Ludwig

"I don’t think that the treatment of asylum seekers has ever been bad enough to warrant significant complaint, throughout the history of this phenomenon in Australia. Less than perfect, yes. A few unfortunate cases, yes. But overall, quite reasonable."

First we locked them up in Curtin, Woomera, Port Hedland, Baxter or what ever other isolated hellhole detention centre we could dream up. They were imprisoned indefinitely, despite having committed no crime. They were left in limbo and spent years in detention even though most were genuine refugees. Already severely traumatised, by the time the Australian detention system had spat them out most of them had debilitating mental health issues.

We've now gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure they don't even set foot on Australian soil, intercepting and turning boats back to who knows what fate, excising islands from our coastline, and spending billions of dollars on off-shore detention centres.

Eight Rohingya asylum seekers have been on Nauru for seven months and they still haven't even received an initial assessment. And now in a new low and completely denied all human dignity they're to be shipped off and swapped like crates of apples.

I think you and I have a very different understanding of the word "reasonable".

And what do you mean by "a few unfortunate cases"? I hope you aren't referring to the sinking of SIEV X, Tampa and children overboard. These cases were much more than unfortunate. They were despicable, cowardly and unforgivable acts on the part of the Howard Government and are an absolutely shameful blot on Australia's history.

Bronwyn, I dispute that the vast majority of claims are genuine. Just because we can't prove people are not refugees, doesn't mean they are, but that seems to be the basis upon which we grant people political asylum.

To expand on what I said before, the UNHCR in Indonesia accepted only 19 per cent of people claiming to be Afghan nationals as refugees, while Australia has accepted up to 84 per cent of the same group (statistics from the DIMIA website). So do you think the UN is unusually brutal or is Australia a soft touch?

A better way of getting genuine refugees is getting them direct from refugee camps. Economic migrants are unlikely to want to spend months or years in a squalid camp in the hope of being granted asylum. The flow of boat people from Indonesia is mostly a scam aimed at playing on our sympathies. These people FLEW to Indonesia. Getting in a leaky boat for the last few kilometres of the journey is a stunt.

“First we locked them up in Curtin, Woomera, Port Hedland….”

No at first we didn’t lock them up Bronwyn. But after problems with people leaving the early processing centres with the intent of not being found, the detention system was launched. This became progressively harsher as more people broke out and attempted to disappear. The detention system evolved in conjunction with the need to keep tabs on asylum seekers and keep control of the whole process.

“…isolated hellhole detention centre…”

You have it fixed in your mind that these places are really bad. Well they aren’t. It has been necessary to hold asylum seekers rather than let them move freely in mainstream society. You surely can’t argue against that. You have a mixture of traumatised, desperate, aggressive and criminalistic people, many of whom don’t really understand or trust the authorities that are dealing with them. Of course there are going to be difficulties with detention in a regime like this. But the difficulties could be much worse, for them and for Australian citizens, if they were free to move amongst us.

“They were imprisoned indefinitely…”

Again, you seem to have the concept of a ‘prison’ firmly fixed in your mind in regard to asylum seekers. It is not the case. Given the need for these people to be kept from moving freely in our cities and all the problems associated with that, problems with refugee determination, merit in releasing whole groups at one time which means that they might all stay put until the most difficult case is resolved, the deterrence factor and perhaps quarantine, detention is a necessity. When guards, high walls and razor wire are implemented, directly due to attempted mischief and abscondment, the centres come to look and feel like prisons. But they aren’t.

There simply has to be a balance between the humane treatment of asylum seekers and the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you don’t seem to be considering much else apart from the best standard of treatment of these people. But there is so much more to consider.

Grn

“I dispute that the vast majority of claims are genuine.”

It is well documented that on average 85% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. In 1999, when numbers of asylum seekers to Australia were at their high point, 97% of the claims made by applicants from Iraq and 93% from Afghanistan were proven to be genuine. You can dispute it all you like but the figures speak for themselves.

“The UNHCR in Indonesia accepted only 19 per cent of people claiming to be Afghan nationals as refugees, while Australia has accepted up to 84 per cent of the same group.”

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and is not obligated to assist asylum seekers. It can return them to their homeland regardless of the dangers they face and usually does. Australia is a signatory and is required to process asylum seekers’ claims, so you would expect its numbers of approvals to be higher. It is certainly no “soft touch” and has some of the harshest asylum seeker policies in the world.

“These people FLEW to Indonesia. Getting in a leaky boat for the last few kilometres of the journey is a stunt.”

Refugee families typically sell all they have to pay people smugglers to take one of them to a safe country. They have little idea of where they are going or how they will get there and the fact they might board a plane doesn’t in any way negate their refugee status. The boat trip is certainly no stunt. It’s an extremely risky and arduous voyage and many have lost their lives in boats that have sunk. That people would even get on these boats is testament in itself to their desperate circumstances.

Ludwig

“You have it fixed in your mind that these places are really bad. Well they aren’t."

Detention centres are prisons in all but name. They are built for maximum security and minimum comfort. The people in them have no idea how long they will be left there and very little to do while they wait out the arbitrary days, months or years before they can leave. They may have some freedom to move within them though a lot don’t. They can’t leave, unless they’re on Nauru, and where do you go to on Nauru? The rooms at Baxter have one small window looking onto sky. Detainees don’t have the certainty of prison sentences, they're sentenced indefinitely. Their spirit is broken slowly and many are driven to insanity. If you truly believe these places to be benign you have been conned by government spin.

“There simply has to be a balance between the humane treatment of asylum seekers and the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you don’t seem to be considering much else apart from the best standard of treatment of these people. But there is so much more to consider.”

I am seeking a balance. Like you, I have an interest in environmental sustainability. I too understand the fragility of Australia’s environment and know that population control is vital.

I also believe in the dignity of human life. If people come to us in fear of their lives I believe it is our duty as fellow humans to try and help them, no matter how difficult it might be. Locking up people who have already suffered so much or deporting them back to danger is cruel and inhumane. We need to detain them initially for health and security checks, but after that they should be able to live in the community and contribute. That is what I call a balanced approach.

The many thousands of workforce immigrants and visa overstayers are placing far more pressure on resources than the comparitively small numbers of people seeking asylum ever will. And they have far less a compelling reason to leave their own country.

“We need to detain them initially for health and security checks, but after that they should be able to live in the community and contribute.”

This is interesting Bronwyn. You agree that they do need to be detained for health and security checks. I was under the impression that you were totally against detention.

Some of these people do have security histories and do try to pull the wool over our eyes and will abscond and try their damnedest not be found if they can. So you therefore realise that strong security is needed – of the type that has evolved in Australia over many years of experience with absconders: with high walls and razor wire.

If you can see why they need to be detained initially, then presumably you can see why they need to be prevented from escaping and absconding, if they are so inclined…which a significant fraction have been.

“That is what I call a balanced approach.”

Australia had a well-formed detention program prior to 2001, which was considerably harsher than your desired approach. But that didn’t stop an escalation in arrivals, which was about to blow right out of all proportion at the time of the Tampa incident. Obviously a stronger approach was needed in order to achieve that elusive balance between treating arrivals as best we could and deterring new arrivals as best we could.

Once the number of arrivals had started to accelerate, a decisive approach was needed.

Your ‘balanced approach’ wouldn’t work. It would lead directly to a reintroduction of the ‘Australia is a soft target for asylum seekers’ message that had spread around the world in 2001. Within weeks, we would have a massively increased rate of arrivals.