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”
drsmithy
August 2, 2013 at 5:56 pmI do not understand why all of you think these asylum seekers are more reliable, honest and deserving of tax-payer’s money, than our own Australian citizens.
This is what’s called a straw man.
I have yet to receive ANY answers from refugee advocates on disputed questions.
So I went back and had a look for these “disputed questions”. I found:
“But what happens when there are 30,000, 50,000 or 100,000+ per/year, every year? Australia simply cannot afford, either economically or socially, to settle that number of people + their families.”
Firstly, your whole basis is a hypothetical. There might be 100k refugees reaching Australia in 5 years, there might be 5k.
However, we currently allow for 190,000 permanent migrants, in addition to the 20,000 places for humanitarian purposes. The obvious answer is that more humanitarian intake means less other intake. How you feel about that is something of a moral question – whether we should favour those mostly already living in safe, civilised countries who are mostly likely relocating for lifestyle reasons, or whether we should favour those coming from warzones fleeing persecution and in fear of their lives.
This 190,000 represents 0.8% of the population. Back in the ’50s and ’60s, permanent immigration represented 1-1.4% of the population, more than 50% higher.
I’m sure we can agree Australia in the ’50s and ’60s wasn’t a dystopian wasteland.
Picking an amount somewhere in the middle of that historic range – say 1.2% – would indicate we can take ca. 285,000 immigrants per year.
Then there was the obligatory “papers please” question.
People fleeing persecution, often by Government, and often based on ethnic, religious, or social group, understandably do not want to be identified. Hence fake identification.
On employment, as I said earlier, whether we want the Government to pursue real full-employment policies (ie: Government steps in in to employ people when private industry demand for employees is insufficient), is an entirely separate discussion irrelevant to whether those people are asylum seekers, or one of the 10% or more of the population who currently wants to work more but can’t. Similarly for the issues of housing and welfare.
As for people being “hateful” because of some free cigarettes, they should maybe consider all the free stuff they’ve enjoyed (and will enjoy) in their life simply by virtue of being born in this country before getting too agitated.
Finally, we come back to the simple fact that the vast, vast majority of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, and thus perfectly within their rights to seek asylum in Australia, and it is our obligation under the treaty we have signed, to deal with that. If that is your desire, so be it, but you might want to reflect on why you’re so bloody scared of a handful (proportionally speaking) of people who have arrived seeking help from those who would harm them.
CML
August 2, 2013 at 8:26 pmBronwyn, you are just another smarta+se with nothing relevant to say.
CML
August 3, 2013 at 1:01 amdrsmithy – I feel this conversation is going around in circles. Don’t think I will ever change your mind, and you certainly won’t change mine. We have recently returned from overseas – UK, Europe and Canada – and I can tell you most people I met do NOT want anymore refugees in their country, refugee convention or not. So I wouldn’t run away with the idea that the Australian attitude is unique. You and most other refugee advocates do not seem to realise, that if you keep on pushing the envelope, insisting that we must take all those who arrive (yes 90% found to be refugees because in most cases they have no documentation, and can spin a good story), there will be a major push from the public to withdraw from the refugee convention. And judging from what I have been hearing overseas, we won’t be the only ones. Doesn’t matter what you or I think about this. That is what will happen. You people need to stop demonising those who don’t agree with you for starters.
Now, let me tell you I am not “frightened” of anyone, let alone refugees. What I don’t want to see in Australia (for my grandchildren), is the state of play in parts of Britain, where many cities have “no go”areas for white people. There are cultural and religious clashes all over the place, and you just get the feeling that all this resentment, anger over terrorist attacks/riots and just general interference in people’s lives, will explode into something much more dangerous. The hatred between groups is palpable, especially in France. You might want that for Australia. I don’t! And it will happen here as sure as night turns into day. For the first time in 40 years I didn’t feel safe anywhere overseas.
On migration versus refugee intake: like most other western countries, Australia takes people through the migration program who have skills we require. While some refugees may have those skills, the vast majority of them are uneducated, even illiterate. Yes, we can educate the next generation, but that takes time and costs a lot of money. So what do we do with the adults in the meantime? I read somewhere that 95% of refugees are still on welfare five years after they arrive in this country. Who is going to pay for all this? Someone has to go without – it is not possible in a country of 23 million people to do everything. The refugee advocates seem to imply that the poor in this country should just suck it up. And that is the beginning of the resentment build-up. You also seem to forget that most Australian citizens who are doing it tough have worked and paid taxes here in the good times. Why shouldn’t they expect some government assistance for general living/retraining when they lose their jobs, have health problems or fall on hard times? It is their country after all.
On permanent settlement for refugees: as I have said before, as signatories to the refugee convention, we are NOT required to give any refugee permanent protection, let alone citizenship. I think we should offer temporary protection, and concentrate all our efforts on improving conditions in the so-called source countries. Then these people can return home and have some kind of future, along with all those who do not have the money to “escape”. I have a problem with the selective compassion displayed by refugee advocates. Those who have money and can get to a western country like Australia, GOOD. Those who sit in refugee camps for decades all over the world, BUGG=R THEM!! The latter don’t seem to be “REAL” refugees. The boat-people are much more visible and exciting. Conspicuous compassion personified!!! Yes, I am very cynical about refugee advocate’s choices, I’m afraid.
And that is about it from me – think I’ve reached the stage of repeating myself! Sorry about that. Have enjoyed your comments and the debate. Thank you for that.
Bronwyn
August 3, 2013 at 7:41 amAnd the problem with people like you, CML, is that you will simply dismiss any information that does not confirm what you think you already know.
When somebody is so closed-minded, and so vigorous in their dismissal of any source which does not support their position, then in my view the only logical conclusion is that their opinions are based on nothing but good old-fashioned prejudice.
Eric Vigo
August 3, 2013 at 10:34 amYou are SO right. Out of all the things you have said, this is what refugee lovers are ignoring.
As it turns out, this morning, before I read your piece, I had hacked into the CES website. I was only allowed to see 3 jobs per viewing. I could print the jobs out on little cards (brown ones) and some person in the computer will find out if I am suited by looking at my resume.
I pretended I was a a refugee, as I put on an accent, and down the jobs came:
• gas pumper at Ampol on George Street, Sydney (smoking on job banned)
• milkman (6.30am start)
• switchboard operator at Telecom (this was the only job where I could smoke my free cigarettes at the desk.)
Contact the CES hotline on: 008 111 666
or local call: 06 278 1199
or telex them on: 051916424
drsmithy
August 3, 2013 at 12:14 pmI feel this conversation is going around in circles. Don’t think I will ever change your mind, and you certainly won’t change mine.
My mind has been changed before. I used to be in the “f**k off, we’re full” camp like you, until I started actually researching the topic.
We have recently returned from overseas – UK, Europe and Canada – and I can tell you most people I met do NOT want anymore refugees in their country, refugee convention or not. So I wouldn’t run away with the idea that the Australian attitude is unique.
It is entirely about the “sell”.
Sell refugees as desperate, in fear for their lives, fleeing persecution and looking to start a new life, and they’ll generally be accomodated.
Sell them as sneaky queue-jumpers, not really in danger, moving for “lifestyle” and, well, since that’s all that’s been done by both major parties and most media for the last decade, we know what happens then.
Most people are decent and empathic at their core, in my experience, and willing to help those in need. And while 15-20 years (more like 30-40 in the other countries you mentioned) of right-wing Government promoting entitlement, greed and selfishness has done its best to stamp that out, I am confident it’s still there. I expect the coming recession will remind some Australians what it’s like to be less fortunate than their peers through no apparent fault of their own.
You and most other refugee advocates do not seem to realise, that if you keep on pushing the envelope, insisting that we must take all those who arrive (yes 90% found to be refugees because in most cases they have no documentation, and can spin a good story), there will be a major push from the public to withdraw from the refugee convention.
You have given no reason to believe we’re “pushing the envelope” – indeed, I gave you an historical reference frame to suggest we’re not even close – nor any evidence that any meaningful proportion of people found to be genuine refugees are not.
You people need to stop demonising those who don’t agree with you for starters.
Be careful waving irony around like that. You could take someone’s eye out.
On migration versus refugee intake: like most other western countries, Australia takes people through the migration program who have skills we require.
Yeah, I’m sure all those “skilled immigrants” driving mining trucks, pouring cement and reading scripts on phone support desks have skills that could never be found amongst, or easily taught to, locals or asylum seekers.
While some refugees may have those skills, the vast majority of them are uneducated, even illiterate.
Wait, hang on. I thought they were all middle-class “economic” migrants who were wealthy enough to fly to Indonesia then pay off a people smuggler ?
One thing the xeonophobes tend to be somewhat correct about (albeit with the wrong motivation) is that the people who make it halfway across the world are generally not in the same demographic as goat-herders. Those unlucky sods end up in places much closer to the action (eg: like Jordan – now *there* is a country with a _real_ refugee problem) because they don’t have the resources to get any further. People who make it to Australia are reasonably likely to be middle-class and educated, because if they were’t they wouldn’t have made it this far.
Further, refugees are generally likely to spend at least a couple of years locked up in detention centres being processed, where they also have access to education resources.
So this argument that they couldn’t be easily capable of working, is utter bunkum.
I read somewhere that 95% of refugees are still on welfare five years after they arrive in this country.
Now there’s a figure that’s going to be a lying with statistics number if ever I’ve seen it.
Firstly, probably more than half the country is “on welfare” to some degree. Indeed, if you’re not single, a childless couple, or extremely wealthy, chances are pretty good you’ve received (or continue to receive) some sort of welfare payment.
You are suggesting you’re fairly old. Do you get a pension payment of any sort ? Got a senior’s card ? Well, that means you’re “on welfare”.
Secondly, I’d put down a hundred bucks in an instant betting that “95%” includes people on bridging visas who are not _allowed_ to work and therefore must rely on welfare (and usually voluntary donations as well) just to survive.
Who is going to pay for all this? Someone has to go without – it is not possible in a country of 23 million people to do everything.
Let’s put this into perspective here. Even 100,000 refugees represent 0.4% of the population. Are you seriously arguing one of the richest, lowest-taxing countries in the world can’t afford small fractions of one percent more people than we’d originally planned for ? Because that’s like inviting 500 people to a party then saying there won’t be enough food and drink when one or two of them bring a friend.
The refugee advocates seem to imply that the poor in this country should just suck it up.
Please quote some people who have said this. Actual quotes as well, not your usual straw men and imagined false dichotomies.
On permanent settlement for refugees: as I have said before, as signatories to the refugee convention, we are NOT required to give any refugee permanent protection, let alone citizenship. I think we should offer temporary protection, and concentrate all our efforts on improving conditions in the so-called source countries. Then these people can return home and have some kind of future, along with all those who do not have the money to “escape”.
So let’s get this straight. You think we should provide “temporary protection” – basically, the initial and most expensive part of the whole process – then just when people have started to integrate, find work and contribute to the local economy and culture, we should send them home ?
I don’t think you’ve thought your cunning plan all the way through.
I have a problem with the selective compassion displayed by refugee advocates. Those who have money and can get to a western country like Australia, GOOD. Those who sit in refugee camps for decades all over the world, BUGG=R THEM!! The latter don’t seem to be “REAL” refugees. The boat-people are much more visible and exciting. Conspicuous compassion personified!!! Yes, I am very cynical about refugee advocate’s choices, I’m afraid.
You’re not cynical, you’re dishonest.
Who has said anything similar to your assertions ? Again, actual quotes from relevant people.