March 24, 2014

The present system isn’t sustainable, so why not try other ideas that are cheaper and more humane?

 

Illustration: Jim Pavlidis.

Australia’s hardcore asylum-seeker policy is inhumane and unsustainable. But those hoping the Abbott government or Shorten opposition will overturn the policy of offshore processing and settlement any time soon are dreaming.

The public mood and brutal effectiveness of the policy means that the Prime Minister is on a political winner. And the Opposition Leader is not going to repeat the mistakes of Kevin Rudd in 2008 by reinstating onshore processing.

As for the Greens, they have a policy position that is long on righteousness but fails the first practical test – it will not stop the boats and will only add to the 1000 deaths at sea since 2008.

So, what should policy makers do next? I believe there are significant steps that can win bipartisan support that offer a more humane and sustainable policy.

The first is an increase in Australia’s humanitarian refugee intake. With Operation Sovereign Borders having locked the so-called back door into Australia for asylum seekers, it is time for Australia to open the ”front door” and allow the orderly settlement of more refugees.

Having stopped the ”queue jumpers” with the world’s harshest asylum-seeker laws, it is time for a humanitarian gesture to help the unfortunate souls waiting in the queue for resettlement under a United Nations mandate.

Australia has a good record on resettling refugees and a defensible record among developed nations for recognising and giving protection to asylum seekers.

In 2012, Australia gave refugee protection to 8367 asylum seekers and resettled 5937 refugees from other countries. According to the United Nations, this means that, per head of population, Australia ranks second behind Canada for settling refugees and 22nd for giving refugee protection and settling refugees.

The scale of the global problem, together with our strong economy and large and sparsely populated land mass, means that Australia could do more. Given the severity of our asylum-seeker policies, we should do much more.

But instead, the Coalition has cut Australia’s annual humanitarian intake from 20,000 to 13,750. When the policy was announced in 2012, Tony Abbott argued the provision of extra places was sending the ”wrong message” to people smugglers. Well, the message is now out that the people smugglers no longer have a product to sell, and that you cannot get to Australia by getting on a boat. The month-to-month figures, compared with previous years, indicate that the boats have stopped. The end of the monsoon season around April will be the final test.

Against this backdrop, Australia should double its humanitarian intake to at least 27,000. The 2012 Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers led by Angus Houston recommended an intake of 20,000. But, subject to economic circumstances and more effective regional arrangements, they advised this could increase to 27,000.

Even the most hard-nosed Coalition MPs know that Australia’s international reputation is being hammered by current policies – and this reduces our ability to achieve other strategic security and economic objectives.

An increase in the humanitarian intake would send an important signal to the region that the hard line on boat arrivals is accompanied by a willingness to help out with a bigger shared problem. It is a policy change that could find support in the Liberal Party and would find support in the ALP.

The second achievable reform is to establish proper processes and oversight of the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru.

It is possible to argue that offshore processing and settlement is a powerful deterrent to people taking a dangerous trip to Australia, an act that carries an unacceptable mortality rate of about 3 per cent or one in 30. But the mistreatment of asylum seekers once they reach Manus Island or Nauru undermines any moral defence of the policy.

I recently watched a report on a news network out of the US about the asylum-seeker situation in Australia. The story showed grainy footage from Manus Island of asylum seekers on their backs, stripped down, bleeding and moaning in agony. They then cut to an interview of Tony Abbott on Australian breakfast television saying ”these people have come here illegally on boats … and we do not apologise for the fact that these are not five-star or even three-star hotels”. Even the fast-talking American news anchor was lost for words.

The inquiries now being conducted into the operations of Manus Island must be the catalyst for operational improvements and sensible transparency and reporting arrangements. There is no reason why this should not receive bipartisan support – after all, both sides claim offshore settlement is the crucial deterrent to boats, not the conditions of the camps.

The third step is the determined pursuit of a ”regional solution”. This is the only realistic path to the closure of the facilities on Manus Island and Nauru and a durable asylum-seeker policy. Recent strained relations with Indonesia will make this more difficult.

But with the boats stopped, an Australian Government that is prepared to invest heavily in infrastructure, ships and other financial sweeteners can still deliver a regional solution.

The would involve processing facilities in Indonesia, and other countries in south-east Asia, with the joint resolving of the status of asylum seekers within the borders of countries to the agreement. If Australia is prepared to accept more refugees it is also entitled to ask Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and others to introduce stricter immigration policies, to screen ”onward bound” travellers.

Again, this is something that should receive bipartisan support. It is in Australia’s national interest to have asylum seekers safely housed closer to their country of origin.

It would also be a prudent budget move, given the current policy is costing Australia $3 billion a year.

Nicholas Reece, a public policy fellow at Melbourne University, was a senior policy adviser to prime minister Julia Gillard.