2013/01: Should Australia continue to place asylum seekers in detention and process them offshore?
What they said...
'These are difficult decisions for everybody but we do need to have in place a properly integrated system which says to people there's a safer way of getting to Australia'
The federal Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, referring to his government's decision to excise mainland Australia from the country's migration zone
'Refugees cannot be processed in a way that respects their rights on disease-ridden, impoverished islands with no support infrastructure'
Dr Nick Riemer, University of Sydney
The issue at a glance
On December 14, 2012, it was announced that Professor Harry Minas, a leading mental health expert and a long-serving member of the Government's advisory council on detention and asylum seekers, had quit after more than 10 years in the job.
The Professor claimed the decision by the Gillard Government to excise the mainland from the migration zone so that asylum seekers who arrived on Australian soil could be processed offshore was part of the reason for his decision.
The actions of the current government in reintroducing offshore processing and detention for asylum seekers have generated a great deal of debate.
There are those who believe these actions are inhumane and are a dereliction of the responsibility Australia undertook to help asylum seekers when it signed the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
On the other hand, there are those who believe these actions are motivated by the desire to discourage asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat because they risk drowning.
Equally, there are those who consider the current policy is politically motivated, intended to placate a majority of the electorate which is afraid that Australia will be overrun by an influx of asylum seekers.
Background
Clarifying terms
1. Asylum seeker
'Asylum' is refuge or protection. An 'asylum seeker' is an immigrant from another country seeking refuge from persecution within his or her own country. An asylum seeker has to be formally assessed before he or she can be judged a 'refugee'. If the country to which the asylum seeker has come decides he or she is a 'refugee', that person will be given a visa that will allow them to remain legally in the host country for a certain period of time.
Currently, Asylum seekers in Australia are held in detention centres while their claims to be refugees are processed. This is referred to as 'mandatory detention'.
2. Refugee
The United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention gives a definition of refugee that forms the basis of most national definitions. Australia is a signatory to this Convention.
The Convention states that a refugee is someone who 'owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, ... is unable or ... unwilling to avail himself of the protection of [his or her native] country ...'
The Convention outlines how someone judged a refugee is to be treated within a host country.
Included in this list of appropriate treatments is that the host country, referred to, as the 'Contracting State' will 'facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees'. Thus, a refugee is entitled to become a permanent citizen of his or her host country and is to be helped to do so.
The host country is also expected to make available to refugees 'the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to ... nationals'. Thus the same welfare assistance is to be offered to refugees as to other citizens of the host country.
3. Illegal immigrant
Most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas.
They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat, though recently legislation has been passed compelling employers to be more scrupulous about determining the legal resident status of those they employ.
It is debatable whether unauthorised asylum seekers arriving in Australia should be termed 'illegal immigrants'.
The United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention states that host countries 'shall not impose penalties ... on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened ... enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.'
Those who would have 'asylum seekers' termed 'illegal immigrants' tend to stress the 'coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened' component of the Refugee Convention and claim that many asylum seekers have already stopped at at least one other country before seeking to come to Australia.
Asylum seekers are in a transitional state. If their applications for refugee status are accepted then they are entitled to remain within their host country under the terms that country stipulates. (As outlined by the United Nations Refugee Convention this would be on equal terms to the nationals of that country.)
Only if they are rejected as refugees do they unequivocally become illegal immigrants.
The Gillard government's asylum seeker policies
Deaths at sea among asylum seekers and ongoing boat arrivals led to a major Parliamentary debate on the issue in June, 2012.
The Gillard government then convened the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, chaired by Angus Houston, a retired senior commander of the Royal Australian Air Force and former Chief of the Defence Force, to consider further options.
The Houston Review found that 'onshore processing encourages people to jump into boats'.
In response to one of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers the Gillard government has adopted what it terms the "no advantage" principle. This means that it has sought to put into place provisions that would discourage asylum seekers from attempting to come to Australia by boat.
The aim is to create circumstances which would give refugees who arrive in Australia by boat no effective advantage over those who stay in refugee camps or other depots and apply to come to Australia from there.
In implementing the "no advantage" principle, Australia has
a) re-opened offshore detention facilities on Nauru and begun negotiations to open similar facilities on Manus Island;
b) had mainland Australia excised from Australia's migration zone so that any asylum seeker who reaches the mainland can be transferred to an offshore facility and processed there, with no set period for the detention;
c) had asylum seekers judged to be refugees will still have to wait several years before being given permanent protection visas to make their situation more comparable to that of those waiting in camps in other countries (these people would be given a pension but no work rights);
d) increased the annual refugee quota from 13,750 to 20,000, with priority places to be made available to those who apply from outside Australia.
Previous mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia
Mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia was established by the Keating ALP Government in 1992. Mandatory detention was introduced to 'support the integrity of Australia's immigration program' and 'management of Australian borders' and to distinguish between those who asylum seekers who have applied for entry to Australia prior to arrival (often from a refugee camp) and those who have attempted to come directly to Australia before applying for asylum.
Under the policy, asylum seekers are mandatorily detained while they 'undergo an assessment process, including security and health checking, to establish if they have a legitimate reason for staying in Australia'.
Controls on unauthorised arrivals were tightened under the Howard Coalition Government in 2001, as part of its so-called 'Pacific Solution' policy, which saw the excision of a number of Australian island territories from Australia's migration zone.
This meant that any asylum seeker arriving on one of these islands was deemed not to have reached Australian soil. Asylum seekers were then removed to other Pacific islands, primarily Nauru, to have their applications to enter Australia as refugees processed.
It was claimed this led to a sharp decline in boat arrivals and, consequently, to numbers of people being detained. However, the policy was highly controversial. It was condemned as an abnegation of Australia's international obligations to those seeking asylum as determined by the United Nations Refugee Convention. It was also criticised in terms of the length of time it typically took to process applications and the psychological harm done to those held in detention, including children.
The Pacific Solution was dismantled by the Rudd ALP Government in 2008.
Current situation
There are currently thousands of asylum seekers held in immigration detention around Australia.
Several hundred asylum seekers are now also being detained on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea under third country processing arrangements.
Under the Migration Act 1958, asylum seekers who arrive in Australia, whether to the mainland or an 'excised offshore place', without a valid visa must be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia.
Immigration detention in Australia is indefinite - there is no limit in law or policy to the length of time for which a person may be detained.
Some asylum seekers and refugees spend long periods of time in immigration detention waiting for their refugee claim to be assessed; waiting for the completion of health, identity and security checks; or awaiting removal from Australia if they have been found not to be a refugee nor to otherwise be owed protection.
Internet information
On December 14, 2012, the ABC carried a news report detailing the decision by Professor Harry Minas, a long-serving member of the Government's advisory council on detention and asylum seekers to quit the job.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/gillard-government-adviser-on-asylum-seekers-quits/4427816
The Australian Human Rights Commission has a significant section of its site given over to considering the position of asylum seekers coming to Australia. The Commission has significant reservations about aspects of Australia's current policy.
The Commission's index for this section of its site can be accessed at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html#detention
A Just Australia is a lobby group which campaigns 'for just and compassionate treatment of refugees, consistent with the human rights standards that Australia has developed and endorsed.'
The group has a section of its site titled 'Myths and facts about refugees and asylum seekers'.
This information can be accessed at http://www.ajustaustralia.com/info/mythsfacts.php
The Asylum Seekers Resource Centre has a section of its site titled 'Myths, Facts and Solutions'. The site gives detailed information on the asylum seeker situation worldwide and in relation to Australia.
This site can be accessed at http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/myths-facts-solutions-summary-sheet.pdf
On November 19, 2012, The New Matilda published an opinion piece by Nick Riemer titled 'What "No Advantage" Really Means'. The piece is highly critical of conditions for asylum seekers in offshore detention facilities.
The full text of this article can be found at http://newmatilda.com/2012/11/19/no-advantage-really-means
On November 16, 2012, SBS published a background article giving a range of statistics (some in graph form) on asylum seekers coming to Australia.
This material can be found at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1295782/Asylum-seekers-Where-Australia-stands
On October 31, 2012, SBS carried a report detailing Immigration Minister Chris Bowen's defence of his government's decision to excise all of mainland Australia from the country's migration zone. This action has been taken in order to reduce the claims that can be made by asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Mr Bowen argues that his government is trying to reduce the number of boat people and thus the number of deaths at sea.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1706635/Bowen-defends-Labors-excision-decision
On October 31, 2012, the Migration Minster, Chris Bowen, issued a media release explaining why the government had decided to excise the mainland from Australia's migration zone.
The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/media-releases.do?newsId=6466
On October 31, 2012, The Brisbane Times carried a report on the Australian government's decision to excise the mainland from the country's migration zone. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/mainland-removed-from-zone-for-asylum-seekers-20121030-28hsa.html
On October 19, 2012, the ABC carried a news report detailing the manner in which the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was defending her government's application of the 'no advantage' principle toward asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-19/gillard-defends-asylum-no-advantage-test/4323616
On October 15, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by
Sharon Pickering, Professor of Criminology at Monash University, and Leanne Weber, Larkins Senior Research Fellow at Monash University.
The article is titled 'If we care about asylum seekers we must count deaths in detention'. The article is critical of conditions in detention camps and stresses the deaths that have occurred among those in Australian custody.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/if-we-care-about-asylum-seekers-we-must-count-deaths-in-detention-9731
On August 27, 2012, the ABC published a comment by Catherine Deveny that criticises Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4223856.html
On August 24, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Alison Gerard, Senior Lecturer in Justice Studies at Charles Sturt University and Francesco Vecchio, a PhD Candidate at Monash University. The piece is titled 'Australia among the world's worst in dealing with asylum seekers'. The authors present a detailed critique of Australia's history of dealing with asylum seekers.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/australia-among-the-worlds-worst-in-dealing-with-asylum-seekers-8892
On August 23, 2012, The New York Times carried a detailed report on the Australian government's decision to increase the country's annual refugee quota. The article gives a large amount of background material on Australia's previous asylum seeker policies.
The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/asia/australia-increases-refugee-quota-and-also-deterrents.html?_r=1&
On August 14, 2012, Monash University published an opinion piece by Professor Sharon Pickering, school of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, and the Melissa Phillips, a doctoral candidate at the University of Melbourne.
The piece is critical of aspects of the Houston Review's recommendations. The opinion piece is titled 'Houston panel ignores the evidence on asylum seekers'.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/houston-panel-ignores-the-evidence-on-asylum-seekers
On July 30, 2012, The Conversation gave a detailed overview of what recent opinion polls indicate are the popular views on asylum seekers trying to come to Australia.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/what-does-the-australian-public-really-think-about-asylum-seekers-8522
On June 28, 2012, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced that the Government had invited retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, the former chief of Australia's defence force, to lead an expert panel to provide a report on how to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat journeys to Australia.
The Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers was released on August 13, 2012.
The full text of the Report can be accessed at http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report
On September 17, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by the Australian Migration Minister, Chris Bowen, titled, 'Humane reasons for processing asylum seekers offshore'
The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/humane-reasons-for-processing-asylum-seekers-offshore-20110916-1kduh.html
On June 17, 2011, SBS published a background report detailing where those asylum seekers who arrived in Australia in 2010 came from and comparing the number of applications Australia receives with those received by other nations.
This information can be accessed at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1555731/Factbox-The-numbers-behind-the-asylum-debate
On January 5, 2011, the Australian federal Parliament's Social Policy Section published a detailed account of all asylum seeker arrivals by boat since 1976. The report gives a detailed account of changes of policy over the period.
The full text can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals
On January 5, 2011, SBS published a background looking specifically at the number of refugees currently in camps or other facilities largely in under-developed nations. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1294102/At-a-glance-Who-takes-the-most-asylum-claims
On March 5, 2010, The Punch published an analysis and opinion piece by Graham Thom titled 'Australia really has a tiny number of asylum seekers'.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/australia-really-has-a-tiny-number-of-asylum-seekers/
Arguments in favour of detaining asylum seekers and processing them offshore
1. The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat increased dramatically after offshore processing was abandoned
The Howard government's announcement, on September 1, 2001, that it would send asylum seekers to Nauru, saw boat arrivals over that coming month fall to 561 from 1645 the previous month. This decrease came despite the fact that it was not until September 19 that asylum-seekers actually landed on Nauru.
619 asylum seekers arrived in October, 159 in November and 64 in December of 2001. There were no asylum-seeker boats in 2002. In 2003 the number of boat arrivals was 53; in 2004 it was 15; in 2005 it was 11; in 2006 it was 60; in 2007 it was 148; in 2008 it was 161.
A dramatic increase occurred in 2009 and 2010. There were 2726 asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 2009 and 6555 in 2010.
Critics of the government's abandonment of offshore processing have claimed that it was this change of policy that caused the increase in numbers. People smugglers and asylum seekers themselves have been quoted in support of this claim.
On April 11, 2010, The Courier Mail quoted a former people-smuggler now living in Australia, as claiming, 'The immigration rules in Australia were changed and everyone knows it and that's why so many are now coming.
Before, the reason it stopped was John Howard absolutely, he deterred some boats by force and Nauru Island where they (boat people) knew they could get stuck for one or two or three years.
We and the passengers would check the internet daily to see what Canberra was doing and we all knew these things.'
On October 10, 2009, The Australian quoted a 31 year old Iraqi asylum seeker, who stated, 'I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM. I know about him. He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. They have camps, good service and if someone arrives they give us a limited visa and after three years you become an Australian citizen.'
2. Coming to Australia by boat is dangerous for asylum seekers
The Australian government has argued that in changing its asylum seeker policy to again include offshore processing, its aim is to prevent people risking their lives trying to come here by boat.
The danger of attempting to come to Australia by boat was emphasised by the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, in an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on September 17, 2011. Mr Bowen stated, 'Last year we watched on helplessly and in horror as about 50 people lost their lives at Christmas Island, including a two-month-old child.'
Mr Bowen went on to note, 'This was simply the latest in what is a long line of tragedies. In 2001, 353 men, women and children died on the SIEV X. Several elderly asylum seekers drowned near Ashmore Reef in 2001, and 12 Sri Lankans died in 2009 in the Indian Ocean when their boat sank before a commercial tanker could rescue it.
These are just the tragedies we know of. There is credible evidence of other boats simply disappearing between Indonesia and Australia.'
In April, 2012, Mr Bowen stated, 'Asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat face very real risks and we need to work together now to prevent another tragedy from occurring.'
In October, 2012, commenting on the Government's changed position on offshore processing, Chris Bowen stated, 'I've changed and the Labor Party has changed its position to save lives.'
In November, 2012, the Government introduced legislation that required that even those asylum seekers who succeeded in reaching the Australian mainland would be subject to offshore processing. Justifying this decision, Mr Bowen stated, 'We are committed to putting in place an orderly migration which says to vulnerable people that there is a safer way of getting to Australia...
The message for people arriving by boat is clear: regardless of where you land, you risk being processed in Nauru or Papua New Guinea.
To those contemplating the journey, I reiterate: the people smugglers are lying to you. It is not worth risking your life. There is no visa on arrival, there is no special treatment and there is no advantage given to those who come by boat.'
It has also been noted that it can be extremely difficult to locate and save those who attempt to come to Australia by boat and get into trouble.
Australia's Home Affairs Minister, Jason Clare, has stated, 'Don't underestimate how difficult this task is; don't underestimate how big the sea that we're searching is.'
3. Coming to Australia by boat should give "no advantage" to asylum seekers over waiting in refugee camps overseas
Part of Recommendation One of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers (the Houston Review) is 'The application of a "no advantage" principle to ensure that no benefit is gained through circumventing regular migration arrangements.'
What this recommendations means is that asylum seekers should not be able to see any advantage in attempting to come to Australia by boat.
The adoption of this principle by the government is meant to ensure that people will be willing to come to Australia through 'regular migration arrangements'.
Currently, 'regular migration arrangements' mean that asylum seekers in refugee camps or other depots are registered with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and then approved to go to Australia or another country which is a signatory of the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
In the future the government hopes to develop processing facilities with other nations in the region to streamline the processing of applications and to discourage people smuggling.
Part of the 'no advantage' principle is that any asylum seeker who comes to Australia by boat may be detained in a processing facility, offshore or otherwise, for as long as that person might have been expected to wait in a refugee camp overseas. The principle is designed to put boat arrivals in the same position as those in transit countries, with an equivalent wait before resettlement.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has stated, 'The aim here is to define what is the period of time someone would have waited if they had not moved but had stayed where they were for processing by the UNHCR.'
As a furtherance of the no 'advantage principle', even once an asylum seeker is judged to be a genuine refugee that person will not receive a permanent protection visa earlier than if they had remained in a refugee camp and had their application processed there.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, has stated, 'People arriving by boat are subject to this "no advantage" principle, whether that means being transferred offshore to have their claims processed, remaining in detention, or being placed in the community...
They will not ... be issued with a permanent Protection visa if found to be a refugee, until such time that they would have been resettled in Australia after being processed in our region.'
4. Australian law requires asylum seekers be detained until their health and security status can be checked
Migration to Australia is regulated by the Migration Act 1958. The object of Australia's Migration Act 1958 is to regulate, in the national interest, the lawful entry and stay of people in Australia. All non-citizens wanting to visit Australia have to apply for, and be granted, a visa to enter Australia.
Non-citizens who are in the migration zone and do not hold a valid visa entitling them to remain in Australia are unlawful non-citizens.
Australia's Migration Act 1958 requires that unlawful non-citizens who are in Australia's migration zone be detained and that unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.
This Act can be seen to apply to people seeking refugee status as much as to any other non-citizen who arrives in Australia without a visa.
The government's seven key immigration detention values are:
a) Mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control.
b) To support the integrity of Australia's immigration program, three groups will be subject to mandatory detention:
i) all unauthorised arrivals, for management of health, identity and security risks to the community (It is this principle, in particular, which is applied to asylum seekers)
ii) unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community and
iii) unlawful non-citizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their visa conditions.
5. Australia has increased its annual intake of asylum seekers
Australia has dramatically increased its annual intake of asylum seekers. In August 2012, the Australian government announced that it had increased the country's refugee quota from 13,700 to 20,000. This is the largest single increase in 30 years.
Supporters of the Gillard government's current policy argue that this increase demonstrates that Australia is open and accepting of asylum seekers. They claim that the government's concern is not to prevent asylum seekers from coming to this country; rather its concern is to prevent asylum seekers from risking their lives attempting to come here by boat.
The Prime Minister has stressed that Australia seeks to advantage refugees who attempt to come to this country by applying for entry from refugee camps within their own or other countries. Ms Gillard stated, 'This increase [in Australia's annual refugee intake] is targeted to those in most need: those vulnerable people offshore, not those getting on boats.
Message No. 1: If you get on a boat, you are at risk of being transferred to Nauru or P.N.G. (Papua New Guinea).
Message No. 2: If you stay where you are, then there are more resettlement places available in Australia.'
The Prime Minister has claimed that as an indication of the government's commitment to 'safe alternatives to dangerous boat journeys', Australia will proceed to immediately resettle an additional 400 refugees from Indonesia.
The Australian government will also consult the UNHCR over the allocation of the remaining resettlement places.
More Afghans, as well as Syrians and Iraqis, who had fled to refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, would be accepted as part of the increased intake.
Arguments against detaining asylum seekers and processing them offshore
1. Australia has agreed, since 1951, to offer refuge to asylum seekers
Australia is one of 147 nations that have signed the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Convention states that the host country, referred to, as the 'Contracting State', will 'facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees'. Thus, a refugee is entitled to become a permanent citizen of his or her host country and is to be helped to do so.
The host country is also expected to make available to refugees 'the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to ... nationals'. Thus the same welfare assistance is to be offered to refugees as to other citizens of the host country.
Critics of mandatory detention and offshore processing claim that what Australia is currently doing runs counter to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
On October 31, 2012, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criticised the Australian government for leaving in limbo the asylum seekers who have arrived since its August 13 announcement of offshore processing.
It said it was increasingly concerned about the unresolved status of these more than 5700 people in detention in Australia and Nauru.
The United Nations has stated, 'This effective suspension of processing raises serious legal issues, as well as concerns for the health and wellbeing of those affected.'
The United Nations has indicated that the government's plan to excise the Australian continent from its migration zone - so it can send asylum seekers who arrive on or near the mainland to be processed offshore - has no bearing on Australia's obligation to abide by its international obligations.
Nick Riemer, in an opinion piece published in New Matilda on November 19, 2012, wrote, 'Refugees cannot be processed in a way that respects their rights on disease-ridden, impoverished islands with no support infrastructure. And regardless of the conditions, processing refugees anywhere offshore is inherently unacceptable, since it undermines the international principle of refugee protection Australia is obliged to uphold.'
Critics of the current Australian policy argue that while there are people all around the world facing violent persecution at the hands of their governments, this country should be ready to help those who arrive on our shores seeking refuge.
2. The Government's supposed concern regarding asylum seekers drowning is hypocrisy
Critics argue that Australia's current treatment of asylum seekers is not motivated by concern by those might drown attempting to come to Australia by boat.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on November 2, 2012, Waleed Aly wrote, 'There's a ... pernicious fiction here that simply must be called out: the fiction that we're doing this because we're so benevolent. "The government is committed to ... giving people better options than risking their lives at sea," said Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, as though we're providing a service.'
This claim of concern for the wellbeing of asylum seekers has been vigorously contested. Waleed Aly has argued, 'Let's be honest. The aim here is to make staying in no man's land the only option. We're not providing any alternatives. We're not hurriedly clearing the backlog of asylum seekers that haven't been resettled since forever. We're not, say, processing applications in the region within a year. The only message we're sending is: don't come.'
A similar point has been made by Paul Syvret in an opinion piece published in The Courier Mail on November 27, 2012. Paul Syvet argues, 'Don't stop the boats. Stop the hypocrisy. It is not the trickle of barely seaworthy fishing vessels and their desperate human cargo that poses a threat to Australia. It is the rank dissembling, crocodile tears and dog whistle bigotry that presents far more danger to our social fabric.'
Critics have claimed that the government is actually operating in response to Australian fear and bigotry regarding people coming uninvited to our shores. They claim that the supposed concern for asylum seekers' welfare is merely a smokescreen intended to hide the true motive which is to gain the electoral support of the majority of Australians who are opposed to asylum seekers coming to this country by boat.
3. The processing of asylum seekers in overseas camps is slow and problematic
It has been claimed that very few asylum seekers have a genuine opportunity of being placed in a host country through remaining in a refugee camp and applying for a placement through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
The 'queue' notion, which holds that asylum seekers are best served by waiting to be placed in potential host countries such as Australia, has been disputed.
It has been claimed that in reality only a small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR.
In a background note produced by the Australian Parliamentary Library in January, 2011, it was noted, 'UNHCR offices registered some 119 100 applications out of the total of 923 400 claims in 2009, a 62 per cent increase compared to 2008 ...
The [UNHCR] Office's share in the global number of applications registered in 2009 was 13 per cent compared to 8 per cent in 2008 and 12 per cent in 2007.'
The same background note further observed, 'According to the UNHCR, less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees may be resettled in any given year.
Millions of refugees around the world continue to live with little hope of finding a solution to their plight ... resettlement benefits a small number of refugees; in 2008 [and in 2009], less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees directly benefited from resettlement.'
Critics of offshore processing and mandatory detention note that asylum seekers who come to Australia without prior authorisation may have to wait a very long time in detention centres if they are meant to have "no advantage" over those waiting for placement from refugee camps.
Critics also note that those people who seek to come to Australia by boat cannot be condemned as 'queue jumpers' as there is no effective queue.
4. Detention harms those asylum seekers who endure it
The conditions under which asylum seekers are being kept on Nauru have been condemned by a variety of international agencies, including Amnesty International and the United Nations.
A team of UNHCR officials visited Nauru for three days at the beginning of October, 2012. In their report they describe the conditions at the detention centre as 'harsh' and 'unsatisfactory'.
The UN group described the Nauru tent facility as congested, with little privacy, and they found little natural shelter from the heat during the day, which is exacerbated, they claimed, by the noise and dust of the nearby construction of a permanent detention facility.
In regard to the psychological wellbeing of the asylum seekers detained on Nauru, one of the UN observers noted, 'Well, it's our understanding, from discussing these issues with service providers, that there is an increasing level of frustration and various forms of mental and physical ill health. The questions are arising.'
The same observer further stated, 'There are, in addition to that, people who've come to the islands with what we understand to be pre-existing indications of torture or trauma which, in these kinds of settings, can quickly become more serious.'
Additionally, the observer commented, 'They [asylum seekers] are very confused and disoriented about what the situation is, what their rights are, when they're going to be processed, what the future holds for them if they're refugees and if they're not, and of course they listen to the internet, they hear rumours of how other asylum seekers have been dealt with and treated in Australia.'
A New Matilda report published on November 19, 2012, noted that as of the time of publication two hunger strikers had been hospitalised. A further five were on their nineteenth day without food. There were frequent psychotic episodes. Three asylum seekers had attempted suicide. Two detainees had mutilated their heads and necks and four had dug symbolic graves. Psychotic episodes have become more frequent; three asylum seekers have attempted suicide, with one trying to hang himself from a light pole; two other detainees have mutilated their heads and necks; and four have dug symbolic graves.
5. Detention and offshore processing has not deterred asylum seekers
It has been claimed that the new off-shore processing provisions and the application of the "no advantage" principle when determining the length of detention have not succeeded in reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat.
It has been estimated that some 7,000 asylum seekers have attempted to come to Australia since the Australian government began offshore processing in August 2012.
The number of asylum seekers has outstripped the capacity of the Nauru facilities.
In November, 2012, the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, announced the reopening of the Pontville detention centre outside Hobart in Tasmania and the expansion of the Melbourne immigration transit accommodation site at Broadmeadows in Victoria to help to accommodate the asylum seekers who could not be held in offshore facilities.
Asylum seekers are now being transferred to facilities on mainland Australia where the same "no advantage" principle is being applied. This combination of growing numbers of arrivals and extended periods of detention is likely to see growing numbers of asylum seekers held in detention.
The Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, has stated, 'People arriving by boat are subject to this "no advantage" principle, whether that means being transferred offshore to have their claims processed, remaining in detention, or being placed in the community.'
Critics of this detention policy have noted that it has not succeeded as a deterrent. They claim that asylum seekers leave their home country not because of the attractions of a particular host country, but due to 'push factors', that is, they are seeking to avoid persecution and the threat of death.
According to this argument, detention fails as a deterrent because the dangers people are trying to escape are far greater than the stress and discomfort to be endured in a detention centre in Australia.
In August, 2012, Afghanistan's ambassador to Australia, Nasir Andisha, stated, 'The trend so far shows it doesn't have any effect . . . because the people keep coming.'
Mr Andisha further stated, 'As far as the people who are stuck in Indonesia are concerned, I think for them even Nauru is a better place than Indonesia . . . At least there are some facilities. At least they are not in fear of police or corrupt officials.'
Further implications
The Age Nielsen poll of August 26, 2012, asked two questions on government policy regarding asylum seekers.
First, respondents were asked 'Do you support or oppose the decision to resume offshore processing of asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru'. 67% indicated support; 27% opposition.
In response to the second question, which asked for views on 'the decision to increase the number of refugees Australia accepts from 13,750 to 20,000 per year' there was no clear position. 48% were in support; 49% in opposition.
These poll results are significant as they indicate two things. The community is very divided on increasing the number of refugees this country accepts; while two-thirds favour processing asylum seekers offshore.
The extent of support for offshore processing suggests that Australians wish to discourage asylum seekers who try to come to Australia uninvited. Part of this may be a desire to reduce the risk that boat people face. However, concerns about security and border protection appear more likely.
Former Prime Minister John Howard's assertion, "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come," seems to epitomise this desire for control. Behind this would appear to be fear of an excessive influx of unapproved arrivals that might threaten job security and cultural identity; an influx that could threaten existing citizens' access to services and the sustainability of our environment and economy.
The fear of an uncontrolled influx of asylum seekers seems exaggerated. Australia receives a relatively small proportion of asylum seeker claims worldwide. According to the UNHCR, in 2011 Australia received 11,500 claims, just 2.6% of the 441,300 asylum applications received by industrialised countries in that year. By comparison, in 2011, the United States received 74,000 claims; France 51,900; Germany 45,700. In 2011, South Africa was the world's largest recipient of individual applications, receiving 107,000 or 10% of the global total.
There appears to be some confusion in the popular mind between migration and refugee placement. In 2011, 27% of Australia's population was born overseas. Of this group 30% were born in either the United Kingdom or New Zealand. The next largest groups came from China and India, each contributing six per cent.
However, as a percentage of our migration program, refugees make a relatively minor contribution. Refugees made up 7.6% of the total immigration program under John Howard, compared with 6.6% under Julia Gillard-this is the lowest percentage since 1975.
Anxiety about asylum seekers seems to be in large measure a perception problem. There is clearly need for a wide-ranging and informed debate on the issue, so that the Australian public can make rational decisions about how they would have asylum seekers coming to this country treated. Unfortunately the issue has become so emotive that such a debate is very difficult to achieve.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: September 2, 2012, page 14, editorial (ref to SBS program, "go back to where you came from"), `In reality, the conversation that Australia has to have'.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/editorial/in-reality-the-conversation-that-australia-has-to-have-20120901-25791.html
The Australian: September 1, 2012, page 21, editorial, `Offshore processing alone will not stop the boats'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/offshore-processing-alone-will-not-stop-the-boats/story-e6frg71x-1226462732236
The Australian: September 1, 2012, page 15, comment (photos) by Cameron Stewart, `Few hear the policy on boats'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/few-hear-the-policy-on-boats/story-fn59niix-1226462730088
The Age: September 1, 2012, page 20, comment (cartoon) by Virginia Trioli, `(Peter) Reith rewrites history to hide the shame of children overboard lie'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/reith-rewrites-history-to-hide-the-shame-of-children-overboard-lie-20120831-255u3.html
The Age: September 12, 2012, page 11, comment by Tim Lindsey, `Why we haven't convinced Indonesia to come aboard'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/why-we-havent-convinced-indonesia-to-come-on-board-20120911-25qeu.html
The Australian: September 18, 2012, page 14, comment by Judith Sloan, `End the boatpeople-Centrelink cycle'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-the-boatpeople-centrelink-cycle/story-fnbkvnk7-1226476061727
The Age: September 15, 2012, page 21, comment (photo) by Michael Gordon, `The trouble with Labor's new-look Nauru solution'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-trouble-with-labors-newlook-nauru-solution-20120914-25xvi.html
The Australian: September 24, 2012, page 13, editorial, `Back where they came from'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/back-where-they-came-from/story-e6frg71x-1226479828149
The Australian: October 2, 2012, page 13, editorial, `Far to go to stop the boats'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/far-to-go-to-stop-the-boats/story-e6frg71x-1226486140074
The Age: October 5, 2012, page 15, comment (on detention without trial) by Ben Saul, `Trapped in the puzzle of security'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/trapped-in-the-puzzle-of-security-20121004-2725q.html
The Australian: October 13, 2012, page 23, editorial, `Regain control of our borders'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/regain-control-of-our-borders/story-e6frg71x-1226494755162
Herald-Sun: October 22, 2012, page 12, comment by Andrew Bolt, `PM needs new plan to stop the boats'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pm-needs-new-plan-to-stop-boats/story-e6frfifx-1226500247840
The Age: October 19, 2012, page 15, comment by Waleed Aly, `Defeated in a cruel game'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/defeated-in-a-cruel-game-20121018-27ttk.html
The Age: October 31, 2012, page 5, comment by (on "excision" plan) Tony Wright, `Watch as we make a continent disappear'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/watch-as-we-make-a-continent-disappear-20121030-28hqi.html
The Age: November 3, 2012, page 17, comment (ref in part to "expert panel" report) by Michael Gordon, `Friendship hits a snag in a sea of confusion over boats'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/friendship-hits-a-snag-in-a-sea-of-confusion-over-boats-20121102-28pgu.html
The Age: November 2, 2012, page 17, comment (on excising of the mainland from Australian "migration zone") by Waleed Aly, `Shattering the facade of kindness'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shattering-the-facade-of-kindness-20121101-28mpv.html
The Australian: November 22, 2012, page 13, editorial (with cartoon), `Demise of Pacific non-solution'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/demise-of-pacific-non-solution/story-e6frg71x-1226521536850
The Australian: November 22, 2012, page 1, comment by Dennis Shanahan, `Admit it, the model has been broken'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/admit-it-the-model-has-been-broken/story-e6frg75f-1226521557053
The Age: November 22, 2012, page 20, editorial, `Labor's head in the sand on Pacific detention'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/labors-head-in-the-sand-on-pacific-detention-20121121-29q88.html
The Age: November 27, 2012, page 13, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by "expert panel" member Paris Aristotle, `Unity for human rights'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/unity-for-human-rights-20121126-2a3j0.html
The Australian: November 24, page 21, comment (on release into the community) by Peter van Onselen, `Horrific policy ditches equality of opportunity'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/horrific-policy-ditches-labors-principle-of-equal-opportunity-for-asylum-seekers/story-e6frg6zo-1226522991781
The Age: November 24, 2012, page 18, editorial, `Cynicism mars the debate on refugees'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/cynicism-mars-the-debate-on-refugees-20121124-29zhm.html
The Age: November 24, 2012, page 13, analysis (photos of Nauru) by Michael Gordon, `One hell of a paradise'.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/one-hell-of-a-paradise-20121123-29yr1.html
The Age: November 23, 2012, page 17, comment by Michelle Grattan, `Bowen policy to deter boats laden with risks'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/bowen-policy-to-deter-boats-laden-with-risks-20121122-29stn.html
The Australian: December 12, 2012, page 13, editorial, `Strengthening porous borders'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/strengthening-porous-borders/story-e6frg71x-1226534876988
The Australian: December 10, 2012, page 13, editorial, `Border protection a stern test'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/border-protection-a-stern-test/story-e6frg71x-1226533224469
The Australian: December 8, 2012, page 21, comment (photos) by Cameron Stewart, `Asylum-seekers back to where they started'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/asylum-seekers-back-to-where-they-started/story-e6frg6z6-1226532336700
The Age: December 8, 2012, page 23, comment by Michael Gordon, `Team Legal goes in to bat for desperate Sri Lankans'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/team-legal-goes-in-to-bat-for-desperate-sri-lankans-20121207-2b10w.html
The Australian: December 19, 2012, page 11, analysis (photos) by Stewart and Maley, `Battle for our borders'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/battle-for-our-borders/story-e6frg6z6-1226539995051#
The Age: December 27, 2012, page 2, analysis by Hall and Flitton, `Tortuous journey in search of policy on boat people'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/tortuous-journey-in-search-of-policy-on-boat-people-20121226-2bwhc.html
The Age: January 8, 2013, page 9, comment by Adrian Franklin, `Hatred of feral cats hides a sinister truth'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/hatred-of-feral-cats-hides-a-sinister-truth-20130107-2ccqu.html