Asylum seeker policy on the run

In an attempt to gain an upper hand over Tony Abbott on the asylum seeker issue and victory at the upcoming federal election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the Government’s latest instalment of their asylum seeker policy by proposing to establish a regional processing centre in East Timor.

It sounded like a good thought bubble at the time. In an endeavour to establish a politically palatable solution as a means of neutralising the asylum seeker issue with the Australian public, Gillard attempted to engineer a marriage of convenience with East Timor’s President Jose Ramos-Horta. However, it seems it is Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao that Gillard should have courted.

The fallout is that Prime Minister Gusmao initially informed Gillard not to bother calling him until such time as she had sorted out what she wants from this marriage of convenience. It now appears that East Timor’s parliament has, in the past 24 hours, knocked back Gillard’s proposal. It seems for now our Julia has been publicly jilted at the altar.

While the idea of establishing a regional processing centre for asylum seekers is conceptually a sound one, it also demonstrates the weakness in governments taking a virtual policy-on-the-run approach devoid of insightful examination and lacking in real substance. It also shows a government that has not heeded the lessons of the mining tax fiasco, by failing to engage and consult with those impacted, and which again is more focused on spin over substance.

Perhaps today’s political leaders should note the late Don Chipp, former leader of the Australian Democrats, who described in the party’s first issue of its journal in 1977 how the then newly established party should develop policy:

... what we can do, and I believe that this purpose should underlie all our policies, is to set a legislative, social and economic framework in which kindness, generosity and wisdom can compete on better than equal terms with the greed, materialisms and mere cleverness which characterises so much of our present society.

Some 33 years on, the passage of time does not diminish the essence of Chipp’s philosophical policy underpinnings, and is particularly pertinent today on the issue and treatment of asylum seekers.

Controversy continues in Australia’s political debate on the treatment of asylum seekers. It’s a controversy which unfortunately and ungraciously plays itself out along the low road of politics, and which seems to escalate in prominence and with precision as a political theme around election time.

While there may have been a fleeting moment of expectation that the 2007 election victory of the Labor Government ushered in a time in which the politics of hope prevailed over the Coalition’s politics of fear, the latter is well and truly alive in Australian politics. It is predicated on preying on people’s irrational fears. You could be forgiven in thinking Australian borders are being infiltrated by alien forces from the north which threatens to undermine Australia’s security, prosperity and our way of life.

In the dying days of Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership, this display of public anxiety was underscored by Rudd’s statement that he would not engage in a “lurching to the right” and a “race to the bottom” on the issue of asylum seekers.

With an impending federal election, the race is now truly on between the two major political parties in a race to the finish line where there will potentially be a lose-lose outcome - no winner for those seeking a sanctuary from torture, persecution, and possible death, and no winner for the Australian community who will, as a whole, be seen to lack compassion for fellow humans in their hour of need.

As a vote grabbing exercise, successive governments of both political persuasions have implemented stop gap policy measures which have endeavoured to stem the flow of “boat people” to Australian shores. In many instances, these measures have been contrary to the spirit of international law and a breach of Australia’s international obligations, including the 1951 Refugees Conventions and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such policies have included the “The Pacific Solution”, temporary protection visas, and the suspension of the processing of applications of asylum seekers originating from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

The reality is that the issue of asylum seekers is not unique to Australia and exists on a more profound level in other parts of the world. Rather than seek a nationalistic based solution, the opportunity avails itself in Australia leading and sourcing a solution which is international in nature. In announcing the Government’s revised asylum seekers policy, there should be some acknowledgement that Gillard has taken a more global view of the issue.

While there is general consensus that there is no simple solution to such a complex issue, if we base a solution which exudes humanistic characteristics of “kindness, generosity and wisdom”, then the possibility exists for a compassionate and practical solution which is devoid of a “divide and conquer” mentality existent in today’s and past political debates.

The facts clearly demonstrate that politicians across the political divide have exaggerated the magnitude of the asylum seeker issue and misled the public. In the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) 2009 Global Trends’ report on Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internationally Displaced and Stateless Persons, it reveals that, globally, about 43 million people are forcibly displaced as a result of humanitarian crises, conflict and persecution, and of which around 1 million relate to asylum applications that have not been adjudicated.

The UNHCR’s 2009 Report shows Europe as the major destination for individual asylum seekers with around 359,000 asylum claims, with Africa close behind with about 336,000. The Americas recorded 125,000 claims, Asia 93,700, and Oceania received 9,000 asylum seekers. The major destination for new asylum seekers was South Africa with over 222,000 asylum claims registered in 2009, followed by the United States with about 48,000 applications.

In 2009, the report also revealed that Australia had around 2,350 cases whose application for asylum or refugee status was pending at any stage in the asylum process. This equates to about 0.5 per cent (that is, less than 1 per cent) of the world’s asylum claims. In 2010 to date, the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat totalled less than 3,600 on 76 boat vessels.

Under a Coalition Government Tony Abbott proposes the resurrection of the “Pacific solution”, which will refuse asylum seekers attempting to enter Australia by boat, and even turn boats around to return from whence they came.

While Abbott’s objective is to discourage people smugglers and asylum seekers arriving by boat, it is morally bankrupt and inhumane: it places human lives in danger and further traumatising those who have fled from persecution and possible death. Australia has a moral responsibility and a duty under international law to provide a safe sanctuary for those who need help rather than return them to possible persecution and even death.

Rather than exacerbating and being part of the problem, Australia, with other nations, must formulate an internationally sustainable and cost effective solution, which commits to and respects international law, and one in which our nation’s moral compass is not compromised.

A globally based solution is one which includes and ensures Australia, in conjunction with nations that form part of the United Nations, increases its intensity and commitment to:

• confronting and addressing the root causes of why asylum seekers and refugees seek refuge, including pursuing measures that will help to minimise the likelihood of people fleeing from their homeland;
   
• pursuing strategies which attempt to interrupt and breakdown smuggling networks and which inhibit asylum seekers from embarking on their perilous journey across dangerous waters and land;
   
• establishing regional processing centres at pre-determined locations across the globe (which may well include Australia) enabling non-partisan international organisations - overseen by the United Nations - to process applications for asylum;
   
• establishing a fairer resettlement process which delivers a more equitable spread in sharing the burden of asylum seekers and refugees across the globe. This ensures no single nation alone needs to carry the weight of a global issue;
   
• fully complying with its international law obligations and creating a more compassionate national legislative framework for asylum-seekers who arrive at its borders to ensure they are treated fairly and humanely;
   
• limiting the timeframe asylum seekers remain in these regional processing centres, for example, no longer than a period of two months, which should enable authorities to verify seekers’ identities, to undertake health checks, and make a decision regarding their application for asylum and destination of settlement;
   
• raising the level of financial and other resource related aid to the United Nations and international organisations to support the regional processing centres as well as to source countries to assist in addressing the push and pull factors which contribute to asylum seekers searching for a new home free from persecution and premature death.

Australia’s annual humanitarian intake is currently restricted to about 14,000, and should have the economic capacity to increase its intake relative to other nations. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, noted that it is the developing world which faces the “… burden of displacement”, with 80 per cent of refugees situated in the developing world. Guterres also insightfully highlighted “Generosity and wealth are not proportional to each other”.

The Global Financial Crisis showed that a co-ordinated international response can successfully tackle global oriented issues. The same resolute global response can also be achieved for asylum seekers rather than the tainted nationalistic approach currently being pursued.

Ironically, in our modern world of globalism, in which money, goods and services flows freely across borders, when it comes to flow of people across borders, there still exists an innate territorial tribalism hard wired into the human psyche.

From an Australian perspective, somewhere within that territorial tribalism exists, in the words of the late Don Chipp, some “kindness, generosity and wisdom”, that can achieve a politically bipartisan policy outcome and which reveals the true essence of Australian society - one which humanely welcomes those in desperate need with open arms and offers a ray of light where once there was darkness.