A solution to the boats

Richard Ackland in The Pacific Solution is reaching its endgame. Scott Morrison will soon run out of options suggests that we take more asylum seekers from camps in Indonesia and Malaysia. Although he doesn't mention that's basically what we did under the Fraser Government. It's also something I have been suggesting for some time. It's far more of a humanitarian solution than the Government's current policy.

Predestination

Andrew P Street makes some interesting points in Scott Morrison and the Conveniently Comforting Doctrine of Predestination. He explains how some Pentecostal Christians can be complicit in all manner of evil activities without troubling their conscience.

Morrison belongs to Shirelive, a giant Pentecostal church in the Sydney suburb of Sutherland. It's an evangelical Protestant church of the clapping-and-waving variety and falls under the charismatic umbrella of what is somewhat dismissively called “prosperity theology” - the idea that material success is a sign from God that you're doing His work.

The flipside of this doctrine is that those who are not doing well are clearly not in God's good graces. Such as, for instance, the poor, or the sick, or those fleeing persecution from repressive regimes by buying passage for their family with people smugglers and being intercepted on the high seas by Australian Customs Vessels.

Street then goes on to explain the justification for this belief:

You may justifiably ask how this can possibly work theologically, given everything that Jesus said about camels and the Kingdom of Heaven and needing to liquefy the rich to get them through the eye of a needle. And the answer is that it's via a handy bit of doctrinal sleight of hand.

Morrison's church believe in Predestination, the notion that God knows absolutely everything about everything from the moment of creation until the end of the world. Long before you were born He knew everything about you – what you'd do, what you'd think, who you'd meet, the very specific types of pornography you'd enjoy, everything – including whether or not you were going to Heaven or Hell.

Street then brings Morrison back into the picture:

Well, he knows that those who come across the seas are all doomed to damnation – after all, God wouldn't have plonked them in the middle of the civil war in Syria if He didn't want to punish them for their unchangeable wickedness – and therefore locking them up indefinitely to self-harm in disease-riddled camps is perfectly fine. He's not going to examine his conscience on the subject, because the act of doing so would be an affront to God.

Meanwhile, he's on a sweet parliamentary salary with a high-profile government portfolio, a wife and kids and a lovely house in a quiet Sydney suburb. God's clearly giving him a tangible version of a spiritual high-five.

So to answer the original question: how can Scott Morrison be responsible for overseeing all these human rights atrocities and call himself a Christian? With absolute ease. And he probably sleeps better than you do.

After all, it was predestined.

Julian Burnside suggests some more humane options on the treatment of asylum seekers

Julian Burnside in Asylum seekers can be managed with cheaper and more humane options presents two options for processing refugees humanely:

• Settlement in the community, after a brief period of detention for health and security checks, in country towns or Tasmania. They would be entitled to work and to social security and Medicare.
• Regional processing in Indonesia. Burnside writes:

Those who are assessed as refugees would be resettled, in Australia or elsewhere, in the order in which they have been accepted as refugees. On assessment, people would be told that they will be resettled safely within (say) two or three months. Provided the process was demonstrably fair, the incentive to get on a boat would disappear instantly.
At present, people assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia face a wait of 10 or 20 years before they have a prospect of being resettled. During that time, they are not allowed to work, and can’t send their kids to school. No wonder they chance their luck by getting on a boat.
Genuine offshore processing, with a guarantee of swift resettlement, was the means by which the Fraser government managed to bring about 80,000 Vietnamese boat people to Australia in the late 1970s. It worked, but it was crucially different from the manner of offshore processing presently supported by both major parties. In addition, other countries also resettled some of the refugees processed in this way. It is likely that Australians would be more receptive to this approach if they thought other countries were contributing to the effort.

I think both ideas have merit. The Indonesian idea shouldn't see significant numbers of people risking their lives in dangerous boats either.

Three interesting opeds on the issue of asylum seekers

In Building Australia Drag0nista, aka Paula Matthewson, argues that Australia should abandon it's current draconian policy to asylum seekers and instead open the door. She argues the $2 billion saved could then be used to fund the infrastructure our growing cities need.

In The logic of PNG policy is sanctioned horror Waleed Aly says we shouldn't be outraged at the death on an Iranian asylum seeker on Manus Island this week because tragedy was an inevitable outcome of Australia's current policy.

In Critiquing the open borders policy Mark Fletcher argues an open border policy is unfair on those who are unable to buy passage to country like Australia and must instead languish in a refugee camp for 17 years.

What do I think? I don't know, this is a complex area. Each of the above put forward valid arguments. Our current policy shames us though.

Tow back not working in the US and won't work here

The Coalition have been citing the US practice of "turning back" boats as justification for their turn back policy. In an opinion piece, Abbott's copycat tow-back plan won't stop the boats, Azadeh Dastyari explains that the US policy breaks international law and doesn't work.

Finally, as the Coalition has itself acknowledged, the US practice of trying to stop sea vessels has been going on for more than 30 years. Had the boats stopped as a result of the policy, the US would not need to continue this costly practice. After more than 30 years of ''tow back'', the US is no closer to stopping people from taking to the sea in an attempt to enter the country. Nor has the practice of ''tow back'' prevented thousands of people from reaching the US every year. In other words, the US practice has not achieved what the Coalition hopes to achieve. There is nothing to indicate the Coalition would have any more success at stopping the boats than does the US government.

What the US experience has shown is that there is no quick and easy solution to the problem of asylum seekers who are escaping persecution. A bad copy of a ''tow back'' policy that has not worked and is unlawful in the US context, is not going to be the silver bullet the Coalition is looking for.

Interesting article on stopping the boats

In Stop The Boats. Seriously. Damien Walker documents the tragedy of SIEV-221 and the reasons why the the Houston Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, including Paris Aristotle recommended the policies they did. Walker criticises those who think that other policies are more humane.

This is a well researched and argued post by Walker. Recommended reading.

Things are getting worse for the world's refugees

The Economist has an interesting article on the growing refugee problem the world faces: Flight to nowhere.

The Daily Telegraph manufacturing fear of refugees

Amy Corderoy in Fanning the flames of asylum seeker fear looks at how The Daily Telegraph consistently uses language to evoke fear of refugees within the community.

While this one found Australians were extremely reliant on media reporting when it comes to forming their views on asylum seekers. Only a quarter of people surveyed thought asylum seekers come to Australia to flee persecution, as opposed to for economic or other reasons.

People – educated or not – tend to be influenced by the media they consume, and when the media obsessively focuses on an issue such as immigration or refugees, political parties who take extreme positions on those issues tend to gain popularity.

So next time you wonder why boat arrivals are such as massive issue in Australia, or next time you feel anger or fear over asylum seekers, take another look at your local newspaper headline. It might not just be reflecting your fear, it could be shaping it.

Viral hate emails on asylum seekers are wrong

There are a number of viral emails going around that claim that refugees get special treatment from the Government. These emails are wrong. In Talking points: Asylum seekers 'don't get cash, houses, gifts' Malcolm Farr writes about a study that addresses these emails.

NEARLY a decade of viral emails claiming refugees get taxpayer-funded cash, houses and other gifts denied to Australian citizens has been debunked by an independent study.

The emails stir up resentment towards asylum seekers settling here but are simply not true, according to the latest research paper by the Federal Parliamentary Library.

The research dismisses claims that refugees get cash payments, free houses and extravagant gifts.

"There is no truth to claims made in emails recently circulated throughout Australia that refugees are entitled to higher benefits than other social security recipients," says the study by social policy researcher Luke Buckmaster.

"Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents. They do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment."

Why Paris Aristotle has changed his mind on Nauru

Michael Gordon interviews Paris Aristotle in A change of heart. It makes for very interesting reading. I think Michael Gordon has done a good job with this article.

A timeline on Nauru

Wendy Bacon has prepared a timeline documenting Australian policy on sending boat people to Nauru. The timeline is in two parts:

Our Nauru Amnesia
The Three Waves Of Nauru Anguish

Malcom Fraser on the Liberal Party's "inhumane" asylum seeker policy

In Abbott's evil policy work the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser has written an article in which he attacks the latest Liberal Party policy on asylum seekers arriving by boat as inhumane and lacking in integrity. I think he makes some valid points.

Sites refuting "refugees paid more than pensioners" hoax

Here are some sites refuting the hoax email claiming that "illegal immigrants/refugees living in Australia" are given more than double the assistance provided to age pensioners:

The Real Benefits For Asylum Seekers In Australia
Refugee Monthly Allowance From Australian Government Hoax
Letter to the Editor:  Refugees not paid more than pensioners

Here's the current (as at  20 March 2012) Age Pension rates in Australia: (Source Age Pension - payment rates)

Status     Pension rate per fortnight
Single     $695.30*
Couple     $524.10* each

*These amounts exclude the Pension Supplement amount which is currently a maximum of $60.20 a fortnight for singles and $90.80 a fortnight for couples (combined). 

Mike Carlton looks at Tony Abbott's promise to turn the boats back

Mike Carlton in Speedo politics scuttles any solution looks at Tony Abbott's latest promise to "turn the boats back". Where before he had a general promise to turn the boats back, but left the individual decision to the senior Navy officer on the spot, now he's saying that all boats will be turned back, even if the Navy has to repair and refuel them first.

It seems that Tony Abbott sees this as a test of wills between Australia and Indonesia. Macho stuff from Mr Abbott (brings to mind a Laura Tingle column). Unfortunately, I don't think this is a test that Australia can really win. As Mike Carlton points out, the people smugglers know how to counter this strategy:

The people smugglers have shown they will set fire to the boats or sink them to stop them being sent back.

I can't see our Navy repairing an Indonesian fishing boat that's at the bottom of the ocean or burnt to the water line. All this policy will do is risk the lives of asylum seekers and of our sailors that may have to rescue them. The only way to counter such people smuggler tactics would be to refuse to rescue those concerned. However, this would be, I think, a bridge too far. Such actions would be highly immoral if not illegal (wasn't Admiral Dönitz charged with war crimes for ordering his submarine crews to refuse to rescue stranded sailors).

So, how does Mr Abbott think we can triumph over Indonesia in a battle of wills?

A couple of interesting posts on refugee policy

Sec Ozdowski has written an opinion piece in The Australian titled Real solution is Asia-Pacific pact. In it he looks at the longer term measures he thinks are needed to "deliver much better protection of refugee rights and remove key initiatives for jumping on a leaky boat to Australia". I thing much of what he advocates is interesting, but I don't support his suggestion of introducing Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs). Although, to be fair, he does suggest that they be introduced for people who bypass the "queue" after a regional solution is implemented:

Following the creation of a regional framework for refugees, there should be consequences for people who choose not to join the queue in Indonesia. Any asylum-seekers who arrive by boat without proper travel documents should not be given a right to permanent residency but instead be offered temporary protection visas if they are found to be genuine refugees.

Malcolm Farnsworth in Confusion, timidity and capitulation on asylum seekers argues that the Gillard Government is showing poor leadership on the issue:

If ever there was an issue that required leadership, this is it. The Gillard Government has not provided it. In the lead-up to Christmas, it merely begged the Opposition to rescue it.

Personally I think the above post focuses too much on the politics of the issue and not enough on the issue itself, or the policies proposed by the different parties.

In The problem with Nauru: a Christmas reflection Julian Burnside asks some interesting questions:

The first is: What is the problem we are trying to solve? Is it that boat people might come to harm on the way here, or is it just that they get here?

He advocates offshore processing, that is processing before people get on a boat for Australia.

One possibility is to process protection claims while people are in Indonesia. Those who are assessed as refugees would be resettled, in Australia or elsewhere, in the order in which they have been accepted as refugees. If Australia increased its annual refugee intake, with a guarantee of at least 10,000 places for those processed in Indonesia, the incentive to get on a boat would disappear overnight. At present, people assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia face a wait of 10 or 20 years before they have a prospect of being resettled. During that time, they are not allowed to work, and can't send their kids to school. No wonder they chance their luck by getting on a boat. This proposal would reduce the waiting time to one or two years, and Australian officials would have an ample chance to warn people of the dangers of a trip with people smugglers.

Genuine offshore processing, with a guarantee of swift resettlement, was the means by which the Fraser government managed to bring about 80,000 Vietnamese boat people to Australia in the late 1970s. It worked, but it was crucially different from the manner of offshore processing being proposed by both major parties.

Unless offshore processing is done fairly and is coupled with swift resettlement, it is nothing but a sham to mask a desire to keep refugees out.

Jack the Insider has written an interesting summary of the issue in No deals, no hope, no policies worth a damn:

You can bet the house that an Abbott Government would not tow back boat one. It is a policy it holds in the abstract in opposition but if it found itself in government, wiser heads would conclude that the political perils would be too great. The Howard government ditched tow backs for very good reasons.

But let’s assume that all other policies are put in place in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Remember, the anticipated arrivals over the next six months are 7,000.

The government could heed Scott Morrison’s urging and reintroduce TPVs. The experts say that TPVs are not effective deterrents but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it cuts the anticipated arrivals by say, twenty five per cent during this period.

800 asylum seekers would go to Malaysia. Nauru would fill to capacity and beyond within months and Manus Island (let’s put to one side the intrinsic difficulties of the Commonwealth coming to an agreement with PNG locked in constitutional stasis, as it is) would soon fill to overflowing, too.

And then what do we do?

Be it the government, the opposition or the Greens, there is no effective policy response available to deter asylum-seekers from putting their lives at risk. After more than ten years, we have to come to the conclusion that no such policy exists within our parliament and that a little more imagination than the creation of vague deterrents of unknown or questionable value is required.

That's really the great risk: short of ripping up our treaty and moral obligations, there's probably nothing we can do that's guaranteed to "fix" the issue. For one thing, we can't agree on what the issue is. For another, none of the solutions would really scale if there was a large increase in asylum seekers. Even a regional solution, in my opinion the best of the options put forward, would run into trouble if there was a significant increase (think of the scale we're currently seeing with Somalia) and the "queues" blew out. Lastly, a regional solution would likely see more recent asylum seekers given preference over those in other regions. Effectively asylum seekers in a regional queue would be fast tracked compared to those in places like Africa.

Unfortunately, as with all wicked problems, there's no perfect solution.

Edit 31/12: The Conversation gives several academics the opportunity to put their view across in Five ways to prevent more asylum seeker tragedies.

David Marr's new book "Panic"

David Marr has written "Panic", a book that explores how so much of Australia's politics is driven by fear and panic. There's an edited extract available online.

David Marr defines panic, at least in the context of his book as "reasonable fears twisted out of recognition". He goes on:

A decent face has to be put on the passions aroused. Appearances count. Language matters. Skilled panic merchants find ways of suggesting, however vaguely, that the survival of the nation is at stake. The argument always is that desperate times require tough laws and strong leadership. Panic is a rallying cry for power.

It recounts some of the more infamous instances of panic in Australia's history (e.g. fear of non-existent German saboteurs in WW1, fears of communists, more recently fear of boat people, fear of terrorists, fear of Aboriginal land rights). He also discusses the politicians, Labor and Liberal, past and present, who whip up or exploit these panics for their own political ends.

The extract includes a couple of interesting points on tabloids:

There is a cynical old saying that the purpose of tabloid journalism is to maintain a perpetual state of false alarm.

and

There is another adage about the tabloids: that their purpose is to persuade the working class to vote Tory. I once put this to Bob Carr. He replied: ''I think it is incontrovertible.''

It sounds like an interesting read.

Lenore Taylor on a fact-less Tony Abbott

Lenore Taylor in Ignore all facts and just run with the bluster looks at how Tony Abbott seems to be a fact free zone when it comes to pricing carbon and asylum policies.

She finishes with:

No politician would, or should, unthinkingly accept all advice they receive. But it's a bit worrying when they seem to reject out of hand, and without coherent arguments or reasons, all advice that contradicts their focus-group-tested case.

Tony Abbott said NO

It appears that Tony Abbott will not support the Government's amendments enabling offshore processing. Mr Abbott is dressing this up in terms of protecting asylum seekers. I for one don't believe him - I have absolutely no doubt that he would quite happily forsake those very same protections if he thought doing so would deliver him Government. If he was really concerned about the plight of asylum seekers sent back to countries that haven't signed the UN convention on refugees why does he have a policy of turning the boats around? It seems to me that Mr Abbott's real desire is actually to keep the boats coming so he can use their arrival to attack the Government.

That said, I'm not upset about the blocking of this legislation. My preference is for onshore processing or, even better, processing before asylum seekers even get on the boats.

However, in my opinion, by blocking these amendments, Tony Abbott hands the Government a powerful tool to use against him. I can just see the advertisements come the next election:

Tony Abbott said NO on action to stop the boats
Tony Abbott said NO on action to fight climate change
Tony Abbott said NO on action to help Queensland rebuild from devastating floods and cyclones
Tony Abbott said NO to tax reform and tax cuts
Tony Abbott said NO to pension increases
Tony Abbott said NO to action to fix our hospitals
Tony Abbott said NO on action to fix broadband
Say NO to Tony Abbott

More on Asylum Seekers

Alan Kohler has raised the interesting point that the recent Government loss in the High Court is due to the incompetence of the Howard Government, not the Gillard Government. Of course almost all of the criticism in the media is being directed at the Prime Minister and Minister, with the people responsible for writing the legislation getting off scott free. But that should hardly be surprising given how the media is currently reporting political issues.

While Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has offered to assist the Government in amending legislation to allow offshore processing, he's only willing to do so if Manus Island and Nauru are ruled in and Malaysia is ruled out. Interestingly, it's being reported that in a Government briefing officials from the Immigration Department, Attorney-General's Department, DFAT and the acting national security adviser will tell Tony Abbott that:

• A move from offshore to onshore processing will likely lead to social problems similar to those in London and Paris.
• Tension will be created when large numbers of people overflow from detention centres into the community.
• Around 600 people a month would "flood" into Australia.
• The Malaysian solution represents the best way to deter boat arrivals.
• The Howard Government's Pacific solution didn't work.
• Detention in Australia is expensive and does not deter boat arrivals
• Asylum seekers often send young boys on boats in the hope that they sponsor the rest of the family.
• Towing boats back won't work.
• Nauru and Manus Island are not a solution because virtually everyone who was determined to be a refugee was resettled in Australia.

While some of these arguments sound compelling I doubt that they will sway the Opposition Leader. In my opinion, Tony Abbott is probably more interested in not solving the problem for the Government provided he can be seen as being tough on asylum seekers. Of course he may well try to cloak everything in an argument over refugee's human rights. But we all know that's not true.

Edit: Looks like I was right. Phillip Coorey and Dan Oakes are now reporting that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has rejected the Malaysia plan:

TONY ABBOTT is refusing to help the government revive the Malaysia plan despite being told by senior Immigration Department officials that a return to the Pacific solution will not stop the boats and that a ''game changer'' like Malaysia was needed.

Of course he wants to reject the Malaysian deal, especially if it results in more than 600 boat arrivals a month:

The same officials warned separately yesterday that the proposal by the Labor Left to revert to onshore processing would result in more than 600 arrivals by boat a month, swamping domestic detention facilities in a year, and resulting in the cultural problems facing European cities with a high influx of immigrants.

Tony Abbott's priority is becoming Prime Minister, not "stopping the boats" or "securing our borders". He's happy for things to stay the way they are:

The Opposition Leader was unmoved last night, ensuring the policy stalemate will continue.

For him the briefing was probably a waste of time. It's not like he went in with an open mind:

Before the briefing he said that ''as far as I am concerned, Malaysia is out'' and that remained his position afterwards.

It might however provide some cover to the Government. At least they might be able to deflect some of the blame for new arrivals onto the Opposition. Although I doubt they will get very far with many of the shock jocks.

Edit: An interesting Crikey article on What Metcalfe said … or is understood to have said
Edit 6/10: George Megalogenis on Diplomacy is lost amid our leader's backyard squabbling.
Edit 24/10: David Marr - Politicians' claims about arrivals have little buoyancy. Also Media Watch on Today Tonight's rather shameful and misleading claims about asylum-seekes.
Edit 21/11: Michelle Grattan notes that there's Nothing budging but body count.
Amber Jamieson in The consequences of turning boats back: SIEV towback cases examined the "case studies of boats that were previously turned back under the Howard government".

The High Court and the Malaysian Solution

I was always somewhat ambivalent about the Government's "Malaysian solution". On the one hand I oppose off shore processing and I think we really need to show our compassion. On the other hand I don't want to see any more people drown making that perilous crossing.

So I'm not upset about the High Court decision. I am a little confused though, about what it means for Manus Island and Nauru. I really hope it means that both are off the table. Of course that won't stop Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison spruiking Nauru. But then neither of them give me any pride in being Australian.

I do think the idea of a regional solution to refugee processing has merit. Perhaps the best way to "stop the boats" is to process the refugee claimants in Malaysia or Indonesia before they ever get on a boat. It might mean that we end up taking a few more refugees, but I think we can cope (Canada takes over 165,000 per year compared to our 22,000).

Of course Labor may well fear an electoral backlash. But let's face it - the bigots are going to be voting for the Coalition anyway. A more compassionate policy may at least stop the haemorrhaging of progressive voters to the Greens (who have been very effective at wedging Labor on this issue).

Edit: An interesting opinion on the issue.

Edit 12/10: Malaysia a better option for asylum seekers, says UN:

ASYLUM seekers would receive better protections in Malaysia under the Gillard government's proposed transfer deal than being held in indefinite mandatory detention in Australia, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office has said.

Australia ''would fall well short'' of the human rights criteria demanded of Malaysia under the deal signed in July, the UNHCR's regional representative, Richard Towle, has told a parliamentary inquiry.

From Between a rock and a hard place:

Asylum seekers I spoke to in Kuala Lumpur this year were well organised in communities and had control over their family life and the day-to-day struggle to make ends meet, if not over their destiny.

Asylum seekers I met in Perth airport lounges, discharged from psychiatric units for mental illness and on their way back to the island jail, were clearly medicated, beaten by their circumstances and bewildered.

The article then goes on to document the problems asylum seekers in Malaysia have with not being allowed to work, including being sent to gaol for 12 months for working illegally.

This is the UNHCR's point: If asylum seekers have the legal right to work in Malaysia, it fixes the biggest problem in this country immediately. The Malaysian government had said the Australian ''transferees'' can legally work, and it was also preparing to extend work rights to all refugees.

Australia, however, has given no sign it is prepared to stop the mandatory detention of asylum seekers. The mental health toll in its detention centres is well documented.

Refugee lawyers put the counter-argument: After the prolonged detention, those who have had refugee claims accepted in Australia step into the sunlight - they are assisted with some of the world's best refugee resettlement services.

In Malaysia, they wait years and years for another country to accept them for resettlement. And it may never happen.

Not easy this refugee stuff.