The Greens asylum seeker policy, most of which was released this morning, adopts much of the logic of last year’s Houston Panel report — but, crucially, not all of it.
That report, by Angus Houston, Michael L’Estrange and Paris Aristotle, argued for a significant rebalancing of incentives for asylum seekers, away from “irregular” pathways and toward “regular” pathways — the incentive of more opportunities to reach Australia via our humanitarian resettlement program, and the disincentive of no advantage in reaching Australia by boat, courtesy of a re-established Pacific Solution.
At the core of the Greens policy is the belief that disincentives will never work (and what evidence, so far, is there to contradict them?), and we need to massively increase the incentives to use regular pathways, via a dramatic expansion in our humanitarian intake and more Indonesian processing centres. More of the latter in a moment.
The increase in Australia’s humanitarian intake from 20,000 to 30,000 (though 4000 of the additional 10,000 places would be reserved for family reunion) would represent a more-than-doubling in just under two years. The Houston Panel recommended eventually lifting our intake to 27,000 over an extended period, rather than 30,000. But the goal would be the same: to dramatically decrease the supply pressure, particularly by immediately taking 10,000 asylum seekers from the region, 3800 of them from Indonesia. The incentive to get into a boat would be reduced — additionally, because asylum seekers from refugee-producing countries would be allowed to travel to Australia by air as well.
And as the Greens point out, the cost of resettling such a significantly greater number of refugees — costed at an additional $2.5 billion — is far less than the cost of running offshore detention centres.
However, the policy raises a number of questions. It proposes a number of UNHCR-run “safe” asylum seeker processing centres in Indonesia, further increasing the attractiveness of Indonesia for asylum seekers who can reach it (whether the Greens have consulted with the Indonesian government about this isn’t clear).
However, there is no guarantee that reaching such a centre would guarantee you would reach Australia: the humanitarian program is capped at 30,000, including another 4000 for family reunion. What happens if the numbers of asylum seekers exceeds 30,000? If they reach Australia by boat, they won’t be detained beyond an initial period for screening — and they are guaranteed resettlement here.
In short, the Greens are relying on being able to permanently cut the supply of asylum seekers to below 30,000. But there may be those who are not content to wait in an Indonesian processing centre, and who want to get to Australia with their families to get on with their lives and end the uncertainty, or who have the money to fly to Australia. And more asylum seekers will be in Indonesia, and resettlement in Australia will be guaranteed if you can reach here by boat, even if Australia has already taken 30,000 people under its humanitarian program.
So the Greens policy will work well up until the 30,001st asylum seeker and at that point becomes unclear: what will happen to asylum seekers arriving after we’ve taken 30,000? Are they detained? Sent back to an Indonesian processing centre? It’s implicit, but the 30,000, in the absence of any offshore processing or PNG plan, isn’t a hard cap.
Still, it may be enough: in the absence of a major humanitarian crisis, the Greens’ policy may be sufficient. It would be cheaper, too, than running offshore detention centres and bribing less developed countries in our region to take our problem off our hands.
But the complete removal of disincentives — the Greens even propose presumably permanent “community detention” for those found to be a security risk — leaves the effectiveness of the policy in the hands of people smugglers and asylum seekers. Australia would be a more attractive destination than it is currently under the Greens’ policy, and the Greens have no answers for what happens if that drives asylum seeker numbers beyond their 30,000 cap.
66 thoughts on “Greens focus on incentives in asylum seeker policy”
michael r james
August 1, 2013 at 12:32 pm@CML at 11:08 am
Others have responded to you. But seriously, it is you who does not understand the fundamentals behind democracy. Instead you appear to be a simple-minded majoritarian. We have just seen the consequences of such a deeply flawed and immature view of that approach in the catastrophic rule of Mursi in his first 12 months in Egypt. He, and the Muslim Brotherhood, sincerely believed winning at least 50.1% of the vote gave them the right to impose their narrow view on the rest of the country. This is precisely the politics you are proposing. To be expected in a country where the mentality of a football game, with its clear outcome, is so important. And it’s nice and “simple”, yes?
But you are correct in one awful regard: many mainline politicians (and dumb voters) increasingly believe this. Especially from the Right (glance at our cousins across the Pacific who have rendered their country almost ungovernable). Abbott tried it when Minister of Health by blocking RU486, and one shudders to think what he might do with his “majority” if he were to reach the top.
As Dr Smithy says, our society is very complex. And as I have written (and sincerely I hope you read this) the electoral systems, and thus democracy, of the Anglophone countries is failing because of this inability to cope with the actual diversity:
((crikey.com.au/2010/09/03/the-crisis-in-governance-in-two-party-systems/))
The crisis in governance in two-party systems
by Michael R James, Friday, 3 September 2010
klewso
August 1, 2013 at 2:03 pmWhen was the last time either major party achieved 50(+1)% of the primary vote?
We have “government’s by second choice”.
shepherdmarilyn
August 1, 2013 at 5:36 pmNo Pretorious, the others who pretend it is complicated are wrong. It is not complicated in fact, it is only complicated by liars who refuse to uphold the facts.
That everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries and other obligations and rights.
It is only complicated because the Australian government and most of the media have been lying for the past 40 years about the law.
WE alone in the world pretend we can set silly little quotas but then make it impossible to access the quota in the first place.
WE alone in the world pretend that voluntary resettlement of a few thousand people is an obligation when it is not.
CML
August 1, 2013 at 5:37 pmTo all above – We currently have a system of preferential voting in this country. I am a realist. You work with what you have. If the system changes in the future, that is fine by me, except that we should still have ‘democracy’. My entire point is based on the premise that at present our election outcomes are based on the preferential system, which throws up government by majority, usually involving rule by one of the major parties. This has been the case for over 100 years, with only minor changes. You can argue the ‘rights or wrongs’of that system, but I don’t see it changing in the near future. Nor am I prepared to accept that minorities have the right to dictate to the majority.
As far as Egypt is concerned – the people voted in the Muslim Brotherhood. If they don’t like the outcome, then the people should have been allowed to change it (and still may) at another election. What happens if they have another election, and the Muslim Brotherhood wins again? Why is it our ‘right’ to dictate to another country what party/ideology they should elect? Ditto Gaza and their government. It has nothing to do with us. You may see their governments as illegitimate, but thereby hangs the moral philosophy question that many experts are having trouble answering.
As for the US – yes, their government does sometimes appear to be in deadlock. Fortunately, our ‘founding fathers’ were wise men who gave us a way out of that situation. It’s called the double dissolution, and the few times in our history that it has been used, the problem has been solved. Our system is quite different to that of the US.
As for getting rid of the two party structure – so you want to end up like Italy until recently, where on average, each ‘government’ lasted around 9 months, and caused great instability. You are on your own with that suggestion!
And Michael – Your description of the Australian electorate as ‘dumb voters’ is elitist in the extreme. Everyone here is permitted to vote however they like in a secret ballot. Regardless of what you think, the customer/voter is always right. You can’t seriously argue with what people think!!!
As for the possibility of an Abbott government – I do agree with you about that. But if that is what people vote for, so be it!
shepherdmarilyn
August 1, 2013 at 5:37 pmI mean to say, what is so complicated about deciding that an Hazara or Palestinian is a refugee? Seriously?
shepherdmarilyn
August 1, 2013 at 5:39 pmTamas they do not throw their bloody passports overboard, they don’t have any passports that are legal tender because they are frigging stateless.
Fair dinkum, stop putting first world standards on things and confusing easy migration from one safe country to another with seeking asylum.
Karly Rubins
August 1, 2013 at 6:02 pmTamas, I agree with Marilyn – they aren’t throwing their passports overboard, they simply don’t have any! The fact of the matter is, is that over 90% of ‘boat people’ are genuine asylum seekers. While we ignore all of the people that arrive via plane and overstay their Visa (only approximately 20% of these people are genuine asylum seekers).
Secondly, the fact that you are worried that an influx of 100 000 asylum seekers will create an ‘underclass’ completely ignores the fact that many of these people may actually have skills that will allow them to gain employment in Australia. Why not locate them in rural and regional centres in Australia to help them boost the economy in those smaller towns?
CML
August 1, 2013 at 10:43 pmMarilyn and Karly. – There is an international airline agreement which prohibits ANYONE from boarding a plane, anywhere in the world, without a passport and relevant papers to ensure the passenger can disembark when the plane arrives at it’s destination. Since almost 100% of asylum seekers who arrive in Malaysia or Indonesia come in on a plane,perhaps you could enlighten us all how they achieve this without said passport/ documents? Since we know these people MUST have passports etc., it is a legitimate question to ask why they destroy them.
That is the problem with asylum seeker advocates – they are either poorly informed, or just tell fibs to enhance their stories.
CML
August 1, 2013 at 10:49 pmAnd Karly. While you are busy giving jobs to an asylum seeker/ refugee, that is one less job for an Australian citizen who is unemployed.
And you don’t think that this will cause friction in the community? Wake up to yourself!
michael r james
August 1, 2013 at 11:08 pm@CML at 5:37 pm
You said Nor am I prepared to accept that minorities have the right to dictate to the majority. But as DrSmithy said, you have it completely backwards. Because, in fact it is the majority who are terrorized by the minority on these issues. And it is this minority that I am calling “dumb voters”.
Take action on Global Warming. For a long time more than 70% (I recall 74%) of people polled, wanted to see action such as a ETS. The reason Rudd panicked and etc was because of a quite small minority of voters who reacted to the usual ignorant loudmouths (those Western Sydney bogans who listen to Bolt, Hadley & Jones) and The Daily Tele and The Australian (did you see they printed an appalling amateur-hour piece by Joanne “Nova” yesterday?). Even after years of relentless negative campaigning by Abbott support was still above 50%.
As it happens it is the same ignorant minority that blocks Sydney’s second airport. And insists on endless expensive roads rather than public transport. And of course what do we get from Abbott on all these things?
I think you are like too many Australians, fooled by our current prosperity into believing everything is hunk dory. Didn’t you read the article by Geoff Aigner and Liz Skelton (The prosperity paradox: who’ll lead when times are so good?) in yesterday’s Crikey? It’s really just another iteration of the Lucky Country syndrome. Our prosperity is more fragile than most people realize and our polity is paralyzed/terrorized by ignorant minorities who wield an outsized and undemocratic entirely malign influence.