This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/tasmania-solution-julian-burnside

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Tasmania solution: send refugees there instead of Papua New Guinea The Tasmania solution: send refugees there instead of Papua New Guinea
(1 day later)
The recent election campaign raised sharp questions about the way Australia should deal with asylum seekers who arrive here by boat. The spectacle of both major parties trying to outdo each other in their promises to be cruel to boat people has no precedent in Australian political history.The recent election campaign raised sharp questions about the way Australia should deal with asylum seekers who arrive here by boat. The spectacle of both major parties trying to outdo each other in their promises to be cruel to boat people has no precedent in Australian political history.
For a decade now, boat people have been regularly referred to as “illegals”, despite the fact that they commit no offence by coming here without papers asking for protection. When people who are called “illegals” are thrown into desert camps surrounded by razor wire, it is not surprising that the public assume they're are criminals. The whole sorry business was calculated to make the general public feel that we are under attack by a hostile invasion of criminals who will steal our wealth and destroy our way of life. Curiously, neither major party thought it useful to point out that over the past 15 years roughly 90% of all boat people turned out, on assessment, to be refugees entitled to our protection. For a decade now, boat people have been regularly referred to as “illegals”, despite the fact that they commit no offence by coming here without papers asking for protection. When people who are called “illegals” are thrown into desert camps surrounded by razor wire, it is not surprising that the public assume they're are criminals. The whole sorry business was calculated to make the general public feel that we are under attack by a hostile invasion of criminals who will steal our wealth and destroy our way of life. Curiously, neither major party thought it useful to point out that over the past 15 years roughly 90% of all boat people turned out, on assessment, to be refugees entitled to our protection. 
Current arrangements start from the premise that boat people are undesirables who should be isolated from the community until they are accepted as refugees. The odd thing about this is that, since almost all of them are in fact refugees, we spend a vast amount of money driving them to despair – and then we give them protection visas, resulting in them coming into the community more damaged than when they arrived.Current arrangements start from the premise that boat people are undesirables who should be isolated from the community until they are accepted as refugees. The odd thing about this is that, since almost all of them are in fact refugees, we spend a vast amount of money driving them to despair – and then we give them protection visas, resulting in them coming into the community more damaged than when they arrived.
One alternative I wish to put forward assumes that the federal government remains obsessed with the idea that we must keep boat people in detention until their refugee status is decided. One alternative I wish to put forward assumes that the federal government remains obsessed with the idea that we must keep boat people in detention until their refugee status is decided. 
The Tasmanian idea is simple: declare the state of Tasmania to be a place of detention. Asylum seekers could live, work and spend in the Tasmanian community while their refugee status is assessed. If every single one of them stayed on Centrelink benefits for the whole time it took to assess their asylum claims, it would cost about $500m a year – all of which would be spent in Tasmania. To induce the Tasmanian government to go along with this, the Commonwealth could offer it an additional $1bn a year. The benefit to the Tasmanian economy is obvious, which may explain why the public response in Tasmania to my proposal has been overwhelmingly positive.The Tasmanian idea is simple: declare the state of Tasmania to be a place of detention. Asylum seekers could live, work and spend in the Tasmanian community while their refugee status is assessed. If every single one of them stayed on Centrelink benefits for the whole time it took to assess their asylum claims, it would cost about $500m a year – all of which would be spent in Tasmania. To induce the Tasmanian government to go along with this, the Commonwealth could offer it an additional $1bn a year. The benefit to the Tasmanian economy is obvious, which may explain why the public response in Tasmania to my proposal has been overwhelmingly positive.
This plan has the disadvantage of triggering vague recollections of Van Dieman’s Land as a prison, and might be dismissed out of hand as ironic but unrealistic. On the other hand, implementing the Tasmanian plan would have four benefits.This plan has the disadvantage of triggering vague recollections of Van Dieman’s Land as a prison, and might be dismissed out of hand as ironic but unrealistic. On the other hand, implementing the Tasmanian plan would have four benefits.
1. The Tasmanian economy would benefit to the tune of $1.5bn a year. It’s doing it tough at present, and would enjoy the boost.1. The Tasmanian economy would benefit to the tune of $1.5bn a year. It’s doing it tough at present, and would enjoy the boost.
2. The federal government would save about $2.5bn a year: our present system of indefinite detention in remote places is incredibly expensive; the Pacific Solution is even more expensive.2. The federal government would save about $2.5bn a year: our present system of indefinite detention in remote places is incredibly expensive; the Pacific Solution is even more expensive.
3. Asylum seekers would be healed rather than harmed by their detention experience. The Commonwealth knows very clearly just how much psychiatric damage they are inflicting on innocent people.3. Asylum seekers would be healed rather than harmed by their detention experience. The Commonwealth knows very clearly just how much psychiatric damage they are inflicting on innocent people.
4. Our international reputation would be repaired. As a nation, we think of ourselves as easy-going, generous, welcoming people dedicated to the idea of a fair go. Overseas however, we are increasingly seen as selfish and cruel. This fact is little noted by the shock-jocks and fear-mongers, who remain blissfully ignorant in their small vanities about Australia’s virtues.4. Our international reputation would be repaired. As a nation, we think of ourselves as easy-going, generous, welcoming people dedicated to the idea of a fair go. Overseas however, we are increasingly seen as selfish and cruel. This fact is little noted by the shock-jocks and fear-mongers, who remain blissfully ignorant in their small vanities about Australia’s virtues.
If the historic resonance of the "Tasmanian idea" is too much for us, the same logic can be varied so as to benefit other parts of the economy that are struggling. The "rural idea" would see all asylum seekers released into the community on interim visas subject to a few main conditions: they are entitled to work, they are entitled to Centrelink and Medicare benefits; they must stay in touch with the immigration department by regular reporting to a Centrelink office and, until their refugee status is decided, they must live in a specified rural area.If the historic resonance of the "Tasmanian idea" is too much for us, the same logic can be varied so as to benefit other parts of the economy that are struggling. The "rural idea" would see all asylum seekers released into the community on interim visas subject to a few main conditions: they are entitled to work, they are entitled to Centrelink and Medicare benefits; they must stay in touch with the immigration department by regular reporting to a Centrelink office and, until their refugee status is decided, they must live in a specified rural area.
There are about 96,000 unfilled jobs in country Australia, but even if every asylum seeker stayed on full Centrelink benefits, it would cost about $500m a year. And all of that money would be spent in rural towns, on accommodation, food and clothing. And it represents a saving of about $3.5bn a year on what the present system costs.There are about 96,000 unfilled jobs in country Australia, but even if every asylum seeker stayed on full Centrelink benefits, it would cost about $500m a year. And all of that money would be spent in rural towns, on accommodation, food and clothing. And it represents a saving of about $3.5bn a year on what the present system costs.
These savings could be applied to national infrastructure projects, including public housing projects for homeless Australians. All of this would represent a significant boost to the economies of country towns, and a boost to the construction industry.These savings could be applied to national infrastructure projects, including public housing projects for homeless Australians. All of this would represent a significant boost to the economies of country towns, and a boost to the construction industry.
Both these ideas highlight how much money is presently spent in brutalising asylum seekers. It would be far better to spend it in ways which help innocent people instead of harming them. It would be far better to spend it to help our economy than spend it on multi-national security companies, and far better to spend it in ways that are true to our national character, not at odds with it. Both these ideas highlight how much money is presently spent in brutalising asylum seekers. It would be far better to spend it in ways which help innocent people instead of harming them. It would be far better to spend it to help our economy than spend it on multi-national security companies, and far better to spend it in ways that are true to our national character, not at odds with it. 
And we can save one or two billion dollars a year in the process. And we can save one or two billion dollars a year in the process. 
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.