This week, as the debate about what happened on Manus Island
that caused the death of one person and the injury of 77 others continued, Australians
looked on in horror.
As we now have come to expect, all we got from Minister
Morrison was continued obfuscation despite the fact that he was more
forthcoming than usual on this issue.
But the reaction by Richard Marles – shadow spokesperson for immigration
and border protection – was just plain disappointing.
Richard appears to be defending the indefensible by
continuing to support the former Labor Government’s politically expedient
asylum seeker policy. That the reality
of the asylum seeker issue had not usurped politics is beyond sad.
“The ALP has to change. It can earn itself some credibility
by taking a stance, even if that means the short term pain of owning up to past
mistakes and dodgy dealings. That would
not only be the right thing to do, it is increasingly the only thing they can
do if they have any hope of ever earning the respect of the country again.”
The basis of Australia’s Asylum Seeker policy is narrowly focussed on “removing the people smuggler's business model” and there has been a parallel escalation of punitive conditions for entry (or non-entry) into Australia. The language - 'business model', 'illegal immigrant’ etc. - dehumanises Asylum Seekers and demonizes the victims. Certainly there has been a sincere attempt from all sides of politics to stop the staggering loss of life of Asylum Seekers at sea but the current policy is aimed at deterring the victims and intimating that what they are fleeing to is at least as bad or worse than what they are fleeing from.
The punitive premise of this policy position perpetuated
over that 20 year period is fundamentally wrong. Australia, along with other wealthy countries, has the moral obligation and the
economic capacity to develop permissive and empathetic policies to support the
resettlement of the world’s most disadvantaged people.
•There are an estimated 447,547 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Afghanistan
•As of 2012, there remained 1.8 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, just over 1,000,000 in Iran and around 90,000 in other neighbouring countries
•Many IDPs and return refugees are unable to resettle in their place of origin and live in informal settlements in Kabul and other cities
•Over half of all Afghans do not have clean water and 63 per cent lack effective sanitation
•One third of Afghans survive on less than $1 a day
•Another third of the population is ranked just above this extreme poverty marker
•Afghanistan has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world
•Afghanistan has the highest rates of under-5 mortality in Asia, with levels comparable to other countries experiencing prolonged crises, such as Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
•There are an average of 55 health personnel—including doctors, nurses, and midwives—for every 10,000 inhabitants
The complex nature of the Sri Lankan Asylum Seeker challenge is described by Paul Komesaroff, Monash University; Paul James, RMIT University, and Suresh Sundram, University of Melbourne in their article for The Conversation as follows:
A common allegation levelled at Sri Lanka’s Asylum Seekers heading to Australia is that they are largely coming for economic reasons. Komesaroff, James and Sundram’s hypothesis is that the reasons are far more complex than pure economics and that there is no future for Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers in their home country. "They do not see a future for themselves there. They are leaving because their hope, depleted by decades of conflict, has not been restored by the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of some level of material wealth."
For Somalia: Refugees International indicate :"As of September 2013, there were more than 1.1 million Somalis displaced internally and nearly one million refugees living in neighbouring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Yemen."
The United Nations Population Fund reports that: "As the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic is now well into its third year, around 9.3 million people are reported to be directly affected by the crisis, more than 5 million Syrians have been internally displaced, and over 2.2 million refugees have poured into neighbouring countries, of which more than 500,000 are women and girls of reproductive age and 41,000 are pregnant. The United Nations expects another 2.25 million more to be displaced within the Syrian Arab Republic and an additional 2 million Syrians to become refugees in 2014."
Pop-ups are typically of short duration, in high ‘traffic’
areas, in low-rent premises – usually paid upfront - and are used to sell or
launch products, be a presence during special events, generate awareness, move
inventory or test ideas.
Perhaps this concept can be adapted for our overseas aid program.
A marquee; card table; satellite-phone; and an internet connection located in the middle of a refugee camp in Kenya, Lebanon, Jordan or Pakistan etc. staffed with Immigration and other Federal Government officials facilitating the processing of Asylum Seekers at source. Yes, UNHCR do this work already for those nations signed up to the appropriate conventions but, in this case, we are specifically addressing the needs of a small number of Asylum Seekers who hope that Australia offers them a possible safe refuge and new start.
Obviously there are sovereignty issues that need to be thrashed out with host countries but there are already diplomatic protocols that can be adapted and the pop-up concept would hardly impose long-term imposts on the host countries.
But what do we do with the Asylum Seekers when they arrive on our shores?
By identifying labour and skill shortages in rural and regional areas, Asylum Seekers, many of whom would have expertise in the areas where we have shortages, would receive meaningful and valuable work - giving them a purpose and a faster track to integration. Any initial government investment in this scheme would be quickly repaid with increased productivity.
Through intelligent policy development, recognition of prior learning for qualified Asylum Seekers (Doctors, engineers, scientists, dry-land agriculturalists etc.) could be fast-tracked and accredited experts would have the opportunity for immediate employment in an expanding marketplace. A considered expansion, with the goal of permanent employment, of the 457 visa scheme should also be considered.
Clive Brooks in his article Understanding Immigrants and the Labour Market says: “Quite a large number of Australian studies have looked at the impact of immigration on the unemployment rate and all have found that overall immigration, despite the fears of some commentators, does not lead to increases in the unemployment rate".
Yes, there would be the expected “they’re coming here and taking our jobs” protests but studies like the above have shown this is baseless, particularly when the relatively small numbers of people we are referring to is considered. (Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection publications indicate only a little over 18,000 “Irregular Maritime Arrivals” came to Australia in 2012-13. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/.)
This is just not that big a problem.
Both Sydney and Melbourne have large populations of immigrants. Far from being squalid enclaves of isolated and isolationist groups, these areas are arguably some of the most interesting, culturally diverse and bustling areas in our cities. Yes, there are social issues and crime can be higher than the norm but, in general, what you witness in these areas is people going about their business, setting up small and medium enterprises and generally becoming that diverse cultural mix that epitomises our successful Australian community.
Disappointment with the major parties’ refusal to take up the moral challenge and address this issue from a fresh policy perspective is, anecdotally at any rate, becoming more prevalent.
However, both parties have indicated continued support for current policies. The Labor Party is cornered by former Prime Minister Rudd’s late adoption of the PNG solution and fear that a quantum change in ALP policy in this area will be criticised roundly on the floor of Parliament and Prime Minister Abbott’s recent pronouncements in the media seem to indicate, if anything, a hardening of the Coalition’s position on this issue: “We will not succumb to pressure, to moral blackmail’’ and “[w]e will ensure these camps are run fairly, if necessary firmly’’.
The Asylum Seeker issue will not go away. Continued unrest in Syria, in particular, increases the risk that the problem may even worsen. A clear indication from the major parties that new and positive thinking on this issue is happening is well overdue and whilst the Australian public may not get the opportunity to judge this thinking until the next election, I’m not sure our Asylum Seeker brethren can wait that long –this week’s tragedy on Manus Island highlights how urgent this is.
Australia can and should address this issue with new vision. Whether that is done by exploring ideas like the ones above or through some other means Australia is ready for change. It shouldn’t take more deaths before we do.
Photo courtesy of asrc.org.au |
Back in December last year, newly minted Senator for New
South Wales Sam Dastyari gave his maiden speech to the Federal Senate. Dastyari is an Iranian immigrant whose family
fled their home as refugees in the late 1980s when Sam was 5 years old. His family made their home in Australia and,
with Sam's appointment to the Senate last year, the Dastyari story is a good
one, notwithstanding that he didn't arrive by boat.
Dastyari has called for a new debate on the plight of Asylum
Seekers and a fresh look at Australia's asylum seeker policy. In that vein, and motivated by several years
of complete frustration with the tone of Australia’s asylum seeker debate, what
follows are a few thoughts on this intractable issue.
This is by no means a policy statement and much work needs
to be done to bring this thinking from nascent ideas to formal policy. So first some background:
The opening statement of the Australian Human Rights Commission
Asylum
Seekers, refugees and Human Rights
Snapshot report states that, "For over 20 years successive Australian
governments have adopted various policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers
from arriving by boat. During this
period mandatory immigration detention and offshore processing have been key
policies in attempts to reduce the number of boat arrivals."The basis of Australia’s Asylum Seeker policy is narrowly focussed on “removing the people smuggler's business model” and there has been a parallel escalation of punitive conditions for entry (or non-entry) into Australia. The language - 'business model', 'illegal immigrant’ etc. - dehumanises Asylum Seekers and demonizes the victims. Certainly there has been a sincere attempt from all sides of politics to stop the staggering loss of life of Asylum Seekers at sea but the current policy is aimed at deterring the victims and intimating that what they are fleeing to is at least as bad or worse than what they are fleeing from.
Photo courtesy of deLiberation.info |
“Australia has
resettled around 800,000 refugees since World War II, building one of the
world’s most successful multicultural societies” (Australian Human Rights Commission).
That Australia has encouraged and facilitated such extensive and
successful migration over a relatively short period of time is a fact that is
not lost on prospective refugees. The
idea that, rather than welcoming and allowing them to become part of this
successful multicultural society, Australia will prohibit their arrival;
forcibly relocate them to regional processing centres; and, never
allow them to settle here is completely at odds with their image of our
country.
At the risk of perpetuating the practice of reducing Asylum
Seekers to numbers and statistics, let's look at who these people are and what motivated
them to risk their lives at sea to get here: •There are an estimated 447,547 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Afghanistan
•As of 2012, there remained 1.8 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, just over 1,000,000 in Iran and around 90,000 in other neighbouring countries
•Many IDPs and return refugees are unable to resettle in their place of origin and live in informal settlements in Kabul and other cities
•Over half of all Afghans do not have clean water and 63 per cent lack effective sanitation
•One third of Afghans survive on less than $1 a day
•Another third of the population is ranked just above this extreme poverty marker
•Afghanistan has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world
•Afghanistan has the highest rates of under-5 mortality in Asia, with levels comparable to other countries experiencing prolonged crises, such as Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
•There are an average of 55 health personnel—including doctors, nurses, and midwives—for every 10,000 inhabitants
The complex nature of the Sri Lankan Asylum Seeker challenge is described by Paul Komesaroff, Monash University; Paul James, RMIT University, and Suresh Sundram, University of Melbourne in their article for The Conversation as follows:
"The million or so people who left South-east Asia
after the wars in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were not fleeing straightforward
oppression: they were leaving behind sites of trauma and despair that had
become too painful."
"The flight of Sri Lankan citizens — Tamil, Sinhala and
Muslim — after the conclusion of the recent civil war largely fits this
pattern. The alleged autocratic nature
of the regime, continuing human rights abuses and threats to democratic
processes, the freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary may
well exist, but they are not the reasons why thousands of people are prepared
to risk their lives to leave their homeland."A common allegation levelled at Sri Lanka’s Asylum Seekers heading to Australia is that they are largely coming for economic reasons. Komesaroff, James and Sundram’s hypothesis is that the reasons are far more complex than pure economics and that there is no future for Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers in their home country. "They do not see a future for themselves there. They are leaving because their hope, depleted by decades of conflict, has not been restored by the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of some level of material wealth."
For Somalia: Refugees International indicate :"As of September 2013, there were more than 1.1 million Somalis displaced internally and nearly one million refugees living in neighbouring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Yemen."
"The government installed in 2012 controls only a
fraction of the country, and those areas remain fragile in the face of tension
between competing warlords and frequent attacks from the Al Shabab terrorist
group."
The plight of Somali’s massive volume
of displaced peoples is well documented and few people could truly remain
unmoved by the graphic brutality that is the cornerstone of Somalia’s tragic
domestic circumstances.Photo courtesy of Reuters |
In Syria: Refugees
International indicate: "As of July 2013, more than 1.5 million
Syrians have registered as refugees in neighbouring countries, and refugees
already in Syria from third countries are being displaced again in growing
numbers."
"Best estimates suggest that 4.25 million Syrians are
internally displaced, while up to 6.8 million inside the country may be
vulnerable and in need of humanitarian assistance."The United Nations Population Fund reports that: "As the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic is now well into its third year, around 9.3 million people are reported to be directly affected by the crisis, more than 5 million Syrians have been internally displaced, and over 2.2 million refugees have poured into neighbouring countries, of which more than 500,000 are women and girls of reproductive age and 41,000 are pregnant. The United Nations expects another 2.25 million more to be displaced within the Syrian Arab Republic and an additional 2 million Syrians to become refugees in 2014."
Television news and Facebook feeds are full of horrific
images from the Syrian crisis. Although
later claimed to be an overreach, the troubling
image of 4 year old Marwan, posted by Andrew Harper of the UN, serves only
to highlight the unimaginable conditions being experienced in this most current
of war torn countries. We have not even
begun to see the incredible volume of refugees searching for asylum in our
regions in the near future from this conflict.
These are all undeniably desperate people – people with whom
we can only vaguely empathise given our comfort and privilege living in
Australia. And yet we, who can afford
both materially and morally, to do so much, do so little. Is there another way?
A peculiar recent phenomenon of our wealthy, consumer-driven
society is the concept of the pop-up business.
Photo courtesy of globalsiteplans.com |
Perhaps this concept can be adapted for our overseas aid program.
A marquee; card table; satellite-phone; and an internet connection located in the middle of a refugee camp in Kenya, Lebanon, Jordan or Pakistan etc. staffed with Immigration and other Federal Government officials facilitating the processing of Asylum Seekers at source. Yes, UNHCR do this work already for those nations signed up to the appropriate conventions but, in this case, we are specifically addressing the needs of a small number of Asylum Seekers who hope that Australia offers them a possible safe refuge and new start.
The goal is to provide those who apply and pass initial
checks with safe passage to Australia by chartered aircraft or boat. No more people smugglers required. An ultimate goal is to offer permanent
residency or citizenship.
As well as at source countries, this facility could also operate
in transit countries. Most countries
currently used as transit stops by Asylum Seekers are unable or unwilling to
deal with the refugee problem on a permanent basis on their own and would be delighted
to see a solution that involves the expeditious transit of Asylum Seekers
through their shores.Obviously there are sovereignty issues that need to be thrashed out with host countries but there are already diplomatic protocols that can be adapted and the pop-up concept would hardly impose long-term imposts on the host countries.
But what do we do with the Asylum Seekers when they arrive on our shores?
Our history is replete with the successes of displaced people
(Asylum Seekers of their era) contributing significantly to the prosperity and
success of this nation. We need to get
back to an understanding of what is good
about what we have achieved and how that will be enhanced with an expanded
intake of refugees.
In a November 2012 article
for Australian Policy Online, Luke Condon from The Allen Consulting Group said:
“There is a strong imperative for coordinated action to address current and
looming skill shortages in the wider agricultural sector”. The same can be said for
non-agricultural sectors too.By identifying labour and skill shortages in rural and regional areas, Asylum Seekers, many of whom would have expertise in the areas where we have shortages, would receive meaningful and valuable work - giving them a purpose and a faster track to integration. Any initial government investment in this scheme would be quickly repaid with increased productivity.
Through intelligent policy development, recognition of prior learning for qualified Asylum Seekers (Doctors, engineers, scientists, dry-land agriculturalists etc.) could be fast-tracked and accredited experts would have the opportunity for immediate employment in an expanding marketplace. A considered expansion, with the goal of permanent employment, of the 457 visa scheme should also be considered.
Clive Brooks in his article Understanding Immigrants and the Labour Market says: “Quite a large number of Australian studies have looked at the impact of immigration on the unemployment rate and all have found that overall immigration, despite the fears of some commentators, does not lead to increases in the unemployment rate".
Yes, there would be the expected “they’re coming here and taking our jobs” protests but studies like the above have shown this is baseless, particularly when the relatively small numbers of people we are referring to is considered. (Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection publications indicate only a little over 18,000 “Irregular Maritime Arrivals” came to Australia in 2012-13. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/.)
This is just not that big a problem.
Both Sydney and Melbourne have large populations of immigrants. Far from being squalid enclaves of isolated and isolationist groups, these areas are arguably some of the most interesting, culturally diverse and bustling areas in our cities. Yes, there are social issues and crime can be higher than the norm but, in general, what you witness in these areas is people going about their business, setting up small and medium enterprises and generally becoming that diverse cultural mix that epitomises our successful Australian community.
Disappointment with the major parties’ refusal to take up the moral challenge and address this issue from a fresh policy perspective is, anecdotally at any rate, becoming more prevalent.
However, both parties have indicated continued support for current policies. The Labor Party is cornered by former Prime Minister Rudd’s late adoption of the PNG solution and fear that a quantum change in ALP policy in this area will be criticised roundly on the floor of Parliament and Prime Minister Abbott’s recent pronouncements in the media seem to indicate, if anything, a hardening of the Coalition’s position on this issue: “We will not succumb to pressure, to moral blackmail’’ and “[w]e will ensure these camps are run fairly, if necessary firmly’’.
Photo courtesy of myamazingparadise.com |
Australia can and should address this issue with new vision. Whether that is done by exploring ideas like the ones above or through some other means Australia is ready for change. It shouldn’t take more deaths before we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment