- I was told to lie: Manus Island staffer
- PM calls for Conroy to apologise for 'political cover up' remarks
- Comment: what if boat people were white?
Over on The King’s Tribune, Paula Matthewson has argued that the two billion dollars spent on border protection would be better spent on building Australian infrastructure. It’s a claim that’s often made: ‘Look at the money that we spend on being cruel! Wouldn’t that money be better spent giving asylum seekers medical degrees? Or teaching them to code? Or letting them come to Australia where they could work in the community until their status is determined?’
It’s been reported that $2 billion will be spent on offshore processing over the next four years. Millions more have been allocated to the Australian Crime Commission, ASIO, ASIS and the AFP to spy on and disrupt people smugglers; to Defence and Customs to ‘protect’ our borders; and to Health and Human Services to reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas.
An open border policy would allow much of that revenue to be repurposed and added to the $17 billion already earmarked for infrastructure projects.
It’s a claim that has some intuitive strength. We are appalled by the cruelty-as-deterrence model advocated by our political leaders, so why not just make the system a free for all?
To see why the claim is wrong, we need to start with an understanding of one of the biggest flaws with the Refugees Convention:
As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return it. [Emphasis added]
It’s a mere seven words and it protects countries from having the UN meddle with internal disputes, but it means that humanitarian protection only applies when (and if) a persecuted person is able to escape the borders of the country. The persecuted Hazara isn’t a refugee while in Afghanistan; the moment they are in Pakistan, their status changes. The persecuted Tamil will only become a refugee if they make it past the navy ship Australia gave the Sri Lankan Government.
Inevitably, this has meant clandestine migration. If you’re being persecuted, it’s difficult to get your identity documents together, let alone apply for a visa to another country.
The problem for policy makers is how to design a humanitarian mechanism which detects clandestine migration of people fleeing persecution close to source countries. Historically, the answer has been refugee camps. They’re set up in locations that reduce the need for irregular migration pathways after the refugee escapes their home country.
And thus a new problem emerges: the scale of the humanitarian problem far outstrips the capacity for the global community to provide resettlement solutions. So the asylum seeker can either wait for 17 years in a refugee camp, or they can continue to utilise irregular migration pathways to lodge their claim with Convention signatories directly. The average wait for this approach is about five years.
So why go to a refugee camp? Because you’re so dispossessed that you can’t afford to use a people smuggling network. It’s a system where the poorest and most desperate people are the ones who have to wait more than three times as long for a solution.
Further — and this is the real problem with the policy — it seems weird to provide additional incentives to skip the refugee camps. People in refugee camps don’t get access to Australia’s labour markets. They don’t get Australian healthcare. They don’t get Australian resettlement services. They get nothing because they can’t afford to pay people smugglers.
When we increase incentives for people to bypass the regular migration pathways, we increase the burden on transit countries. Sure, we might have $2b to spend on our infrastructure, but what about Indonesia’s infrastructure that has to deal with a growing caseload of irregular migrants? What about Malaysia’s, or Thailand’s? If we’re going to be a good regional neighbour, we can’t unilaterally decide to incentivise irregular migration in the region.
Australia’s resettlement programme is world-class. In Greece, asylum seekers eat out of rubbish bins. In Australia, resettlement services ensure that refugees have the best chance to integrate into the Australian community. This isn’t just me saying it. It’s also Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees:
“Australia has one of the best refugee resettlement programmes in the world,” Mr Guterres said during a visit to Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre.
“I personally conveyed this message to the Minister for Immigration when I had the pleasure of meeting him in Canberra earlier this week and, visiting communities in Sydney today and Melbourne yesterday; it has been easy to see why Australia has such a good reputation for its settlement programme.”
The only way to maintain this level of support is to have a cap on the number of places in the humanitarian programme. So who should get a place in our programme? Should it be a ‘first come, first served’ process or should people in refugee camps have access?
Don’t get me wrong. The cap is way too low. But increase it by 20,000 places; there are still going to be people still in refugee camps. Increase it by 50,000; there will still be people in refugee camps. So why do the people who pay for a ticket get top priority for places in the humanitarian programme?
Detecting clandestine migration and resolving status as early as possible is the best way to ensure the most needy are the ones who are prioritised, and that means spending $2b on regional cooperation frameworks.
Deterrence should not be part of our asylum seeker policy. Cruelty — either explicit or implicit — should not be part of our asylum seeker policy. But having an ‘open door’ policy which incentivises people to rely heavily upon irregular migration pathways isn’t a durable solution. It might sound good, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Mark Fletcher is a Canberra-based blogger and policy wonk who writes about conservatism, atheism, and popular culture. He blogs at OnlyTheSangfroid. This article was originally published on AusOpinion.com.
