< The only humanistic and legally viable solution to the refugee crisis is to adopt a clear two-pronged approach. The first limb is to considerably increase the number of off-shore refugees we absorb. The second part is to deny refugee eligibility to people who arrive in Australia without pre-existing refugee status. >

Absolutely, Mirko. This has been my argument for years.

< This would end precarious voyages to our shores and mandatory detention. At the same time, it would result in enormous public revenue savings. >

Yes.

< The additional cost of settling the larger number of refugees would be a fraction of the current cost of the misery that is the refugee industry. >

Yep.

< We should increase our intake of displaced people to say 10% of total migration numbers. This would mean that our total humanitarian intake would be approximately 30,000 per year – more than double the current quota of 13,750. >

I differ somewhat regarding numbers. Our total immigration intake should be in the order of 30 000 per annum, or whatever net zero immigration turns out to be. Within this, the main category should be refugees, being something in the order of twice as many as we currently take.

< Ideally, Australia should absorb even more than 30,000 refugees annually. Our abundant resources and infrastructure could accommodate a massive increase in humanitarian arrivals. >

This is where I strongly disagree. We need to stabilise our population.

< The other part of the solution requires us to disentitle asylum seekers who come by boat from refugee eligibility. >

Yes.

I agree with everything that you have written regarding onshore asylum seekers.

Good article

*The Convention was never intended to apply to migrants who roll out a world map and strategically plot which of the 140 countries that have signed the Convention they think will best advance their economic prosperity.*

Exactly! I've made this point over and over again on OLO.
A good article.

Much of this article seems to be founded in the author's subjective moral judgement of those who arrive by boat.

For example : thrusting, wanton, temerity to command our attention, imposing nature, are just some of the pejorative terms used to define the personalities and natures of boat arrivals.

There is also an assumption that if people have money to pay for their passage, they are not fleeing persecution, etc., as defined by the Refugee Convention. I find this assumption entirely untenable.

While the author suggests that we look to only the spirit of the Convention, I doubt this will be understood by those seeking asylum who come to Australia because we are signatories, and in that capacity, have extended an invitation to those fleeing persecution, regardless of how they arrive.

It is always extremely dangerous for one group to decide to observe only the spirit of a law.

Obviously, the only way to stop the boats is to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.

In all conscience those such as this author, if they are to be consistent and coherent, have no choice but to take political action that will ultimately bring about this withdrawal, or at least give it their best shot.

Cherry picking the Convention is not a viable solution. Asylum seekers cannot be expected to know that we have signed the Convention, but that we will abide by it only under certain conditions.

We are in or we are out.

Unless the author and those who share his views have the political will to take this stand against our voluntarily incurred international legal obligations, they probably ought to accept that we are a country that accepts asylum seekers no matter how they arrive, and deal with it.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot there is another option.

If you don't like how we do things in this country you can always leave.

There are countries who are not signatories to the convention.

The arguments put in this article all sound so familiar; and historic. I never hear one mention or comparison to the Vietnamese boat people arrivals of the 1970’s.

A look back in history from today would do us all well. We have today a thriving Vietnamese community largely built on boat people arrivals: A group that in the most part spoke no English and confined themselves to satellite enclaves in Capital cities, but most significantly were fleeing from the horrors of a war of the Wests making.

What we continually witness is the failure of our respective Governments to contain their insatiable appetite for war mongering. Where our cries of “unfair” should be directed are towards disastrous gung-ho foreign policies which involve Australia in non-winnable wars with outcomes and consequences that result in a constant supply of refugees fleeing our bombs and their destruction.

Australia has a responsibility to take all arrivals of refugees from our war zones, whatever means they may use to get here is unimportant. We need to “put up and shut up” in view of the facts.

*If you don't like how we do things in this country you can always leave.*

That sounds a teensy weensy bit arrogant to me, briar rose.

For how we do things regarding boat people asylum seekers, has
been one continuing wasteful, hugely expensive, ongoing, unfair
debacle, year after year after year.

Those people running the present show, have little to be proud of.

Just ask the punters, few are impressed.

Please explain to me, why you have no qualms about letting those
with money jump to the front of the queue, whilst those who don't
have two bob, just have to lump it.

Fairness hardly comes into the equation.

Its time that the UN Convention was updated, to plug the many
loopholes which presently exist.

That's a great idea Rosey, why don't you do that.

I am sick to death of you, & your mates expecting others, [me included] to pay for your humanitarian gestures.

Yes gestures, for that is all they are. If you want someone to sponsor yet more economic immigrants, why don't you do it. Do it privately, because I've payed for enough of them.

Hell, you could even form an association, but one that doesn't want the general tax payer to pay for your addled thinking.

I would much rather see some single parent in public housing than these bludgers. Every one of these bludgers takes a place in public housing, before our own. If this is charity, as you see it, I want no part of charity.

The main problem with your idea Ludwig is addled thinking. Yes mate, we don't need any more people. We shore don't require country shoppers, but you are too kind. We need to cut our intake from any source to give the country, & its people, time to digest the huge number who are all ready here.

It will take years to turn many immigrants into Ozzies, & we will have no chance of achieving that aim, if we get too many more in the near future.

It must be pretty tough, thinking that you are treating people humanely and decently, when in fact all that is achieved is the brutal killing of boatpeople, the unequal treatment of refugees, and the support of criminals. I'm not surprised that people are in denial about this. It is obviously uncomfortable for some on the forum to be wrong, but it cannot be anything like the suffering endured by the boatpeople. Why make people suffer and die for the sake of a Medieval Catholic-like self-righteousness?

The crux of the issue is whether people are being treated humanely and equally. With the current policy they are not.

<< The main problem with your idea Ludwig is addled thinking. Yes mate, we don't need any more people. We shore don't require country shoppers, but you are too kind. We need to cut our intake from any source to give the country, & its people, time to digest the huge number who are all ready here. >>

Hasbeen, me old mate, who’s thinking addledly here??

I advocate reducing our immigration rate from the utterly absurd level that it now is (some say 300 000+, some say it’s down to ~180 000) down to net zero, and within the net zero intake, to considerably increase the refugee component.

Net zero immigration means that we don't have a net intake at all, as the intake is balanced by emigration.

Do you really have a problem with that, or have you misunderstood me?

You are all missing the point.

As long as Australia is a signatory to the convention asylum seekers will come here.

The only thing you can do to stop this is to withdraw from the convention. Then we will no longer be a country that offers sanctuary to asylum seekers.

If you don't like it that Australia has agreed to offer sanctuary to asylum seekers no matter how they arrive, then you must convince the politicians of every persuasion, to withdraw Australia from the convention.

If you are not prepared to do this, then either accept who we are and what we do, or live somewhere else more in line with your beliefs.

Isn't that the point some of you are often making? If people don't like how we do things here they should go somewhere else?

I agree with Ludwig that our immigration take of 300,00 or whatever should be drastically reduced. At the same time we should increase our humanitarian intake to around 30,000.

Briar Rose is morally bankrupt if she has no problem with people who can pay their way here jumping in front of those who have been waiting for a country of resettlement for years.

This thinking is typical of the bleeding heart minority who have captured the airwaves and our incompetent government.

Briar Rose should take her pretend compassion and go live the life of a long term refugee in a camp and watch others with money jump a leaky boat and force themselves on Australia. Facing this reality, she might change her tune.

I notice few ever mention that many forcing themselves on us are Muslim. Do people really have faith in the rigour of our checking processes?

Are people insentitive to the trouble radical muslims are causing here, and around the world?

Do people not care that many muslims- far from all - are terrorists and luxuriate in the killing of innocent people?

Are people unaware of Iran's - a Muslim country - reach for nuclear weapons, the fear and concern this is engendering, their stated aim of pushing Israel into the sea and many other potential evils?

Are you blind to the problems of the UK where Islam reigns large and loud?

Now, many will jump on me for calling a spade a bloody shovel.

However, I acknowledge that the majority Muslim community is just like any other - peace loving, wanting to enjoy the life and liberty to be found in Australia.

So why shouldn't they without fear of their radical brethren present here?

Over 6000 boat people this year. If only 2 or 3 % of these were radical, then Australia is storing up trouble and that is a shame.

It is not people of my vintage who will pay for this stupidity but younger people and their children. But if this is what the Briar Roses want, so be it.

*You are all missing the point.*

Absolutaly not briar rose, but you might be.

*Then we will no longer be a country that offers sanctuary to asylum seekers.*

But that is not what is being proposed. It is being proposed that
we still take asylum seekers, but a boat race for the richest to
usually win, is hardly a fair law. Its a debacle.

I gather that it is possible to withdraw from the Convention and
name our terms, to which we agree to comply. It is voluntary after
all, not compulsory.

The way I understand it, even the Blair Govt conceded that the
UN Convention was years out of date. If the law is an ass, so
change it.

Not just continue the present debacle.

Exactly, Yabby. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Those who are unhappy with our current refugee convention status should be lobbying politicians to change it, if that is possible, or to withdraw from it if it isn't.

If they aren't willing to do that, then they have no choice but to decently accept the status quo, or live somewhere else that better suits their beliefs.

There is no point in railing and whining if you can't put your money where your mouth is and take action about something you deeply believe in.

Nobody is stopping any of you from lobbying for change or withdrawal from the Convention. So why don't you?

*Nobody is stopping any of you from lobbying for change or withdrawal from the Convention. So why don't you?*

Well there you go briar rose, that is exactly what I am doing right
here. Given that I am a member of no political party, all I can
do is put forward sensible suggestions or back those who do.

People seemingly need pain to learn and perhaps its going to take
a few more sunken boats on rocks and more billions of $, until our
politicians finally take notice and change things, as should have
been done many years ago.

As it happens, in this case its both major parties that have the
same major problem that needs dealing with, so that there is a
win-win outcome all round.

I like the ideas in this article.

May I add an extra suggestion? Grant the UNHCR a 25 year leasae at peppercorn rent over Christmas Island. Have the UNHCR run it as one large refugee camp, with the UNHCR doing the assessing and sending those unauthorised arrivals who don't qualify as refugees back.

Another point: so many of these unauthoriseds arrivals don't have papers. The refugee lobby claims it is because they never had papers, or they were lost. Well, these people needed papers in order to fly into Indonesia didn't they?

Mirko,
where do you suggest we send the people who arrive by boat? Can you tell us what countries are going to accept them? Do you suggest that we do not assess if they are indeed refugees, like the people who were sent to Naru were eventually found to be? Do you begrudge others the same opportunity your family recieved when they came to Australia?

There has to be a better and more humane way of treating refugees as the current way does not appear to be working.

Perhaps there should be a queue, with places reserved for urgent cases. Maybe if refugee families awaiting processing were able to be in smaller communities with access to the basicscard (like in the NT intervention) it would be cheaper and more humane.

I would also like to see, in the Australian funded refugee centres in Indonesia and Australia and elsewhere, courses run to teach English and the laws and cultural expectations of western countries that they may accept them. Perhaps training for general work or the opportunity for people to upgrade any qualifications they may have to set themselves up for relocation.

Some people might find that the western countries are not for them as they would not be happy living in such a society, but others will welcome an opportunity to gain skills to help them make a living when they are relocated.

English is needed as it protects families from exploitation and from isolation.

If the time people spend in refugee camps is used well, and there is a greater chance of gaining relocation depending on the level of skills etc, plus a bonus if they are prepared to go where thier labour is needed, it creates hope and opportunity.

Another point is that people will have to show commitiment to relocating and accepting, appreciating and understanding possible host communities.

The key to this though is to treat people with respect and human dignity

I'd like to know if it troubles Briar Rose, that if the current rates of refugees arriving by boat continues, they will soon exceed the refugee intake. Leading to the likelihood that the only way top get accepted as a refugee, is to take to a boat.

Does this pass her fairness and compassion test?

Its specious to argue that this is the law as it stands. If someone who claims to support social justice, uses the law as an excuse to argue for a patently unfair situation, they either have an ulterior motive, or they are turning their back on their beliefs.

Mirko and others are not suggesting that many of these people don't deserve refugee status. What they're saying is that they're are potentially other refugees with more claim, but less money in camps across the world.

Should the fact that boatpeople have the money to advance their cause, be enough reason to accept them before those who are following the rules?

Its a clear violation of the principle of social justice.

I thought this article was very good. This solution increases our intake of refugees. It doesn't reward those who use their money to break the rules. It doesn't encourage people to risk their lives in unseaworthy boats. It looks good to me.

Mirko please write an essay outlining who these people are are they all Islamic etc .
What are the risks eg; will conflicts arise from the numbers of people who will find conflicts with Australia's largely atheist religion .

Muslims have demonstrated exactly what they will do in a culture clash plus other (in an Aussies view)undesirable traits like the Burka the idea that Osama bin Laden is living in Oz clad in a Burka while our lads are dieing in Afghanistan is reprehensible .

Howard provided a solution , what happened ? Exactly what has the ALP achieved in changing the Howard doctrine ?

PM Julia and Me and many others have no idea what to do ? Except that we want to be fair and sympathetic , what is your solution Mirko ?

everyone is missing the point, there are two ways to defeat tyrants, one is an expensive war with great suffering, the other is to provide refuge for those wishing to flee. to deprive the tyrants of human labor to exploit will limit their power and influence. the drain on the communist bloc from defections forced huge resources to be devoted to stopping their citizens fleeing.
if we want to fight the evil in the world without picking up the sword, then we need to clean the stable.

First, let's clear up the arithmetic sleight of hand. If half of refugee applicants arrive here by boat, it is reasonable to conclude that all the others arrive by plane. (see Dr. K. Koser, below).

They obviously have money that water-borne refugees don't have, as well as documents good enough to get a tourist visa. They are just as much 'queue-jumpers' if not more so.

At present, a person in Indonesia granted refugee status is given papers to that effect and then can wait up to two years while Australian paper-shufflers do 'security checks' - a means of dissuading others to apply for refugee status in Aus.

In the meantime, they have no right to work or send their kids to school, and Indonesian police trawl the streets arresting refugees, confiscating their papers and putting them back in prison to start the whole process over again. That can go on for decades. ABC “Four Corners” documented this well.

Why Australia? Most of the countries between whence they are fleeing aren't UN Refugee signatories. Compared with other OECD nations, we take a modest amount. We are signatories, obliged to take some refugees. If we don't get our refugee quota via Indonesia, where else should we be insisting they come from?

It might be news that the Taliban don't ride into Hazari villages handing out travel documents and letting them leave with their money – they imprison and kill them, they dispossess them, and the 'boots on the ground' either can't or won't protect them.

Tamil teenage boys are kept in concentration camps for no reason than being Tamil youths, while we look away.

Vietnamese refugees were processed on-shore and within the community. it's cheaper than running prison camps either on-shore or elsewhere in the region (see below for data).

Dr. Khalid Koser, of the Lowy Institute, debunks a few myths about refugees in Australia that the shock-jocks like to put about:

http://lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1477 (PDF, 476kb).

Part 2 follows.

Part 2:

From Dr. Koser's paper:

In 2009, 222,000 people applied for refugess status in Sth. Africa.

From July 2009 to Jan 2010 inclusive, 110 boat arrivals were assessed not to be “in genuine fear of harm or persecution”, the UN definition of a refugee.

Consistently, 80% of airborne applicants for refugee status are rejected by Australia.

Afghan refugee nubers worldwide increased 45% from 2008 to 2009 (from 18,453 to 26,803). Wikileaks makes it obvious that no-one actually fighting that war thinks the West is winning, or that it will win.

Offshore processing is a cynical affectation (my opinion) – we are currently budgeting $160 million per year to discourage 6,000 people a year, the overwhelming majority of whom are entitled to refugee status in Australia.

Under Malcolm Fraser, we had compassionate treatment for refugees, and all of the miseries predicted by the radio ratbags and fear-mongering columnists have since proved to be lies.

Then came Pauline Hanson's 'politics of hatred'. The Labor government cravenly 'toughened up' refugee policy to claw back votes from Hanson by adopting some of her xenophobic policies.

Now we have a government too paranoid and spineless to give refugees a fair go, and an opposition that wants to earn its votes through the politics of hatred and fear.

<They obviously have money that water-borne refugees don't have, as well as documents good enough to get a tourist visa. They are just as much 'queue-jumpers' if not more so.>

Yes, but how many refugees are killed on the plane flight? There are three problems with the current refugee policy, and no amount of political spin can disguise them..

1) The current policy endangers the lives of refugees by encouraging them to take perilous voyages in order to increase their chance of gaining asylum.

2) By giving preference to refugees arriving by boat, the current policy does not treat the millions of refugees in the world with equality.

3) The current policy profits the criminal enterprise of human trafficking.

The UN refugee convention needs to be rewritten so as to enshrine the principles of protecting human life and treating equally deserving people with equality. If it also discourages criminal activity that would be a bonus. A better policy might also gain more support.

The current policy is a death sentence for many refugees.

Well said Fester,

Shadow Ministers statistic illuminates the problem. The sucess rate for asylum applications (with a ten year waiting period) is 9%. The success rate for boat people is 70% and their wait is usually more like 1 year.

With those kinds of numbers its easy to see why the boatpeople are taking the chance. Whats not clear is why the gov't (a labour gov't too) ignores the obvious social justice (and safety) implications of this misguided policy.

tafkao,

By all means argue for better conditions for refugees, lower waiting times, better temporary accomodation etc. But don't tell us that the people arriving on the boats are more deserving than those who aren't. The comparison with those arriving by plane without visa's is specious. In general those people aren't refugees at all. Until recently, the majority of people who received refugee visas got them through the correct channels via refugee camps.