Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
The Government’s new immigration legislation is political dressing that is not going to “stop the boats”, says community consultant and former SBS reporter Graham Hardy.
WILL the boats stop coming? No.
Will the number of boats decrease? Probably. The numbers will probably decrease in the short term, but in the long term, they will probably increase. And more people will drown.
Will more asylum seekers benefit from more humane treatment? Definitely.
The answers to these fundamental questions are to be found by close scrutiny of the report by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers and to the Government’s comments on it.
The most important element in the Panel’s report is not the off-shore processing at Nauru or Manus Island, but the system of incentives and disincentives.
Now stop there. Let’s do a reality check. To a former Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and to former diplomat and head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael L’Estrange, a system of incentives and disincentives would be sure to work for anyone who was rational (assuming full knowledge of consequences and availability of options).
But would it make sense to a refugee? It is important to remember that refugees do not voluntarily leave their country of origin. Rather, they are forced to flee because of persecution. How many refugees have the ability to choose and the knowledge of options? Some would; a high proportion wouldn’t.
One disincentive to pay money to a people smuggler will be the “no advantage” provision which means that asylum seekers who arrive by boat will not be given a visa any sooner than if they had applied overseas. Even if the processing of their application is completed, they will be kept in detention.
How long will the wait be? Astonishingly, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and the Panel were unable to say. Ms Gillard explained that the Department of Immigration would estimate how long it took for an asylum seeker who applied overseas to get a visa, and then apply that term to the “irregular maritime arrivals” held on Nauru or Manus Islands.
So let’s do a rational choice check. If you were an asylum seeker, would you wait as an illegal in Indonesia or Malaysia, or would you prefer to take your chances in an Australian detention centre, albeit on Nauru or Manus Island?
The Greens spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young pointed out that in Malaysia the waiting list is “currently 76 years”. While that presumably is a theoretical estimate, her point is that
“…people will always be looking for a safer option, if where they are is untenable — and currently, in Malaysia and Indonesia, it is untenable for people. They arrive and try and get their claims assessed by UNHCR. This doesn’t happen.”
Let’s look at another disincentive:
“The panel recommends that in future those who arrive in Australia through irregular maritime means should not be eligible to sponsor family under the SHP but should seek to do so within the family stream of the Migration program.”
Well, that would, of course, discourage anyone fleeing persecution, wouldn’t it? And people smugglers would be sure to explain the consequences of being one of their customers, wouldn’t they? And they would explain the difference in waiting time between the Special Humanitarian Program and the family stream of the Migration program, wouldn’t they? Or would this “disincentive” be an incentive for refugees to also bring their family in by the same boat or subsequent boats?
Well, if that all makes sense to the former department heads Houston and L’Estrange, and to a Government who wanted the issue out of the way before the next election, and to an Opposition who wanted to crow about being right all along, would it make sense to Paris Aristotle ?
Paris Aristotle is justly renowned for his pioneering work as the Director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture.
What was in the Panel’s report for Aristotle? Well, the Panel has recommended an increase in the intake in the Humanitarian Program to 20,000 per year with a minimum of 12,000 refugees (double the current allocation).
But the Panel has also recommended “support of the further development of a regional co-operation framework” and “expand its relevant capacity-building initiatives”. In plain English, the panel hopes that countries like Indonesia and Malaysia would co-operate with providing application facilities and protection for asylum seekers and, in return, Australia (and hopefully other countries) would take a greater number of asylum seekers.
And Paris Aristotle has been sold the idea that Nauru and Manus Islands would not be “detention centres”. He believes they would be different from the detention centres. He told a television interviewer that what would be different from the past would be independent monitoring of what was happening in the new centres.
“We’ve recommended that there be monitoring by high level groups comprising cross-party membership, experts from non-government sector or academia, senior officials who would monitor or oversight the adherence to the conditions of any transfer arrangement or international obligations.
“We’ve recommended there be legal advice, a review process and a full suite of services, and in addition to that, we’ve recommended a substantial increase in humanitarian program that would create more places that would be available across a regional processing network.”
But, astonishingly, he also could not guess at how long an asylum seeker would stay in a “transfer centre”. He told an interviewer he could only say he didn’t anticipate that they would not have to stay up to four or five years as had occurred in the past, resulting in severe cases of mental illness which his Foundation had reported on.
So, would more asylum seekers be treated more humanely? Certainly the increase in number of places for asylum seekers would benefit those who gained them.
But there are 15 million refugees in the world. For each person we give asylum, there will be another just as worthy, just as needy, who also needs asylum.
Will they be tempted to pay people smugglers money they don’t have, to risk the lives of themselves and their loved ones, even if they end up in “transfer centres” on Manus or Nauru?
The Panel Report recommends that Australia as a matter of urgency seeks greater cooperation with Indonesia on “enhanced cooperation on joint surveillance and response patrols, law enforcement and search and rescue coordination.”
Logically, this wouldn’t be so urgent if the proposed incentives and disincentives would actually stop the boats.
Graham Hardy’s submission to the Expert Panel
I offer, for consideration, this proposal to defeat the business model of people smugglers and provide more humane treatment of refugees. Its premise is that there are more refugees than Australia can accept.
I request acknowledgement of receipt and some initial reaction.
Yours Sincerely,
Graham Hardy
(29/6/2012)
Summary
Regional solution to defeat the business of people smugglers
Australia offer incentives and assistance to apply for refugee status at overseas offices. These include a ballot for fast-track processing (similar to the ballot for an U.S. Greencard).
Australia make it easy to apply for asylum at off-shore offices, located as close as possible, on known refugee migration routes.
These offices be either Australian or UN offices, funded and staffed by Australia.
Australia provide disincentives to arrive by boat.
Arrivals by boat, who are refused asylum but unable to be relocated, offered humane long-term accommodation and the chance to prove their acceptability in Australia (probation conditions).
Precis
Regional solution to defeat the business of people smugglers
by Graham Hardy
Off-Shore:
1. Additional Asylum Application Offices (AAO) off-shore
a) where ever appropriate e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia
b) Australian staffed and funded, UN linked or UN auspiced
c) Preliminary interviews of applicants
d) Registration of applications.
2. Emergency Accommodation associated with (AAO) for applicants
a) priority for children & women
b) subsidised in part, paid for in part, by applicants
c) UN budget provided by Australia.
3. Ballots each month to determine AAO applications to be fast-track processed (either in Australia or in application country):
a) e.g. quota of 1000 per month,
b) e.g. of the 1000, a first ballot of 500 of all applications, second ballot of 200 of those who have waited six months or more, a third ballot of 300 of those who have waited one year or more.
4. Accommodation Centres for Selected Applicants being processed.
5. Removal of Applicants from Accommodation Centres, before outcome of decision announced, to either successful applicant refuge centres or non-successful outcome centres.
6. Relocation centres for Recognised Refugees not fast-tracked.
a) Skills assessment, recognition and adaption program for resettlement e.g. in isolated Australian mines, or to teach in Timor, PNG, Africa etc.
On-Shore
7. Boat arrivals detained for assessment
a) Arrivals, who did not pass through close proximity to off-shore Asylum Application Offices, are assessed as soon as possible.
b) Arrivals who are reasonably believed to have passed through close proximity to off-shore AAO’s, do not have their assessment begin for a penalty period (e.g. one-year).
c) All detention centres are improved to include work, language & skills training.
8. Long-term accommodation, for those whose assessment does not start immediately or are unable to be re-located after unfavourable assessment. Incentives and disincentives not to abscond.
a) Part-time work opportunities subsidised (e.g. might include market gardens, goat farming, art & craft production)
b) Skills training (e.g. language, computers, trades, heavy machinery ) which is provided on a deferred payment basis similar to HECs.
c) Recreation opportunities/ facilities
d) A maximum period of detention (e.g two years) then allowed residency in the community subject to good behaviour and repayment of deferred payments.
e) Disincentives not to abscond (e.g. having to start penalty period again, detention centres with less amenities).
For further information and/or development of this proposal: contact Graham Hardy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
26 Comments
Why we go through all this bullshit is beyond me. Resettlement is not an obligation and while we continue to pretend that we can throw the refugee convention obligations we have in the bin and then expect the neighbours to pick them up is beyond me.
Indonesia is corrupt to the core, it persecutes and murders and ethnically cleanses minority groups year in and year out, they have murdered millions to steal their lands and resources and yet we demand they do our job.
Why don’t Australian’s going through this nonsense simpy accept that when the law says everyone has the right to seek asylum that actually means everyone and does not exclude anyone but war criminals.
Ithink the abuse of the Greens has been depraved, the big parties did that to the democrats and yet within 2 years the democrats were proved to be right.
Paris is a dimwit, we don’t sacrifice one group of people and pretend that will help another group of people.
And it is illegal to apply penalties.
you can’t in one breath claim that refugees can’t know the high jinks and they punish them for it.
There are 34 articles of the refugee convention, just adhere to them.
Dear GRAHAM HARDY, firstly thank you for the great community work that I know you do, tirelessly and for the greater good.
It’s good to see your submission because we can see what the ‘ expert panel ‘ has chosen to ignore and/or discard.
Do you know if anyone else in their submission has mooted the idea of a ballot – similar to the USA’s Green Card ?
Tess, the idea is completely ridiculous. There is no ballot for bloody migrants or anyone else, it is open slather for tourists and students provided they have the money.
Why do we have to be so brutally cruel to people who need help the most?
The so-called experts have sold a lie and decided to sacrifice one group of innocent people who did not drown in the name of supposedly stopping others from drowning.
This is though that every refugee who has drowned could have been saved but Australia chose not to do it.
Dear GRAHAM HARDY, my comment seemed to leap into place before I’d finished!
I’m with you in relation to part-time work opportunities and acquiring skills and training on a deferred payment scheme, for all the bleeding obvious reasons, as well as the not so obvious benefits.
Why do we go through this bullshit wonders Marilyn?
Let’s see, 15,000,000 refugees worldwide. Australia’s total federal budget expenditure for 2012-2013: $376.1 billion, or about, $25,000 dollars a refugee – if for some absolutely insane reason we decided to not spend anything on our country for a year. Could we help everyone settle into a new safe secure life for that amount of money? If not, what happens to the rest? Bury our heads in the sand and hope cosmic karma and happy thoughts will win the day? Or be pragmatic and try to think of realistic solutions?
Dear MARILYNS, I actually want to hear ideas, including yours, that arise from within the community, rather than from a so-called ‘expert panel’ whose outcome was pre-determined and a contrived expedient cop-out by all politicians concerned.
Given that many asylum seekers are fleeing from life-threatening situations fuelled by Australia’s offshore warring and political
exploits, the whole horrible situation is cruelly farcical and one for which we should bear our fair share of responsibility.
The refugee convention and protocol amply tell us what to do, we helped to write it and I don’t think it is particularly onerous.
the thing is all about pandering to racsists and nothing else.
Not one person who went to the non-expert panel suggested the brutal forced removal of human beings to bird shit islands.
We now have the army tasked to jail the victims of our wars when actually they cannot even jail suspected taliban for over 2 days.
And once again Marilyn, you miss the point entirely.
The point is, the problem costs money. There is finite resources. This remains true irrelevant of whether we can do more or not in regards to the current situation. I’m not going to disagree with you on the current state of affairs and wastage, although I wouldn’t trust a single statistic you threw about without a link to the original source(by original I do not mean the green left weekly). It is also obvious that having high support for refugees and no border restrictions would make the prospect of jumping on a boat to Australia more appealing to anyone seeking refuge, or simply a better life.
This is the reality that you have to deal with if you want to change peoples minds. Yes it is about money, yes it is about peoples self-interest. Carrying on like a wounded goose simply reinforces the self-belief of those who don’t agree with you, and would see further restrictions to refugee support. The only way brow beating or bullying ever works is if your target has no means of escape, and then only for the duration that you have them captive. This is the internet, and a Marilyn free zone is simply a click away.
I may have nothing to add in terms of solutions Marilyn, though I am certainly not a ‘stupid man’. I don’t have anything to offer because I don’t have a strongly formed opinion on the matter, though I am interested in learning some of the knowledge and opinions of others.
One thing I can tell you for sure though is, that the way you carry on will never get my support, and while I realise you are too blinded by your own bloody-mindedness to care about that, surely even you can appreciate that the means to your end is through convincing those who are not already on your side to join you. I’m not hostile towards refugees, and I don’t care where or what someone is born, I’m pro social security and progression, and I’ve even had a family of refugees from a war zone billeted in my home when they first arrived in our country, and constantly reminded people of that fact all through Howards persecution of refugees. So you would think I should be easy to get on side, but you are so damn deluded in what you think you can get away with in terms of spinning porkies and nastiness supported by the occasional half truth, and by being concerned more with spitting out massive volumes of bile instead of engaging in constructive communication, that you are utterly repulsive to anyone who doesn’t share your narrow view.
The post by MarylinS was deleted, so my reply above is somewhat out of context now.
Dear MATT, your post above is certainly not out of context – to any of us and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and helpfulness of your words and feel rather sure I am not alone in this.
It is always easier to destroy rather than construct.
Matt is wrong though. It costs money only because we make it. We wasted $1.3 billion last year jailing people when it only needed to cost $50 million to have them living in the community.
We spend another $360 million of settling people who have no right to come here and we support them for 5 years.
Tess, how about you do your own research and reading and find out what the law is and how far outside the law we behave.
There is not one human rights instrument that we have ratified that we actually adhere to and that should worry everyone because when they run out of scapegoats it will be you.
1. we are the only country that jails babies for years – up to 30 June Gillard had jailed 3336 childen and babies without cause, half of them were unaccompanied orphans from Afghanistan and Iraq. Bowen is their guardian and he prefers prisons to community care – the Afghan and Iraqi communities are quite large enough to care for the children.
There are Vietnamese children who were trafficked to Australia who have been jailed now for almost 2 years and kids under 10 have even been denied asylum even though they are orphans stolen from Vietnam and brought here against their will. The traffickers? Walking around the country free as birds to do it again.
6 children and one on the way look like being jailed for life because someone said they might be a risk to the community. Anyone here terrified of small babies?
They spent hundreds of millions building prisons while 9 million kids a day die of starvation.
What about we just don’t waste the money jailing innocent people outside the law and spend the money on helping people.
We only give $30 million per annum for the UNHCR to help 15 million people, we give only #3.60 per person per annum in aid to Afghans.
25-37% of kids under 5 in Afghanistan die, 45% of the people are starving and unemployed but we spend over $150,000 each jailing them here.
96% of them are refugees before any of them see a court.
There are so few why not just let them live free and work like those who fly here do?
The Indians for example – 98% of claims of being refugees made by Indians are fraudulent but they tie up the courts for years and work and enjoy life in the meantime.
Being decent to fellow human beings is far easier than being brutal.
Offshore 2a – accommodation priority to women and children
What do you do with the husbands/fathers?
How does it benefit women and children to be separated from their husbands/fathers? Surely this would add to everyone’s distress, including the women and children who get priority.
Let us change the subject to a new campaign against our PM Julia wixxy. Barry Cassidy’s Insiders showed Paul Kelly on Sky attacking her why she left Slater and Gordon. When asked a question by her he said no one had told him to ask the question???
I now see News Ltd run an article and Pyne was questioned on Sky.
The PM has to tell all he says. I smell the rats in this one too?
Yes Anne, let’s duck the question that Gillard is prepared to act immediately to break the law, waste $2.6 billion in the process while ignoring the Gonski report into education for our millions of kids.
Money for illegal refugee prisons and dumping innocent people in hell holes for no reason, no increased funding for schools.
No increase in student allowances, we need more refugee prisons, no increase in the dole, we need more refugee prisons.
Endless amounts for the AFP to act like rogue cops hunting and jailing refugees, billions for the navy to hunt refugees, no money for the kids of single parents.
No extra housing for aborigines, we need refugee prisons.
But hey Anne, “look over there” and ask why Gillard is being asked about leaving Slater and Gordon.
Anything to avoid the fact that she legislated war crimes to be enabled against victims of our wars.
I agree Anne, it seems to me that sky have no trouble whatsoever in dragging up whatever happened 17 years ago but are totally incapable of addressing the glaring mistakes that were made by FWA in the HSU enquiry.What a crock.
And Marilyn, what is the point in any one commenting on the asylum seeker issue? If we do not agree with you, and I don’t, you hurl abuse and call people racists and now draw a very long bow accusing the PM of war crimes.
bundys mum, you never say why you don’t agree that we should abide by the laws we wrote that guarantee we will protect asylum seekers, are you stating clearly that we alone in the world can arbitrarily break 800 years of common law and 64 years of human rights laws that we wrote just for votes from racist bogans.
If you think laws don’t matter which laws surrounding your safe little life would you like the government to break.
Because that is all Gillard is doing.
Some think she has morphed into Howard, that is wrong. She has always been worse than Howard with her attitude.
Your presumption as always Marilyn is that you know every aspect of the lives of the people you criticise, when in fact you know sfa about my life,situation and circumstance.
I do not come to this site to pour out my heart about my situation, although if many here were aware of it they would no doubt find it at the least uncomfortable and at the worst pretty shit. But that is my situation and I deal with it lady, and I do not abuse and rant and rave about it, but nor should I put up with the rubbish that you continually serve up on an ongoing basis
and your assupmtion that I am living WHAT?
You are no different to Abbott, you continually overeach and to that end you get more people who are sane offside than on, and when my situation becomes a “safe little life” I will be the first to let you know.
I have made not one assumption about your life, but I can guarantee that is it safer than being in Afghanistan because not too many people in this country have any real idea of hardship.
Except the minority aboriginal groups and refugees.
My life is pretty shitty too, but I will never, ever agree that we throw the law in the bin in regards to the lives of other people.
I am the proverbial person who thought life was tough because I had no shoes, then I met the man who had no metaphoric feet.
Now, tell me again why we should break the law for one small group of people already treated worse than mass murderers.
My goodness Marilyn S, why don’t we just wait until the dust settles a bit and see what happens with the new arrangement for the refugees. With a bit of luck they will get some humane treatment like the children getting education, the adults access to as reasonably quick processing as is possible.
The refugees, could start to be trained to become our next lot of hard working citizens, just as they did when we brought refugees in to build the Snowy River Hydro Electric system in the 1950′s. They might even be willing to work in WA in the mining industry who knows.
Please stop banging on about how we are breaking the law. I reckon we have heard enough now. I think that most of us that contribute to this site would appreciate a bit of a subject break.
Are you interested in anything else?
Sandra, Gillard is not interested in people being treated decently or she would do it here.
And yes I am interested in many other things, my first activism started in 1965 as a 12 year old when I gave half of my clothes and my sisters and brothers clothes to a family down the road who were dirt poor.
And Sandra I will bang on about us breaking the law until you understand it.
Don’t you dare to suggest I should be silent.
Hi Marilyn, you are an early riser.
I’m not suggesting that you be quiet, its just there are other ways of discussing divisive issues.
Your personality indicates that you think of things in very black and white viewpoints. Unfortunately the world is made up of many, many shades of grey, especially when it comes to points of view. That is the reason you are having such a hard job of trying to convince the rest of us plebs – we just happen to think a little differently to you.
I hope that you have a really nice day (said with sincerity, not sarcasm).
Bundysmum and Sandra, I am glad you have said what you said in reply to Marilyn S. I couldn’t be bothered. I hope she has a nice day too, sounds like she needs one. We need a nice day too,to put up with her. And Hey Marilyn, looks like little Johnny Howard your favourite name might be up for WAR CRIMES. I certainly hope so. It is he and he alone that has caused the boat refugees, not PM Gillard that you keep saying. Excuse me saying this, you are like a broken record and I don’t bother reading all you write.
You stupid woman Anne, I did not say Gillard caused the boat people.
Wars we started caused them but it is Gillard only too happy to persecute and abuse them.
When the only people who agree with you are other racists Anne, you really and truly need to reassess where you are coming from.
I want the women here who support this statement by Kate Lundy to tell me why they agree with this statement.
SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: And you know how long that is? In Malaysia it’s 76 years, in Indonesia it’s 20.
So let’s get real about this. How long are we going to keep people dumped on a prison island away from services, no guarantees of protections; and children are in the exact same position? When I asked the minister in the Senate on Thursday night, I said “how you have come taken all the protections away from children? Why won’t the minister be responsible for his guardianship of these kids?” And you know what Kate Lundy, the responsible minister said to me? She said word for word “it is unsustainable for the Government to uphold the best interests of the child.” Well I think that’s shameful.
So you stupid women, did you actually understand what Gillard did last week or does partisan hackery blind you?
So tell me how you feel about a female minister of the crown claiming that it is not sustainable to uphold the best interests of children.
The churches certainly don’t do they? But does that give a minister of the crown to blatantly say it is all too inconvenient for a nation as rich as this one to avoid their obligations to protect all children?
When a government uses children in this manner they are beyond depraved.
I try to look toward the future. Whether or not the recent legislation that allows for off shore processing is the best solution is in some ways irrelevant if it is not the final one. It is designed to stop people making a perilous journey across the sea. The panel clearly stated that a regional solution needs to be pursued. The objective is to have people stop arriving at Nauru etc. so that humane safe processes can be pursued. You have to stop bad processes before implementing good ones and sometimes this means an interim arrangement that may not be perfect but helps us move forward. In some ways Julia had no choice but to pursue this action because of the hung parliament and so had to balance stopping unsafe boats and retaining power after the next election so that refugee policy can continue to evolve in a positive way. Thank you for your comments Matt, Tess and Bundysmum. I’m afraid that Marilyn’s continuous abusive rants cause me to ignore her posts and move closer to the ALP and away from the Greens although I am a left wing independent supporter.
Kindest regards