The Malaysia deal. Let’s separate the policy from the politics.
The policy — Bernard Keane writes in Crikey today, “having spent so long insisting ‘push’ factors were the key to the rise in asylum seekers heading for Australia, the deal with Malaysia finally announced yesterday looks awfully like an acknowledgement that “pull” factors are critical. The test will only really come when there’s another surge in asylum seekers in our region…”
The politics — it’s still stop the boats. Air arrivals never have, and never will it seems, lodge in the public consciousness the way leaky boats do. And so, we have a discussion about border protection policy that focuses on a small slice of the picture and collectively ignores the wider context, and the wider problem.
There is no doubting Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s conviction that he never ever wants to take a phone call like the one he picked up from Christmas Island back in December. There is a genuine need to stop people risking their lives on the sea. But the push v pull factor is still up for debate. It is very difficult to ascertain how “the message” to smugglers and their potential clients filters back.
Prime Minister Gillard put the pledge to crack down on the boats front and centre of her election campaign, right in line with Tony Abbott. She made it an election issue. Make no mistake, this is why we are talking about the Malaysia deal. The commentary today focuses on the political capital that Gillard and Bowen will earn if they pull this thing off, not the safety of asylum seekers.
Australia is accepting an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia. This is to be applauded. However, UNHCR has not signed its support on the dotted line. It has agreed to monitor the process, but stated “UNHCR’s preference has always been an arrangement which would enable all asylum seekers arriving by boat into Australian territory to be processed in Australia. This would be consistent with general practice.” It does, however, note that “the potential to work towards safe and humane options for people other than to use dangerous sea journeys are also positive features of this Arrangement.”
As Immigration Policy Minister Chris Bowen acknowledged in an interview with The Australian Financial Review over the weekend:
“Handling the asylum seeker issue should occupy about 5 per cent of my time…Clearly, it is taking a lot more than that.”
If only we had leaders who would genuinely seek to re-educate the public so that the problem occupied about 5% of their fears.
14 thoughts on “Policy meets politics”
Harvey Tarvydas
July 26, 2011 at 9:10 pmDr Harvey M Tarvydas
ERROR correction
all out political leaders would have filled their pants.
should have been
all our political leaders would have filled their pants.
Harvey Tarvydas
July 27, 2011 at 7:00 amDr Harvey M Tarvydas
@MICHEAL CROOK — Posted Tuesday, 26 July 2011 at 4:43 pm
Good on you for doing that stuff you do.
Eveline Goy
July 27, 2011 at 7:54 pmI don’t think that the deal is such a good deal. The people who will be transferred to Malaysia will be lost in the system along all the other asylum seekers already there. The Malaysian ministers are not particularly interested to know what happens to them, it’s an ‘all care – no responsibility’ approach, as shown in the 4 Corners report.
Besides, the deal is for 4,000 ‘genuine’ UNHCR-vetted refugees OVER 4 YEARS. This means approximately barely a thousand more refugees per year, when the numbers of refugees we have taken in have been constant for decades whereas the refugee population, internationally, has grown to many millions.
I am afraid it seems that we do not care about the hapless refugees (some of boat people already had their UNHCR recognition but had been languishing in camps for so long that they jumped on the boat, in despair), we just do not want anything bad to happen under our watch.
Perhaps we should remember that when we had large numbers of refugees from South East Asia (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) they did not come by boat because most of them went to Pilau Bidong, a Malaysian island, where they remained until they were resettled. Pilau Bidong was used from 1978 and closed officially in 1991. Refugees who remained unsettled, I believe, were sent back to their home countries. Australia is always very uncomfortable being asked to offer asylum and as an isolated island, we can fight against unwelcome arrivals. Most other countries cannot do that.
david
July 27, 2011 at 8:56 pm[Eveline Goy..”some of boat people already had their UNHCR recognition but had been languishing in camps for so long that they jumped on the boat, in despair”.]
With all due respect to you Eveline and I understand your personal feelings about AS’s…do you have any proof or links to support your statement about jumping onto the boat in despair? Had the recognition from whom, from where, in what country?
Just jumped on the boat or paid or what? Please there is enough disinformation and lies being trotted out by Abbott, Morrison and the looney right wing brigade from the Libs here, your comment really sounds sensational rubbish.
Incidentally have you actually read the entire agreement between the Australian and Malaysian Govts? Or are you being led by News Ltd, the shock jocks and some trolls here?
I repeat I respect your anguish, but the comments need supporting facts.