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/2014/jun/12/abbott-has-stopped-the-boats-heres-what-we-need-to-do-now

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

Version 0 Version 1
Abbott has stopped the boats. Here's what we need to do now Abbott has stopped the boats. Here's what we need to do now
(2 months later)
Tony Abbott has declared victory. The three-word slogan “Stop the boats” has become a five-word boast, “We have stopped the boats”. In Jakarta, the prime minister was even bold enough to assert that “the people smuggling issue … will not substantially further trouble” our bilateral relations with Indonesia.Tony Abbott has declared victory. The three-word slogan “Stop the boats” has become a five-word boast, “We have stopped the boats”. In Jakarta, the prime minister was even bold enough to assert that “the people smuggling issue … will not substantially further trouble” our bilateral relations with Indonesia.
The truth of that claim remains to be tested – particularly once Indonesia has a new president. But for now, at least, Abbott appears to be right. There have been no maritime arrivals for six months. The question is whether this opportunity can be grasped to create a durable, long-term arrangement that provides assistance to refugees and other vulnerable people around the region.The truth of that claim remains to be tested – particularly once Indonesia has a new president. But for now, at least, Abbott appears to be right. There have been no maritime arrivals for six months. The question is whether this opportunity can be grasped to create a durable, long-term arrangement that provides assistance to refugees and other vulnerable people around the region.
The cornerstone of Australia’s current policy, deterrence, involves treating asylum seekers harshly in order to discourage others from making a similar journey. They don't disappear; more likely our policy forces displaced people to take other routes to safety, at least as dangerous, and puts them at the mercy of a different set of shady operators. It is, and always has been, ethically dubious. At best, it involves inflicting harm on vulnerable people in order, theoretically, to prevent a separate harm – the loss of lives at sea.The cornerstone of Australia’s current policy, deterrence, involves treating asylum seekers harshly in order to discourage others from making a similar journey. They don't disappear; more likely our policy forces displaced people to take other routes to safety, at least as dangerous, and puts them at the mercy of a different set of shady operators. It is, and always has been, ethically dubious. At best, it involves inflicting harm on vulnerable people in order, theoretically, to prevent a separate harm – the loss of lives at sea.
Whether this kind of deterrence has ever had an appreciable effect on the people-smuggling trade is questionable. As Abbott acknowledged recently, what really stopped the boats was the naval intervention:Whether this kind of deterrence has ever had an appreciable effect on the people-smuggling trade is questionable. As Abbott acknowledged recently, what really stopped the boats was the naval intervention:
Because none of them are making it to Australia, very few of them are leaving Indonesia's shores. The whole point of leaving Indonesia is to get to Australia, and if you never get to Australia, why bother leaving Indonesia?Because none of them are making it to Australia, very few of them are leaving Indonesia's shores. The whole point of leaving Indonesia is to get to Australia, and if you never get to Australia, why bother leaving Indonesia?
While that naval barrier remains in place, as Robert Manne has pointed out, punishment-as-deterrence amounts to nothing more than pointless cruelty. Abbott should know from his experience during the Howard years that the human suffering caused by the brutal treatment of asylum seekers will eventually exact a political price. The evidence that deterrence policies are generating ill-health, depression, self-harm and suicide among asylum seekers is well established and will continue to grow. Children will continue to be among those most at risk.While that naval barrier remains in place, as Robert Manne has pointed out, punishment-as-deterrence amounts to nothing more than pointless cruelty. Abbott should know from his experience during the Howard years that the human suffering caused by the brutal treatment of asylum seekers will eventually exact a political price. The evidence that deterrence policies are generating ill-health, depression, self-harm and suicide among asylum seekers is well established and will continue to grow. Children will continue to be among those most at risk.
Without the distraction of boat arrivals, this pain and suffering will begin to gain greater attention. It will trouble not only human rights activists and opposition politicians, but also the general public and some Coalition MPs – just as it did in the years after the post-Tampa crackdown.Without the distraction of boat arrivals, this pain and suffering will begin to gain greater attention. It will trouble not only human rights activists and opposition politicians, but also the general public and some Coalition MPs – just as it did in the years after the post-Tampa crackdown.
If it is determined to continue with naval interception, then the Abbott government’s own interests are best served by swiftly processing the protection claims of the 7000–plus asylum seekers detained on Manus, Nauru, Christmas Island and the mainland. The same goes for the 20,000 asylum seekers living in the community, most of whom are denied the right to work. Anyone found to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection should be settled permanently in Australia.If it is determined to continue with naval interception, then the Abbott government’s own interests are best served by swiftly processing the protection claims of the 7000–plus asylum seekers detained on Manus, Nauru, Christmas Island and the mainland. The same goes for the 20,000 asylum seekers living in the community, most of whom are denied the right to work. Anyone found to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection should be settled permanently in Australia.
In doing so, we would send a signal to neighbouring countries that we are serious about sharing, rather than shifting, the burden. This would create the foundation for regional action. Opportunistic agreements with individual countries like Cambodia simply muddy the issue.In doing so, we would send a signal to neighbouring countries that we are serious about sharing, rather than shifting, the burden. This would create the foundation for regional action. Opportunistic agreements with individual countries like Cambodia simply muddy the issue.
The government can argue that a speedy reduction in detainee numbers is fiscally responsible. In September last year the parliamentary library estimated the cost of surveillance, detention and other features of the current system to be almost $3 billion in 2013–14 – more than half the amount the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), spends each year running its operations worldwide. Detaining an asylum seeker on Manus for a day can cost more than a night in a plush Sydney hotel. If Labor were smart, it would offer bipartisan support for the swift resolution of these asylum claims. The government can argue that a speedy reduction in detainee numbers is fiscally responsible. In September last year the parliamentary library estimated the cost of surveillance, detention and other features of the current system to be almost $3 billion in 2013–14 – more than half the amount the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), spends each year running its operations worldwide. Detaining an asylum seeker on Manus for a day can cost more than a night in a plush Sydney hotel. If Labor were smart, it would offer bipartisan support for the swift resolution of these asylum claims.
It would also abandon the offshore processing policy it adopted under the previous government, as MPs Melissa Parke and Anna Burke urge in a motion to be debated by the Labor caucus on 17 June. But Labor remains bruised by its experience of the 2001 Tampa election and the decline in Kevin Rudd’s popularity after boat arrivals resumed (even though the evidence shows that boats are a third-order issue at the ballot box compared to health, education and economic management). If the Coalition were to offer concessions, Labor shouldn’t seek to score points by labelling it a backdown.It would also abandon the offshore processing policy it adopted under the previous government, as MPs Melissa Parke and Anna Burke urge in a motion to be debated by the Labor caucus on 17 June. But Labor remains bruised by its experience of the 2001 Tampa election and the decline in Kevin Rudd’s popularity after boat arrivals resumed (even though the evidence shows that boats are a third-order issue at the ballot box compared to health, education and economic management). If the Coalition were to offer concessions, Labor shouldn’t seek to score points by labelling it a backdown.
Even if all this were to be achieved, dealing humanely and justly with this group of asylum seekers doesn’t meet our ethical duty to those we have forced back to Indonesia. Nor, as Canberra must be aware, is naval interception a dependable long-term strategy. Using the navy to return boats puts both asylum seekers and defence force personnel at risk; it is bad for the morale and psychological health of navy personnel, and it creates friction with Jakarta that could blow up into a major bilateral dispute at any time.Even if all this were to be achieved, dealing humanely and justly with this group of asylum seekers doesn’t meet our ethical duty to those we have forced back to Indonesia. Nor, as Canberra must be aware, is naval interception a dependable long-term strategy. Using the navy to return boats puts both asylum seekers and defence force personnel at risk; it is bad for the morale and psychological health of navy personnel, and it creates friction with Jakarta that could blow up into a major bilateral dispute at any time.
We urgently need to engage our neighbours in assembling the core elements of a regional protection system so the naval cordon can be lifted as soon as possible. Such a system must significantly increase the avenues by which asylum seekers can find lasting safety. If asylum seekers stranded in Indonesia and elsewhere have viable alternative options then they will have no reason to turn to people smugglers.We urgently need to engage our neighbours in assembling the core elements of a regional protection system so the naval cordon can be lifted as soon as possible. Such a system must significantly increase the avenues by which asylum seekers can find lasting safety. If asylum seekers stranded in Indonesia and elsewhere have viable alternative options then they will have no reason to turn to people smugglers.
Refugee determination processes operating in neighbouring countries will need to be better funded and resettlement places significantly expanded. Governments will need extra help from Australia to accommodate asylum seekers, and the UNHCR will need extra funds to assist in determining refugee status.Refugee determination processes operating in neighbouring countries will need to be better funded and resettlement places significantly expanded. Governments will need extra help from Australia to accommodate asylum seekers, and the UNHCR will need extra funds to assist in determining refugee status.
The outline of this approach already exists in the neglected chapters of the report of the Gillard’s government’s expert panel on asylum seekers, chaired by the former head of the Australian defence force, Angus Houston. According to the panel, “measures to sustain a more practical, better-managed and more coordinated regional framework of cooperation” were “fundamentally important” and “a central focus” of its work.The outline of this approach already exists in the neglected chapters of the report of the Gillard’s government’s expert panel on asylum seekers, chaired by the former head of the Australian defence force, Angus Houston. According to the panel, “measures to sustain a more practical, better-managed and more coordinated regional framework of cooperation” were “fundamentally important” and “a central focus” of its work.
These measures should include “high-level and broad-ranging bilateral cooperation with Indonesia and Malaysia in particular,” said the panel. Australia’s humanitarian program should be significantly expanded and refocused, and the backlog of family reunion applicants under the special humanitarian program – “which risks becoming a significant factor motivating those who choose irregular migration by boat to Australia” – should be reduced.These measures should include “high-level and broad-ranging bilateral cooperation with Indonesia and Malaysia in particular,” said the panel. Australia’s humanitarian program should be significantly expanded and refocused, and the backlog of family reunion applicants under the special humanitarian program – “which risks becoming a significant factor motivating those who choose irregular migration by boat to Australia” – should be reduced.
At the heart of the panel’s report – both as a practical measure and as a sign of goodwill to neighbouring countries – was an immediate increase in resettlement places to 20,000 per year, with a further increase to 27,000 within five years. (Labor had increased the number to 20,000, but the Coalition cut it back to 13,750 as soon as it took office.)At the heart of the panel’s report – both as a practical measure and as a sign of goodwill to neighbouring countries – was an immediate increase in resettlement places to 20,000 per year, with a further increase to 27,000 within five years. (Labor had increased the number to 20,000, but the Coalition cut it back to 13,750 as soon as it took office.)
An increase to 20,000 places would simply restore Australia’s resettlement program to its numbers in 1980–81, a time when the Australian population, and its capacity to absorb refugees, was much smaller. As a proportion of Australia’s current population, those 20,000 places would translate to more than 30,000 places in 2013–14.An increase to 20,000 places would simply restore Australia’s resettlement program to its numbers in 1980–81, a time when the Australian population, and its capacity to absorb refugees, was much smaller. As a proportion of Australia’s current population, those 20,000 places would translate to more than 30,000 places in 2013–14.
Australia’s overall immigration program is much larger than it was in the early 1980s and is now much more tightly focused on skilled migration at the expense of family and humanitarian migration. Thirty thousand is a readily manageable quota for new arrivals who might need additional settlement assistance.Australia’s overall immigration program is much larger than it was in the early 1980s and is now much more tightly focused on skilled migration at the expense of family and humanitarian migration. Thirty thousand is a readily manageable quota for new arrivals who might need additional settlement assistance.
Although its symbolic contribution would be immense and its implementation could be expedited, resettlement is just part of the package. Aid funds could be used to open up opportunities for asylum seekers to live and work legally in countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Over time, Australia should encourage these countries to sign the Refugee Convention and offer protection to refugees themselves. In the shorter term, Australia could contribute extra funds to the UNHCR to speed up its processing of asylum claims, which has often been excruciatingly slow because of its stretched resources.Although its symbolic contribution would be immense and its implementation could be expedited, resettlement is just part of the package. Aid funds could be used to open up opportunities for asylum seekers to live and work legally in countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Over time, Australia should encourage these countries to sign the Refugee Convention and offer protection to refugees themselves. In the shorter term, Australia could contribute extra funds to the UNHCR to speed up its processing of asylum claims, which has often been excruciatingly slow because of its stretched resources.
Australia and Indonesia could work as equals to create fairer processes. All countries in the region would be encouraged to make certain that asylum seekers have access to national or UNHCR refugee determination processes, and that they are not subject to harassment in the meantime. The ultimate goal is common, orderly processes across the region, as outlined in the Refugee Council of Australia’s submission to the expert panel in 2012.Australia and Indonesia could work as equals to create fairer processes. All countries in the region would be encouraged to make certain that asylum seekers have access to national or UNHCR refugee determination processes, and that they are not subject to harassment in the meantime. The ultimate goal is common, orderly processes across the region, as outlined in the Refugee Council of Australia’s submission to the expert panel in 2012.
The other target for Australian action are the countries asylum seekers flee from. The obvious starting point is Myanmar, a country Australia can seek to influence through its own diplomacy and with the help of neighbouring countries. Of the 13,000 Rohingya people who fled Myanmar by boat in 2012, almost 500 died at sea, according to the UNHCR. An intensified effort by Australia to persuade the Myanmar government to reduce persecution of the Rohingya would provide evidence that Australia is sincere when it talks about the need to reduce deaths at sea.The other target for Australian action are the countries asylum seekers flee from. The obvious starting point is Myanmar, a country Australia can seek to influence through its own diplomacy and with the help of neighbouring countries. Of the 13,000 Rohingya people who fled Myanmar by boat in 2012, almost 500 died at sea, according to the UNHCR. An intensified effort by Australia to persuade the Myanmar government to reduce persecution of the Rohingya would provide evidence that Australia is sincere when it talks about the need to reduce deaths at sea.
Among boat arrivals in recent years, the largest number of people have come from five countries, Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Sri Lanka is the closest of these countries, but Australia’s capacity to influence the behaviour of its government and military have been compromised by our recent asylum policies. The fact that Australia has been so out of step with most Western nations in its attitude to Sri Lanka’s human rights record might also be an opportunity, however: Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government could take notice if its one Western friend changed its tune. Turning a blind eye to human rights abuses has done nothing to improve the conditions that prompt people to flee from Sir Lanka.Among boat arrivals in recent years, the largest number of people have come from five countries, Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Sri Lanka is the closest of these countries, but Australia’s capacity to influence the behaviour of its government and military have been compromised by our recent asylum policies. The fact that Australia has been so out of step with most Western nations in its attitude to Sri Lanka’s human rights record might also be an opportunity, however: Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government could take notice if its one Western friend changed its tune. Turning a blind eye to human rights abuses has done nothing to improve the conditions that prompt people to flee from Sir Lanka.
Circumstances in the other four countries – Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – are even more challenging, and people from each of the four will undoubtedly continue to seek asylum. Immigration department figures show that when they did manage to lodge onshore asylum claims in Australia, the success rate among the four nationalities was 85%, 96%, 95% and 84% chance respectively. Many more asylum seekers head west, towards Europe, than travel through Southeast Asia towards Australia, but when they do, we need to ensure that they have access to an orderly and expeditious refugee determination process en route.Circumstances in the other four countries – Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – are even more challenging, and people from each of the four will undoubtedly continue to seek asylum. Immigration department figures show that when they did manage to lodge onshore asylum claims in Australia, the success rate among the four nationalities was 85%, 96%, 95% and 84% chance respectively. Many more asylum seekers head west, towards Europe, than travel through Southeast Asia towards Australia, but when they do, we need to ensure that they have access to an orderly and expeditious refugee determination process en route.
Not all of these measures will have an immediate impact. And the risk is that, once again, governments will cherry-pick policies that suit what they see as the politics of the issue, and go slow on the elements that don’t have immediate dividends. As the report of the expert panel put it in its characteristically cautious language, “a genuinely regional framework will reduce the lure of irregular maritime migration options.”Not all of these measures will have an immediate impact. And the risk is that, once again, governments will cherry-pick policies that suit what they see as the politics of the issue, and go slow on the elements that don’t have immediate dividends. As the report of the expert panel put it in its characteristically cautious language, “a genuinely regional framework will reduce the lure of irregular maritime migration options.”
Australia has choice. We can complacently claim victory in stopping the boats and wait for another crisis to emerge – perhaps when the smugglers work out a new route or when a disturbance in relations with Jakarta renders naval interception and return untenable. Alternatively, we can seize the opportunity to build a durable regional approach to refugees and put an end the divisiveness and acrimony that have so poisoned Australian political debate.Australia has choice. We can complacently claim victory in stopping the boats and wait for another crisis to emerge – perhaps when the smugglers work out a new route or when a disturbance in relations with Jakarta renders naval interception and return untenable. Alternatively, we can seize the opportunity to build a durable regional approach to refugees and put an end the divisiveness and acrimony that have so poisoned Australian political debate.
Above all, it could make a real difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of displaced and desperate people. Australia missed such an opportunity once before, when the Howard government temporarily stopped the boats after the Tampa affair in 2001. It should not be lost again.Above all, it could make a real difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of displaced and desperate people. Australia missed such an opportunity once before, when the Howard government temporarily stopped the boats after the Tampa affair in 2001. It should not be lost again.