fortunate souls.
But Ed, let us at least investigate the claims of these people when they turn to us for help. And, just for one moment, try to imagine how you would feel about this issue if you came from one of these strife-torn territories. Different, I bet.
Real truth lies in seeing things from everyone's perspective and not through the narrow prisms of your own outcomes.
Enjoy this sunny, prosperous, safe and secure Australian day
JamesL
I actually voted no but it did not register then I accidentally voted yes when I was pressing buttons so let me put forward some reasons why it should be supported - even though morally I am against it. At present, the deadlock is unworkable - both politically and from the perspective of lives being lost. If this solution saves just one life (to use the oft expressed view) from being lost at sea then it will be worth it. Is the alternative palatable? No, not at all but if you were to ask those who have perished at sea, is it better to be alive and have a second chance than be dead with no chance, I am sure they would probably answer in the affirmative. As someone who is against any form of holding genuine refugees, I would use this as the first step to getting a better quality of debate on the issue. There are too many of us in Australia either through being uninformed or unaware who do not see the moral (and yes economic) benefits of supporting these people. I can't imagine too many Australians who oppose refugees have ever given any thought to what it must be like to say to your family and partner looking them in the eyes "We will go on a trip that will be dangerous and potentially fatal - but that is a better alternative than staying here." I look at my two young boys and my lovely wife and I know it would be the most difficult decision I could ever hope to have to make. So let's make this the start of a better debate - YOUR VIEW can be the forum to getting a greater awareness of these issues out amongst all of us.
This is clearly part one of a program of change which involves the region and a much fairer and transparent system - it is neither here nor there that Nauru and Manus Island are mentioned. According to Paris Aristotle, that aspect is the least important and does NOT indicate a return to the Pacific Solution. Rather look at the increased support for the UNHCR and for refugees themselves. While issues covering treatment of refugees are sorted out with Malaysia, Nauru etc will play a part, but these will, I believe, be temporary. Possibly their greatest role is to make the Opposition climb down and let us all get on with it. In the meantime, it is true that people drown frequently and we can't, as a civilised country, just watch and see who manages to swim to shore.
This has been delayed too long due to the intransigence of the opposition to any of the approaches put forward by the government. Also, it is a good solution - perhaps not perfect but it can be tuned over time.
The reality of persecution and murder of religious and ethnic minorities around the globe is a humanitarian tragedy. The displacement and dislocation of families from their kinship and community networks in search of refuge in another country is a travesty of their rights and dignity. The deaths of men, women and children fleeing to safety is an unimaginable sorrow. Many more refugees perish without trace than those we hear about attempting the crossing between Indonesia and Australia. The deserts of North Africa are filled with the bleached bones of those that have perished attempting to make their way to the uncertainty of European sanctuary.While there may be permanent resolution for some individuals through temporary sanctuary, permanent resettlement in an alternative country or resolution of regional conflicts that enable a safe return home, the history and size of the problem are endemic and are unlikely to ever be completely resolved through the course of human history.
So what contribution should Australia make to the amelioration of suffering, the protection of life and the provision of succour to the dispossed? The very best possible under the circumstances without the burden of carrying the cross for all of humanity.
The reality of our present political circumstances had produced an impasse a consequence of which hundreds of people were perishing at sea. The unequivocal expectations of the majority of Australians was that a solution be promulgated by the parliament and any necessary action taken to immediately stop people drowning at sea while attempting to get to Australia. Of secondary importance was were these people were taken: Manus, Nahru or Malaysia or back to Indonesia. Each of which is still alive as an option over the medium term depending on which party wins governement next year. The other components of the package including the increase in the refugee intake and beefed up support components barely raised a public eyelid. However, the option that would have been completely rejected by the majority of the Australian public was the open door policy of the Greens which as it stands continues to set back implementation of more humane approaches than those arrived at by the panel. Nonetheless, the panel has delivered the best possible set of arrangements under the circumstances to obviate the need to place life at jeopardy to secure immediate safety and support and the prospect of permanent relocation to Australia or another third country. Paradoxically, there are times when one has to lose in order to win.
Things need to improve. The recommendations will reduce the numbers arriving by boat and go some way towards addressing the shoddy treatment of people processed offshore.
I don't see either of the reasons in the Against list as being valid. It's not mandatory detention because they don't have to try and come here on a boat. If they can apply from elsewhere and have exactly the same chance of approval then they have to accept that choosing to come by boat means they choose to forfeit where their choice on where they live while they wait for the application to be processed. Also the second argument to me is flawed. We are not deterring them from coming to Australia. We are deterring them from coming to Australia via a dangerous method run by criminals that ultimately requires tax payer funded military intervention on our side to ensure their safe arrival. Let's stop wasting time dealing with boats arriving on our shore by removing the incentive completely and focus on speeding up the processing of the applications.
As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, - regardless of how or where they arrive - and whether they arrive with or without a visa. (see http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#b and http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php)
Then they must be kept in "immigration detention": Section 178 of the Migration Act 1958: (1) Subject to subsection (2), after commencement, a designated person must be kept in immigration detention.
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/) Unfortunately, Section 181 is a bit vague, and I don't think apples to people being processed "offshore".
In late 2011, the Australia Government announced that it would move towards a single system of refugee status determination for all asylum seekers arriving in Australia. Under the new policy, all asylum seekers - regardless of how they arrive in Australia - will have access to the statutory assessment process that applies on the mainland and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The single system went into effect from 24 March 2012. (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-exc.php)
A bifurcated model, where asylum seekers are treated differently depending on their mode of arrival, could well be in violation of the International Principles of Non-Discrimination. (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/forced-migration-and-the-law/3963348)
But I agree that we need to speed up the processing of applications. In part, this is a "queuing theory" problem.
I support the Expert panels recommendations because it saves lives and increases Australia's refugee quota. Yes we are violating our international obligations - so is every advanced economy. Setting refugee quotas by definition limits free asylum. I would rather have a discussion of how to increase our intake (which this change makes happen). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/labor-accepts-compromise-on-asylum-seekers/story-fn9hm1gu-1226449593867 The three-man panel included former department of foreign affairs chief Michael L'Estrange, refugee advocate Paris Aristotle and former Defence chief Angus Houston and also proposed the nation increase its humanitarian refugee intake from 13,750 to 20,000 and aim to lift it to 27,000 within five years. Idealism is important to ensure minimum standards are consis
I support current proposed legislation because although it is not perfect it is fair in that people fleeing from troubled homelands will eventually be settled in Australia. I think with the current shrill "debate" and uneven media coverage there is unlikely to be any useful progress as more extreme populist views are fanned. If the heat goes out of the debate a quietly more fair treatment may eventually quietly occur with incremental changes.
It's a cop out to accept this response as the only solution but like most compromises it is an impasse breaker. And It is a clever wedge against the Libs/Nats that have thought for 18 months they are the government despite not having the numbers except in the Senate. If refugees are sent to Nauru and Manus Is then their processing needs to be swift to avoid the hopelessness of detention as seen in the inhumane "Howard solution".
I think many people would agree that there are other possible solutions. It's just that the expert panel was asked to come up with a practicable one in very short order and this is what they have recommended, with good will and, so far as I can see, without pandering to any political party. The fact that the prime minister has moved quickly to accept their recommendations, despite the fact that they are at odds with her party's earlier declaratory policy, looks to me like political good sense.
We must do something. I believe all processing should be on shore but we all need to compromise ..
The problem with the "on-shore processing solution" is that these asylum seekers still must first make the crossing (from Indonesia to Christmas Island, etc) in boats so dilapidated that they make the trip a deadly one if weather conditions turn sour. I don't understand why, if people are genuinely concerned about these asylum seekers, they don't push for processing in Indonesia and thus negate the need for the potentially dangerous journey in the first instance.
This is exactly what the panel HAS reccomended (among other things) They recomend doubling the funding to UNHCR refugee camps in source countries, and working with regional partners like Indonesia and Malaysia to help them be better equipped to process refugees. (they call this "capacity building")
It is time to move away from the moral morass of self interest groups and embrace the recommendations of the Expert Panel. The primary term of reference for the panel was to consider the safety of life at sea and how best to mitigate the irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. That is simply what they have done. The whole premise of the report is to find effective pathways to “shift the balance of risk, predictability and incentive in favour of the use of regular pathways of international protection and migration, and against the need to resort to irregular and dangerous boat voyages to Australia” (Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, 2012: p37) Essentially the report offers a mix of recommendations to dissuade perilous irregular maritime crossing to Australia with the view to expose asylum seekers to see in reality ‘that it is pointless to pay the costs and take the risks of a sea journey” (yourview.org, 2012: online) Furthermore the report is both humane and fair recommending an increase in the number of refugees into Australia in the magnitude of around 7000. (20,000 to 27,000). Whilst the report differentiates between asylum seekers, refugees and displaced people the fact of the matter migration is a human phenomenon. Given our unique geographic charactistic of an island continent the pathways are limited to sea and air arrivals. By developing strategies such as the “no advantage” principle irregular maritime asylum seekers will become disincentived, thereby encouraging use of alternate pathways and eliminating the need to make risky sea voyages. The report also introduces the area of sovereign rights and the overarching international conventions governing (perhaps guiding) refugee/asylum migration. On balance the needs of the nation and her capacity to support refugees needs to be considered as well.
If expert panel recommendations can save lives is acceptable even after the implementation of these recommendations still people arriving.
This is one of the great moral issues for Australia. While the proposal seems seriously morally compromised, I am persuaded by the support of Paris Aristotle (he know more about the issue that I ever will). While this is a major moral issue, in every other sense it it an absolute minnow. I can not believe the focus it receives in national politics. That attention is damning of our moral deficit of our current leadership
We should spend out billions doing all we can to help oppressed people of the world. Encouraging less than 1% of them to each spend $10k and a 1 in 30 chance of death is just stupid. In fact, the Refugee treaty should be changed.
This is an interesting idea and possible important. Are you able to enlarge on which aspects of the convention it might be advisable to reconsider - and how this could be done, given that it could not be done unilaterally by Australia and international agreements are, in general, notoriously difficult to reach and maintain. Might the alternative be for Australia to withdraw from the convention? But if so, on what grounds and with what consequences?
If I am not allowed to cherry-pick then yes, it is still a good plan. The most important aspects are that those sneaking in the back door do not get an advantage over those who formally ask to be allowed in through the front door, and now there is again some disincentive to hire the people smugglers to aid one in challenging the open seas in a rickety boat.
One of the most consistent responses I hear from those who disagree that arrivals by sea should be unduly penalized is that far more iillegal immigrants arrive by air - on visas which they then out stay. Yet there never seems to be a big hue and cry about this. Why? The need to be able to uphold our quotas seem perfectly reasonable, but why the obsession with sea people as distinct from air people? I assume it is that those arriving by sea don't have any kind of visa to begin with and that large numbers of people in refugee camps are seeking visas rather than jumping on boats. But it would be good to get this clear and agreed.
The only queue is the one we have created. The amount of resettlement places globally is so small versus the number of displaced people that the idea of an orderly resettlement process is ludicrous.
And the reason why people from particular countries are coming by boat? It's virtually impossible for people from these countries to get a visa and come by air.
And for the most part, whether people are coming by sea or air it's those who have some resources (even if an entire family sells all it owns to send just one son to seek asylum). People in camps, for the most part, live out their lives there unable to leave.
I concur Alexis. I believe those visa over-stayers should be sent to Nauru with the rest (subject to giving them a chance to fly home). It’s those who apply from overseas though the proper channels who should not lose their place in the line.
Too many lives are being lost because of Government ineptitude and inability to govern in the national interest rather than trying to portray an effective minority government
AGAINST (25)
"Politics, as an old saying has it, is the art of the possible."
It is not the panel's job to make political judgements. Its the panels job to advise on the right solution, one that accommodates our international obligations and what we know about mental health and so on.
Therefore supporting this approach merely because it is politically easy is not acceptable.
Although the recommendations contain some positive elements (namely an increase to our humanitarian intake, a removal of mandatory penalties for boat crews and a research program to inform future policy direction) the report calls them a 'package' that cannot be implemented piecemeal. I will treat it as such.
The centrepiece of the policy is that asylum seekers arriving by boat should have "no advantage" over those in transit countries, such as Indonesia. Currently asylum seekers in these transit countries have no legal standing, no rights and no easy way to apply for refugee status and resettlement in a third country. At the end of the day the principal of "no advantage" means we must shirk our responsibilities as a country that believes in compassion, equality and a fair go for all. This is until such time as there are practical and accessible means for asylum seekers to apply for refugee status and resettlement in transit countries or they can be granted some sort of legal standing in those transit countries (that allows them to work, their children to attend school etc.).
The recommendations do support the establishment of regional frameworks and discuss a number of principals that should underpin such frameworks. However the report does not offer a concrete way forward for such a regional framework or, importantly, set a timeframe for achieving such a framework.
Without a regional approach in-place the interim policy would lead to a 'de-facto' Pacific Solution which was plagued with a poor human rights record, bad mental health outcomes for refugees, and was ultimately ineffective as the majority were eventually resettled in Australia. Even mandatory, indefinite detention may not work, as many may find it preferable to their current situation.
The report also ignores evidence. Past policies that prevented refugees from sponsoring family members encouraged entire family groups tomake dangerous boat journeys. These policies (like TPVs) have led to women and children dying at sea.
Until a real regional framework is in place the only option to reduce dangerous sea journeys is to remove the barriers to come to Australia safely. If people from 'risky' countries could get visas to FLY to Australia (and be treated like other asylum seekers who arrive by air), the problem of boat people would disappear overnight.
I'd encourage folk to read the material that The Conversation has put together on this subject http://theconversation.edu.au/saving-lives-at-sea-the-asylum-seeker-expert-panel-reports-8601
The 'no advantage' principle doesn't mean we "we must shirk our responsibilities as a country that believes in compassion, equality and a fair go for all" since the panels main recomendations are all about increasing the number of people who can apply for asylum nearer to their country of origin, and aslo increasing the ease with which they can do so and extending protection to them as early as possible. As for the report not offering a "concrete way forward", it is true that the report does not go into too many details on this, but it does recommend doubling the funding to those initiatives of this kind already in place, and focussing these intitiative near source countries. I see these proposals, rather than the "no advantage" principle or offshore processing, as the cornerstone of the panels reccomendations. If these proposals are not an essential part of any legislation, or if they are at all watered down, I could not possibly support such legislation. If you read the report carefully (para 3.13 - 3.18) you will see that currently family reunion for irregular arrivals is given particular priority. The report merely recommends that this provision be removed and these application for reunion be dealt with under normal migration processes. Aditionally, the panel recommends an extra 4000 places a year be allocated for humanitarian reunions. So more families will be able to be reunited than before, it's just that arriving 'irregularly' will no longer offer any advantage in this.
Your argument seems to be a personal partisan plea based upon your own politics rather than a solution that is in the best interests of Australia, or, more specifically, what Australians want. I think most Australians concept of “our responsibilities as a country that believes in compassion, equality and a fair go for all.” would be in respect of other Australians only. If you did a poll to ask them if they also thought that for everyone in the world, including the literally billions of people either living oppressed and/or frugally in a state where malnutrition is an option, it does not take a genius to realise that that is a totally unrealistic concept. Not to mention the morality of it: just why should we bear an obligation to peoples living on the other side of the world whose problems we have not caused, who we have no connection or history with? There is an unpalatable aspect of human nature expressed in the cliché “out of sight, out of mind”. Australia seems to be experiencing the corollary of that with regards to boat people. We, obviously, have no obligation to care for all the citizens of other countries being oppressed by their rulers, even if in practice we could care for them all, but if by chance some of those oppressed (the wealthy ones) were brought in sight, such as on the 6 o’clock news after they had scuttled their boat offshore, then for some unknown reason we must do something.
Why on Earth should our moral obligations be affected by how far away someone is, or whether they belong to the same geo-political or social group as us? If you saw a child drowning, would the fact that it is not your child mean you have no moral obligation to do something about it? When people are sufferring or being persecuted, EVERYONE has a moral obligation to try to help them if they can, it's just that so few people can be bothered, or to see past their own narrow interests.
At a swimming life-saving class when I was very young, the first thing I was told was only go to someone’s aid if you weren’t putting your own life at risk. Ergo we can’t save the hundreds of millions throughout the world who are suffering, without reducing Australia to third world status in the process. (If you think that is not a problem then don’t bother reading further) So what fundamental principle do we embrace? We help refugees up to the point of err… let’s make it …50,000 but then after that the rest can go drown? But this is ridiculous. A fundamental principle can’t contain subjective ‘de jour’ values.
Which means we must re-evaluate our core principles. Just why should we be obligated anyway? Doesn’t obligation arise from an action. Conceiving a child then being obligated to look after it; borrowing money then being obligated to repay; negligently causing damage then being obligated to fix the harm. What have we done so as to be obligated to alleviate other nations and peoples’ problems? We may happen to arbitrarily decide to be generous to those aliens less fortunate, but this is strictly at our whim, not our duty.
So Australian's
The point is that Australia can't be responsible for the treatment of the billions less fortunate than us. However we ARE responsible for how we treat those who show up on our doorstep. And they should be treated in a manner which is fair, humane and inexpensive.
I agree that the asylum seeker issue is an issue precisely because it is highly visible, exactly why no one makes a big deal about those that arrive by air - which is why making it easier for boat people to fly would also be a political solution.
At the end of the day, even with a very liberal policy the numbers of asylum seekers trying to reach Australia are still likely to be very small (in comparison to other countries globally), though perhaps larger than they are today. The evidence shows that push factors are most important and that it is only those refugees that have resources that ever make it to a country like Australia.
Firstly, thanks for the link to The Conversation article.
Secondly, in response to bkeniry: a likely unintended consequence of removing reunion provisions from irregular arrivals is that whole families will be put on boats, instead of just one. Note that these people are desperate, and have reached a point where staying in the transit country is untenable.
Thirdly, in response to edward_carson: As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa. (see http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#b and http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php)
To me, the problem with the "on-shore processing solution" is that these asylum seekers still must first make the crossing (from Indonesia to Christmas Island, etc) in boats so dilapidated that they make the trip a deadly one if weather conditions turn sour. This is where your solution to fly asylum seekers into the country is brilliant as it genuinely deals with this aspect of the issue. However, imagine the response of the shock-jocks to this who already rail (frothing and spitting) at the imaginary benefits that asylum seekers already receive.
The Conversation (http://scepticwatch.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-conversation.html#8367)
Houston panel ignores the evidence on asylum seekers, 14 August, 2012. Sharon Pickering and Melissa Phillips. (https://theconversation.edu.au/houston-panel-ignores-the-evidence-on-asylum-seekers-8815)
Houston report: hard heads deliver $1 billion asylum seeker plan, 13 August, 2012. Charis Palmer: Editor. (http://theconversation.edu.au/houston-report-hard-heads-deliver-1-billion-asylum-seeker-plan-8804)
There’s no evidence that asylum seeker deterrence policy works, 24 July, 2012. Sharon Pickering: Professor of Criminology, Monash University; Editor, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. (https://theconversation.edu.au/theres-no-evidence-that-asylum-seeker-deterrence-policy-works-8367)
Likely Costs Of The Panel’s Recommendations (http://scepticwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/live-long-and-prosper-human-rights.html#cost)
Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, Australian Government, August, 2012. Angus Houston, Paris Aristotle and Michael L'estrange. (http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report)
I completely agree about giving newcomers a good welcome - however they arrive. But anyone with a pulse will feel appalled to see more people arriving in these kamikaze boats.
This one couple I know narrowly missed getting on a boat last year - they just had a bad feeling about it. (Actually, she said that God told them not to get on it.) It went down with 200 souls.
Harrowing stuff.
We need a situation where my Iranian friend would sooner bide some time in a UNHCR-approved camp in Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia. I think that doubling the intake from such camps is the way to achieve that. (In contrast to what's happening at the moment - I think that there were a total of 6 (six) visas given by Australia to such camps in Indonesia in the last year.
This perpetuates the Howard Government policy of horrific cruelty to one group of vulnerable people, in order to deter others. This demonstrates a shameful lack of decency and respect for fellow human beings. Depite its horrors, it will not achieve its objectives. Asylum seekers will see it as potentially no worse than their present circumstances, and offering a greater probability of eventual resettlement in Australia - thus they will continue to risk their lives attempting the journey to Australia. There are presently 80,000 asylum seekers in Malaysie, more in Indonesia,Sri Lanka and other transit countries - why should any one of them believe they will be included in even an expanded Australian refugee intake? Further, what happens when Nauru and Manus Island centres fill up? Will we think of even more cruel deterents? Will we embark on the unlikely task of building offshore facilities to accomodate all those in the pipeline? This is a world-wide problem that can only be tackled at source, and by regional solutions where all transit and destination countries cooperate to achieve a decent outcome for all asylum seekers. Until this is in place, Australia should make asylum seekers welcome, and treat them with common decency until their claim for asylum is determined. There are comparitively few in comparison to elsewhere, and we are a lucky country.
I genuinely admire those of you on this side of the debate that are appalled at the inhumanity of the Expert Panel’s recommendations and the government’s and opposition’s support of them. Too many people around me are too focussed on themselves to care about others as much as you do. But at the same time, let me ask you some questions. Have you ever passed a homeless person on your way to work (or wherever)? Did you stop and offer them a room at your house for the night? OK, that’s problematic so I’ll understand if you didn’t but did you give them the money so that might find somewhere to stay for the night? OK, you may not have the money for that but did you organise a whip-round at work to raise the money between your colleagues? Still no? All right, did you research the charitable organisations that operate in the immediate area and assist the homeless person in reaching out for assistance? No? Did you do anything? If not, where was your humanity? It’s easy to demand the highest standards of humanity from our government and our Institutions but isn’t a double-standard to do so but not practice them yourself? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising you for not helping homeless people (if that’s the case). And, I’m not criticising you for expecting high standards of humanity from our elected representatives. But surely you must concede that thinks are never so black and white?
Whatever its other merits, the Expert Panel's approach is effectively advocating that Australia violate its international human rights obligations by shipping any boat arrivals to detention in a third world country for an indefinite period.
The most frustrating thing about the asylum seeker issue is that it's an issue at all.
Australia has a relatively insignificant problem with asylum seekers yet we jump up and down and demand we protect our borders when a few boats arrive. It's insignificant compared to forced migration throughout Africa, the middle east and even southern Europe. It's also insignificant compared with the number of actual "illegal" immigrants who arrive by plane to Australia.
It should be a non-issue but oh how we love to be whipped into a frenzy to stop the boats!
I've always been opposed to off-shore processing. It's essentially putting the most vulnerable people on earth (including kids) into makeshift third-world camps for indefinite periods of time. This from one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
Tough? Nup. That's pathetic.
So boat arrivals don't bother me at all. What does bother me - and has challenged my traditional view - is the boats that don't arrive.
It’s hard to change long-established views and I was close on this one. I essentially weighed up two evils – people drowning on boats versus people slowing dying and losing their minds in camps.
I don’t believe that a move to off-shore processing will be enough of a deterrent to asylum-seekers. My understanding is that the push-factors make the difference – fleeing from war and poverty etc. It’s not about the “pull” factors (or lack thereof) in Australia.
So I don’t think this policy change will affect the first evil – drownings. If it changes I’ll be revisiting my views again, however we’re now left with a policy that inflicts terrible harm and cost on people, and inevitably our own community, as 95% of asylum claims are generally found to be genuine and they end up living here.
I’m aware that the expert panel found that it would stop or slow the boards but of course it was going to. No disrespect to Angus Houston, Michael L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle but the expert panel was set up to create an out-clause for the government.
Let’s hope it stops the boats that don’t make it.
And let’s hope we haven’t just given a few thousand people a nice big shot of prolonged mental illness that comes with indefinite detention.
I think the making of these recommendations is a sad day for this country. They will, I suspect, do little to 'stop the boats', but will act as a sop to the conscience of the nation, and prevent a real fix from being made. While some aspects are good (e.g. the increased intake and the attempt to provide no advantage to any particular group of asylum seeker), the fact that we will be imprisoning innocents up offshore for indefinite periods is repugnant – and I don’t think it will work to reduce boat arrivals by any significant amount. Further, the amount of those arrivals is tiny - approximately 6800 people in 2010. What’s the big deal? We are hardly in danger of being inundated! Of those people, the vast majority (70-97% depending on the year of stats used) are found to be legitimate refugees. So – we are taking legitimate refugees and imprisoning them, indefinitely. Understand this – that is what this is. We are taking people who are fleeing horror, and then locking them up for an indeterminate period.
We are doing this because... Well, I don’t know. They aren’t flooding us, they don’t take up much resources (Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents—they do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment), and I reckon that most become productive hard-working citizens in the end (this I do not have stats on, but I do have anecdotal knowledge). In fact my partner is a boat person from the Vietnam era, and she is exactly that – a hard working and honest Australian, as are her entire family. It is horrific to me to think of her suffering as current asylum seekers must suffer, for no reason that I can see - beyond the scoring of political points, or perhaps because of xenophobia! Her family gave up everything they had and risked their lives in a leaky boat to flee persecution in Vietnam, with no fixed destination in mind (Australia agreed to take them in, but they did not seek to come here – they just wanted to go somewhere safe). They did this because they were in great danger back in Vietnam! Not so they could sponge welfare or lounge about on an Aussie beach!
My understanding is that push factors (i.e. the cause of people fleeing their country in the first place) far outweigh pull factors (i.e. the thing that draws them to seek a new home in places like Australia). I feel that ideas like offshore processing in Nauru etc only address the perceived pull factor of Australia as an attractive place to migrate to. But these people aren't migrating - they are fleeing. And while I loathe our imprisonment of these people, crazily enough the imprisonment we inflict is likely a better alternative than what they face at home! So they will still come! (And no, the fact they flee worse suffering is not an excuse for imprisoning them – why should we inflict any suffering on legitimate refugees?) I’d say another feature of offshore processing is that it removes these people from the eye and mind of the Australian public. It lets us sleep at night, almost oblivious to suffering.
Well, I’d rather not sleep while others live a waking nightmare! What should we have done that we aren’t? Well I think we need to work hard to get our queues moving (they aren’t), and we need to make sure asylum seekers know that avenue works, and then I think they will use it. Perhaps we could also try to focus on the sources of the refugees – we could try to place Australian staff in Pakistan (for example) to try and assist Afghan refugees to come to Australia via our newly moving queues, rather than having them jump on leaky boats. That’s one suggestion anyway.
Or... We can just admit we don’t care. We revoke our signatures to the treaties we have signed, and tell asylum seekers to go elsewhere, because they will find no shelter here. Those that still come - we can turn their boats around, or let them sink. I think that would stop the boats. Ruthless, but effective – and maybe even honest, because isn’t that what we want? To stop the boats? Or do we want to help refugees to be safe and have a better life?
If we want the latter then I think we will do it by addressing the root causes – push factors, frozen queues, and the simple fact that these people are no threat to our wealth, or our way of life. But these new recommendations will be adopted, and that will mean we will not address the root causes anytime soon. This is a sad day for Australia.
"Perhaps we could also try to focus on the sources of the refugees" This is in fact exactly the view of the expert panel. Nauru and Manus Island etc. are intended as temporary measures only. The centrepiece of these recomendations is in fact a focus, and doubling the funding to, regional involvement, providing protection in refugee source countries (or neihbouring countries, and safe routes towards asylum, as well as working with Malaysia and Indonesia to improve their abilities to provide protection to refugees and to conduct effective search and rescue. My fear is that the proposals will be adopted, but then these most important parts of the proposals will be quietly ignored (by both major parties).
There must be clear accountability and a reasonable timeframe for the processing of asylum seekers. We need to respect human rights.
Yes, I think some sort of agreed upon maximum timeframe for processing is important. To be fair, this issue was probably beyond the panel's abilities to reasonably resolve in the short ammount of time they had. Still, it should be a priority for policymakers.
As soon as security check clearance then itself processing should complete either to send bank or to allow into community.
The expert panel is recommending that their recommendations cannot be unpicked. In other words, a deal has been done.
I don't mind if this is the case, however, deterring asylum seekers via off shore processing, is just pushing the boats somewhere else in South East Asia. The deaths don't go away. They just go further.
I do like the idea of increasing the asylum intake as a way of incentivising asylum seekers to stick with the system.
This contravenes our responsibilities under the UN Refugee Convention, and is a political response, not a humanitarian one.
We should all speak out and say "We are doing this to save lives not because it is morally or ethically right. If our politicians and commentators cannot yet see the light as to what is 'right', then we will (obviously) need more time to educate them as to how we expect Australians should treat others in need - not just when there is a cyclone or earthquake but in all forms of need."
It may be that the proposed solution contravenes our obligations under the Refugee Convention, but I find it difficult to believe that Paris Aristotle, in particular, would have been either unaware of this or insensitive to it. And I have no reason to regard Angus Houston or Michael L'Estrange as cynical in such matters. Rather the contrary. So what gives?
While the Malaysia 'solution' clearly did violate the Refugee Convention, it is debatable whether the panels recomendations do. Certainly the panel say themselves that their recomendations are "consistent with Australia's international obligations" (para 3.41)
I agree that we shouldn’t contravene a convention we have signed up to. But in times like this, when we can see the manifestation of that convention, we should perhaps take a second look at that document and consider whether the majority of Australians wish to remain with it.
"We are doing this to save lives not because it is morally or ethically right.” Interesting Imagele. I’d hate to see where that theory could ultimately lead.
The people who get on boat to come to Australia are not the ones we have to worry about, they know when they get to Australia they won't just be able to go out and find a job. These people are not terrorists or dangerous just scared and wiling to risk their lives for the chance at a better one for their children, there is no need to fear them. however those people who come into Australia and overstay their visa's are considerably more likely to be terrorists and dangerous, it is them that we should be worried about and aiming to deter from coming in the first place.
As is we struggling to fill jobs in mining, and other industries government should see this as solution by giving work rights to people who risk their lives not to place them in prison and spending millions of tax payers money.
The focus on deterrence seems to be more political than humanitarian. I doesn't address the factors that cause people to flee their homelands. And it's a hodge podge that effectively uses the individuals who are at greatest risk and in the greatest level of distress as a warning to others. Unconvincing to me.
The main driver of the parliamentary decision is, quite clearly, political. They are responding to the pressure of the electorate. But that doesn't mean there are aren't humanitarian issues being addressed. The fact of boats coming that are unfit to travel, the fact that 200 people drowned in just one voyage, means that deterrence has to be part of a proper, human-hearted solution to a humanitarian crisis.
It seems likely that there would be plenty of asylum seekers in just as much risk and distress who can't even get as far as getting on a boat in Indonesia.
But, that said, it seems fundamentally wrong to punish some people who have committed no crime in order to deter others.
... but little change.
I wouldn't even call this a compromise. It is still an inhumane processed, dressed up with slightly different words. A pig by any other name is still a pig.
This is so much more than an appeasement to the LNP. The recommendations are what I have been hoping for all along; a nuanced and integrated policy framework, rather than piecemeal simplistic 'solutions'. Read the report, there's all sorts of stuff about improving provisions for asylum applications in source countries, helping to improve Indonesia's abilitie in search and rescue. Lots of good stuff you won't hear about from the simple-minded media
If Australia like any other civilised and humane country in the world is going to accept refugees, which make to our shores either aided or independently, the only option should be to process these applicants for refugee status in Australia after these people have landed here either by aeroplane or by boat. It's as simple as that and it's the way it works in Europe and western democracies. Off-shore processing is xenophobic behaviour and I feel ashamed that Australia and the ALP, of which I have been a member for 41 years, have fallen for this. What can I do? Resign from the Labor Party and join the Greens? - After 47 years in this country and having taken out citizenship 40 years ago, return to the Netherlands with my Dutch citizenship still in tact? I am tempted. I just came back from a visit to my origional home country. The questions I am asked: What about refugees arriving on flights disguised as tourists? Will they also be processed off-shore? Indeed what about refugees, who might arrive on small charter flights into remote airports in northern Australia? How can Australia have one policy for refugees arriving by boats and a different one for refugees arriving pn aeroplanes? I surely feel ashamed why my adopted country with huge underutilised refugee reception and settlement capacities on-shore in Tasmania and other states is so hell-bent on processing people in nearby other peoples' host countries.
I find your distress moving and troubling, Henk. Unlike you, I am not a member of any political party; but I admire the integrity that has you write you have written. I wouldn't encourage you to resign, much less emigrate; because you are not alone and there is still a debate to be had about modifying the policy. That said, I would not see any of the panel members as xenophobic and they have recommended a very substantial increase in the refugee quota, as well as more humane methods for handling offshore processing. Is this really so bad a prescription, in all the circumstances?
On-shore processing would be better, yes, but despite what many will be saying, the whole Nauru and Manus island parts of the report are not the cornerstone of the recomendations. The recomendations clearly state that Nauru and Manus island are to be regarded as short term 'circuit breakers' and that strong protections must be built in to these arrangements to protect asylum seekers. I am still in principle opposed to off-shore processing of course, since the whole point of off-shore processing is the remove from asylum seekers the protection of Australian law. The version of off-shore processing advocated by the report doesn't sound too bad though.
Update on my views on off-shore processing. While Nauru might still be o.k, (although reports of some of the thing the Nauruan government are saying about wanting to have more control over conditions for detainees than they did even under the Howard government, and about not allowing detainees gainful employment, are disturbing), it has come to my attention that Manus Island presents one of the greatest risks of Malaria infection in the whole pacific region. Sending asylum seekers to somewhere where they are in serious danger of contracting life threatening diseases (children and pregnant women are particularly at risk and anti-malarial traetments can be dangerous to them) certainly doesn't sound humane, and is probably a breach of our human rights obligations under international treaty. I hope the government will take notice and ignore the panel's recommendation regarding Manus Island at least.
This problem is currently mixed with another which is the political deadlock in Canberra. It would be a good thing to break that deadlock, but putting in place a mediocre piece of legislation which will have far reaching consequences for asylum seekers is too great a price. Politics will move on, leaving in place an offshore processing system which is is demonstrably inhumane.
My view is that asylum seekers should be integrated in the community whilst their claims are assessed, much as happens in the UK and elsewhere.
Off shore processing = out of sight, out of mind = no real solution.
With respect to the "expert panel" who undoubtedly did the best job they could, the report would have benefited from review from other experts prior to release.
The recommendations do not adequately address the fundamental problems: how to reduce the number of refugees fleeing their home nation, and then how to improve the processing of refugees in "transit" nations in our region. Indeed, the recommendation of offshore detention effectively "shirks" our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention, rather than seeking to "share" responsibility with our regional neighbours.
According to the UNHCR's annual report, there are approximately 16 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide, and with the expected food, water and oil shortages in the coming decades, the problem is only going to get worse. Australia's intake is paltry (compare our 25,000 to Germany's 600,000 refugees), and as one of the "first world" countries, we have to find a model that can be easily scaled as demand increases.
What makes you say that the panel members are not experts. They all seem very qualified to me, especially Paris Aristotle. As for your second paragraph, read the report. The recommendations are in fact strongly focussed on helping refugees as close to their country of origin as possible. The panel has recomended that funding for UNHCR programs in these areas be doubled from current levels, and that we also engage with governments in our area to improve their abilities to properly and humanely deal with refugees. Of course it is entirely possible that both major parties will agree to these recomendations in principle, and then they may both quietly forget about most of these most vital recomendations because they are not politically sensitive issues. I suspect that all that Labor wants is for the "problem" to go away, and that all the LNP wants is for the "problem" to remain as visible as possible (until they are in government that is).
My statement was there were "not many" experts. I totally agree that Paris Aristotle is an expert. While the other two are very "qualified" in their own fields ( a Defence Chief and a Foreign Affairs Secretary), they are not very qualified in the matter of refugees. The panel had no expert in Humanitarian Law, no representative of UNHCR, nobody from refugee resettlement services, and what about hearing from a refugee that has been through it all? My point is that with such a small panel, with a shortage of expertise, it is even more important to take a leaf out of the approach of scientific journals, and to get the paper reviewed by more experts.
My statement is that the recommendations do not "adequately" address the fundamental problems. Admittedly, I mainly read the summary of recommendations (shallow indeed!), and found them to be very wishy-washy. But when I took the time to read the detail in the report, I can see that the panel really made an effort, more than I originally thought.
However, I remain sceptical just how workable they really are. Until the report is reviewed by real experts, I do not think it should be adopted. It seems like the legislation is being rushed through, without taking due care to get it as right as possible.
Also, unless I missed it, the report did not mention how to help refugees rebuild their lives upon resettlement. That's a big omission! We need to enhance the infrastructure if we are to increase the numbers. A friend of mine works for the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, who do the best they can with what they've got, but it's never enough, especially with an increased intake. She's taking part in the "Run For Refugess", if anyone's interested: http://run4refugees.gofundraise.com.au/
Sorry for the misinterpreatation. You're right, a three person panel does not perhaps encompass sufficient breadth of expertise. Your final point is also a very good one. It really is crucial that we do the best we can to help refugees become prudcutive and healthy members of our society. Locking them away indefinitely will be extremely detrimental to this. It has been demonstrated to cause severe mental health issues. As for getting things as right as possible, the one proposal I hope is most certainly not dropped is that there be an EVIDENCE BASED appraisal of how well the policies are working after an appropriate ammount of time. Fine tuning is everything when dealing with complicated and ever changing situations
Two main comments: 1. Even from an expense point of view, the Houston panel's recommendations make no sense- we could give all these people welfare for their lives and it'd still cost about as much as it does to process/house them on Nauru 2. This just isn't worth our time: The main reason people don't immigrate to Australia via boat is the risk of death, not Australian immigration policy. We have a much more problematic immigration issue that we should be dealing with- white people overstaying their visas.
On 14th August Angus Houston released findings on asylum seekers prepared by panel of experts on this report prepared to addresses the increasing number of people who are risking their lives on dangerous maritime voyages. This report underpins various aspects surrounding by asylum seekers and their dangerous journey to Australia. In this report the expert panel made 22 recommendations, which send a strong message to the people that who may be considering of coming to Australia via a maritime journey.
As per the Refugees International (RI) website in Afghanistan alone there are nearly 450,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) who are desperately looking for chance to survive, and other countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many other countries where hundreds and thousands of people are suffering and seeking help most of these countries either in conflict or in war. People are only can risk their lives when there is no possibility of living in their countries, and therefore will not stop looking for a place where their survival is assured.
The recommendation made by the expert panel on family reunion is unacceptable and inhumane, as taking away the freedom to reunite with their loved ones is cruel. Increasing the intake from 13500 to 20000 is not a substantial increase in number compared to the global IDPs increase in past few years. Regional engagement with neighboring countries will assist in increasing border protection and help to tackle people smugglers, while the amount of resources that are being invested in regional processing can be diverted to regional engagement rather than regional processing. Recommendations made for processing in regional centers such as Nauru and PNG many not allow for sufficient places for the number of arrivals coming into Australia.
These recommendations are selfish and ruthless. If we attempt to resolve humanitarian issues on the basis of political and financial considerations, then the outcome will be inhumane.
The approach being rolled out as a political compromise by the ALP and Coalition is exactly that, a political compromise. Both parties lack the courage the courage and vision needed to come up with a workable and humane solution to this issue.
Raise intake numbers, process onsure and by all means persue an improvement to the regional situation. Do not introduce this degraded versions of John Howards plan, which has already failed with an unacceptably large cost of human lives.
Refugees are escaping from challenges in their own country. Theses challenges impact upon not only men and women but also children. the vast majority of all refugees risk their lives traveling for weeks at a time just to have a possibility of arriving at a destination which they hope would allow them to escape their past. From personal experience, refugees can survive and thrive amongst the rest of the Australian society. They are significantly contributing to the Australian economy which ultimately benefits the wider community...a better solution needs to be found!
One reason why there is so much difficulty over unauthorized arrivals is that the government confuses the issues of Protection and Immigration.
If the prospect of permanent settlement in Australia was removed then far fewer people would make the journey and the scale and intensity of the problem would be much reduced. There would also be far fewer deaths at sea.
Bring back Temporary Protection Visas.
Quite simply, the last sentence of the against descriptiong mentioning how these moves fail Australia's obligation to the treaty represent why these measures should not be adopted. In a country as wealthy as us, that we cannot provide adequate on-shore processing facilities that can speedily assess, categorise and assist (or deport if necessary) refugees is embarassing. Furthermore, the costs with the adopted measures would be just as high, or potentially exceed (?), an on-shore facility. I can't understand why accepting refugees after they've past the assessment can be restricted by anyone with a conscious? I'm not sure why we have quotas. Is an increase to 27,000, that's the NATIONAL figure, really that large? This amount represents 0.0012% of our overal population, or just over 1 in a thousand people. Is our system of democracy and society so fragile as to perceive this amount of people as a legitimate risk?
Woops, shocking maths! 0.0012% is one in a hundred thousand.
As with many policies of this nature those seeking to apply them to others do not stop to consider how it would be if they themselves were the subject of the policy. It is easy to design a policy for someone else to comply with, but not so easy when viewed as though you are making it for yourself. From my reading of statistics, high numbers of people seeking asylum are actually found to be genuine refugees; and from my understanding of these "out of sight, out of mind" pacific solutions quite a number of these genuine refugees had to spend years in forced incarceration before they could get on with their lives. This should not be the case in a country professing to be a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. I think it would be cheaper to bring them onshore, process them quickly and then deport them if found not to be a valid application.
You're right. It is so easy (for most people at least) to ignore the suffering of others, so long as their own comforts are not threatened. Just think how many people base their voting preferences solely on which party will deliver a better deal for them personally, rather than what might be better for Australians in general, or what might be genuinely just or equitable. Certainly on-shore processing is cheaper. Unfortunately, the whole point of off-shore processing is to remove asylum seekers from the jurisdiction of Australian law, so that asylume seekers have no legal recourse through our justice system. Otherwise, so the fear goes, asylum seekers will be able to stay almost indefinitely while they tie up our legal system with appeal after appeal. Can't have those pesky foreigners using our own justice system to stop us doing whatever we damn well please to them can we?
Making life easy for the two main parties and trashing Australia's reputation is unfortunately going to happen. Political expedience triumphimg over decency. Crocodile tears over drwnings won't cut it
This is a rather simplistic view of what is really a detailed and nuanced set of recomendations. It is certainly much better than ANY policy ANY political party has so far advanced. I just hope we can see as little politicking as possible from Labor and the LNP. The Greens can't support it of course, which is fair enough given that to abandon on-shore processing would be a betrayal of the principles under which they were elected, and hence a betrayal of those who voted for them. Although I don't agree with them on their stance regarding these recomendations, they seem to be the only party who actually cares about having principles and living up to them.
I can't believe we even have to have this discussion
Surely it is at least justified that asylum seekers be HUMANELY detained until security checks have been carried out. Otherwise you would be allowing unrestricted passage to anyone who wants to come here, including criminals and potential terrorists, and just letting them disappear into the community. That being said, most asylum seeker's claims are eventually found to be genuine, so detention should as limited as possible, and I don't see why the processing cannot be done in Australia where the asylum seekers can have the protection of Australian law.