Australia will now process all asylum seekers onshore, despite both the government and opposition supporting offshore processing for those that come by boat.
It’s an incredible win for those — mainly on the Left — who support onshore processing. Due to the limited room available in detention centres (and budgetary constraints) people arriving by boat would be processed quickly and given bridging visas to live in the community, which allow a small pension and the right to work.
National MP Tony Crook refused to support the government’s bill yesterday which would change the Migration Act to allow offshore processing, after the High Court deemed it unlawful. But even with Crook’s support, it’s unlikely the bill would have passed the Senate where the Greens hold the balance of power.
The opposition refused to support the bill as it would allow the government’s Malaysia Solution policy. Instead it demanded the government only send asylum seekers to countries which are a signee to the United Nations convention on refugees. The Labor caucus voted yesterday to keep the Malaysia Solution as official policy, even though it cannot implement it.
Gillard was quick to put the blame on opposition leader Tony Abbott and warn the public to expect more boats to arrive. “There is only one reason that we are not in the circumstances to have offshore processing and that’s because of Mr Abbott and his determination to trash the national interest,” said Gillard. “Mr Abbott’s conduct leads us to circumstances where we are at real risk of seeing more boats.”
The Sydney Morning Herald‘s Phillip Coorey is dubbing it the “Australia Solution”, noting: “The decision was announced last night after a day of crisis meetings which tested the authority of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, strained the backbench and took the shine off the policy victory of the day before when the carbon price legislation passed the lower house.”
Yes, it is confusing how we can have both major parties agree on offshore processing and yet not get support for it. “So many aspects of this sorry story fall into the stupid category, it is worthy of a chapter in a political primer on how not to do things,” declares Dennis Atkins in The Courier-Mail.
This is a great day for people smugglers and both parties are responsible, says Greg Sheridan in The Australian:
“It is a defeat in which the Gillard government and the Abbott opposition share equally.”
Labor has no one to blame for this but themselves, says human rights lecturer Angus Francis in The Age:
“The choice that confronted the Labor Party after the election defeat of 2001 was the same that confronts it now: continue to support offshore processing, as Prime Minister Julia Gillard wants, or begin the slow and painstaking process of rebuilding a principled asylum-seeker policy.”
Peter van Onselen is elated that onshore processing is happening, even if it’s only happened because of Gillard and Abbott’s stubbornness. Problem is, detention centres will quickly fill up and other onshore options should be examined, he writes in The Australian:
“Why not simply speed up the processing for all asylum-seekers? Or start community living for those already in detention? Or make arrangements for more processing centres? Again, stubbornness is getting in the way of workable policy outcomes.”
Susie O’Brien in the Herald Sun also supports this change to onshore processing:
“We can well afford to be generous, and to care for those who seek asylum on our shores. Given that most of them are found to be legitimate refugees, and go on to be well-respected members of our society, let’s give them a go.”
39 thoughts on “Govt flips and supports onshore
processing”
StrewthAlmighty
October 14, 2011 at 3:58 pmObservation
Yes just “imagine” it.
I for one would be happy if that was the result since it would suggest the world is becoming a better place and our politicians could move on from the issue.
Unfortunately I suspect Ron Paul is right – this will be “the issue” of the next Federal election and all the World’s Luckiest Politician will need to do to become PM is promise to “stop the boats”. It won’t even need to be a “blood pledge”!!
shepherdmarilyn
October 14, 2011 at 4:23 pmVerio, you are dreaming. Gillard has no interest in refugees and never has done.
She does not understand what the law is and thinks the only good refugee is one who stays somewhere else and doesn’t bother us.
Observation
October 14, 2011 at 4:24 pmPlease excuse my ignorance, but what is the reason for thinking off shore processing deters asylum seekers. Is because they are de-humanised in that process. Or is there some sort of legal loop hole that gives them less chance of being processed and accepted?
morgio
October 14, 2011 at 4:42 pmIn recent years 99% of asylum seekers arrived by air. Latest figures (2010) show 56% arrived by air and more air arrivals than boat arrivals fail the refugee test. Send Tony in his high visibility vest to stop the planes!
StrewthAlmighty
October 14, 2011 at 6:07 pmObs – because it did?
Morgio – LOL. I assume your 99pc stat refers to the period when Nauru was in place and boat arrivals dried up?
GocomSys
October 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm“I really don’t give a toss what some of the usual obnoxious simple minded posters have to say”.
STREWTHALMIGHTY posted Friday, 14 October 2011 at 3:58 pm
Please join the others nincompoops!
morgio
October 14, 2011 at 6:47 pmThe Parliamentary Library writes (22/7/2011):
Until recently, the vast majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia have arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community.[26] Historically, boat arrivals only made up a small proportion of asylum applicants—estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 percent of asylum applicants arrived by air.[27] More recently the proportions of Irregular Maritime Arrival (IMA) and non-IMA (that is air arrival) asylum seekers have shifted due to the increase in boat arrivals. However, boat arrivals still comprise less than half of Australia’s onshore asylum seekers:
see the report and the table at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/Asylumfacts.htm#_Toc299011015
It’s crazy that BOATS turn people on. Not aeroplanes. This proves it’s a political spin issue, not a policy one. Boats are sexy and dramatic, cameras can zoom in on foreigners, on navy vessels, on choppy waves etc..
StrewthAlmighty
October 14, 2011 at 10:27 pmGeez Gocomsys
And here I was hoping you would pull together another post about “opinion polls”!
Apologies for bursting your idealistic bubble with a small dose of reality.
Nate
October 18, 2011 at 8:59 pmIt seems the left have prevailed, although we must ask at what cost? The standard arguments were continually trumpeted, underpinned by notions of liberty and equality. We hear the echoed calls of inhumanity in indefinitely locking up asylum seekers in detention centres in rife and squalid conditions, that notion that Australia has more than an enough land space per capita in which to allow them to settle and contribute to the economy and society, not to mention the ethical dilemma of sending refugees to countries not signatory to the UN convention on refugees.
While the naturalised perception is that on-shore processing is the most humanitarian option available, one can certainly argue against it as a catalyst for an impending boom in the people-smuggling industry. A billion dollar industry which capitalises on communal insecurities and fears, and profits from the risk-laden journeys of these citizens – journeys which encompass numerous fatalities. For every boat that arrives on these shores, one must think about those on board (men, women or children) that lost their lives on the journey over, not to mention the terrible conditions on the boat itself that facilitates this. This is where the truly inhumane consequences lie, and on-shore processing will not only fuel this horrific industry, but send a great big ‘open for business’ sign to people smugglers across the globe, encouraging further journeys which could lead to the deaths of many. If we really want a humanitarian answer, we need to stop the journeys at the source.