The party has unveiled its own asylum policy which would involve a return to strategies Australia used to cope with people fleeing Vietnam in the 1970s.
The Greens say the current deterrence measures are not working.
Thea Cowie has the details>
There is another way.
That's the message to Australian voters and the major political parties from Greens leader Christine Milne.
"The policy of cruelty and punitive action, offshore detention has led to four times the number of people trying to come to Australia by boat and risking their lives at sea and the tragedies we've seen with lives lost. So since deterrence hasn't worked, why don't we do what we know is the right thing to do? Why don't we appeal to the best that's in Australians? Why don't we do what's been proven to work previously? And that's seriously engage with the region and the rest of the world in a program that helps refugees."
In order to engage with the region, the Greens propose to appoint an Australian ambassador for refugee protection who would help broker a regional response to the issue.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says a regional co-operation model would be based on former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's approach in the 1970s.
"The Greens have spent a long time speaking to experts and those involved with how the re-settlement program worked after the end of the Vietnam War, where Australia took that leadership. Australia funded the assessment of people's claims in Indonesia and Malaysia. We committed to taking people and with that commitment came the willingness of other countries to resettle people too. That is precisely the crux of this policy."
Under the Greens' plan, Australia's humanitarian intake would rise to 30,000 people a year - up from the current 20,000 under Labor.
And in a bid to reduce the backlog of asylum-seekers in Indonesia and Malaysia, the Greens say they would resettle an "emergency intake" of 10,000 UN-assessed refugees who have been waiting in the region.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the current waiting period forces asylum-seekers onto boats.
"In Indonesia, Australia in the last 12 months has resettled only 600 people and there is a waiting list, a waiting "list", of 10,000. So it would take 15 years on those figures to be resettled out of Indonesia. If you look at Malaysia it would take 75 years to be resettled out of Malaysia. That is precisely why people see no hope in staying in squalid conditions in Malaysia, in squats in Indonesia."
For those who do have to wait in Indonesia, the Greens say they would provide an additional 70-million dollars per year to boost the UNHCR's capacity to assess asylum claims, provide safe assessment centres, shelter and welfare services.
The Greens say they would also expand the options available for asylum-seekers wanting to come to Australia safely by lifting bans on flights from countries with high refugee numbers, such as Afghanistan.
Family reunion claims would also be allowed in a bid to stop women and children resorting to the perilous journey by sea.
In stark contrast to the major parties' recent policy announcements, the Greens would end all offshore processing and would also put a limit on the amount of time people could spend in onshore detention - preferably 30 days.
But what would it all cost?
Relatively little, Greens leader Christine Milne says.
"What the Coalition and the Government are doing is not only hideously cruel and expensive in terms of the toll on human lives and health and happiness into the future, it's a very expensive policy in dollar terms. The Greens have had the parliamentary budget office look at the cost of increasing our humanitarian intake to 30,000 and it would be 2.5 billion over the forward estimates. In contrast the government intends to spend 7.2 billion on its cruel offshore detention centres and punitive action."
The government has yet to reveal how much it would cost to expand its offshore processing centre on Manus Island and resettle refugees in Papua New Guinea.
The Coalition says its tent city on Nauru could be established for 50 million dollars.
Refugee Council of Australia CEO Paul Power says the Greens plan reflects what refugee advocates have been calling for for years.
"The answers found in the 70s, 80s and early 90s to the Indo-Chinese refugee crisis weren't perfect but we really need to look at how governments can work together to protect those who need protecting and to facilitate the safe return of those who don't. And the comprehensive plan of action in relation to Indo-Chinese refugees was very much focused on those goals."
With the Australian Greens extremely unlikely to form government, the party's plan could remain nothing more than a plan.
But Paul Power says there will come a time when the major parties will have to work towards a genuine regional solution.
Mr Power says forcing Australia's poorest neighbours to bear the brunt of asylum-seeker flows will eventually come back to haunt the major parties.
"They're going to have great international pressure from whichever country is being left with a greater responsibility for asylum-seekers to actually do something to support them. So whatever happens the Australian government is going to be forced to take regional cooperation focused on protecting refugees much more seriously. The question really for the major political parties is, how long is it going to take them to realise that?"
Share
