Asylum debate needs facts, not histrionics

15 October 2009

Opinion piece by Zhi Yan

The recent debate on asylum seekers has seen the slow re-emergence of the fear tactics reminiscent of the Ruddock and Howard years. With increasing stridence, a hardline faction within the Shadow Cabinet is pushing the line that Australia is being 'swamped' by asylum seekers as a direct result of the government's recent reforms to asylum policy.

According to this faction, the government has 'gone soft' on asylum seekers by getting rid of detention debts and temporary protection visas and by seeking to introduce a formal system of complementary protection and a fairer system of community-based support. I call the members of this faction 'punitive-hardliners' because they favour punitive policies for asylum seekers - despite the lack of any evidence to show that such policies deter asylum seekers from coming to Australia and despite the fact that seeking asylum is not a crime.

The arguments put forward by the punitive-hardliners have two main premises. First, they claim that the increase in unauthorised boat arrivals over the past year is due entirely to the government's recent reforms to asylum policy. Second, they argue that the recent reforms to asylum policy should not have been made - that policies such as the 'Pacific Solution' should have been left intact.

Let me start by addressing the first point. It is myopic to look at Australia's asylum numbers in isolation from the rest of the world. The truth is that global asylum seeker numbers have increased significantly over the last two years. When comparing 2008 figures with 2007, for example, asylum seeker numbers rose by 122% in Italy, 121% in Norway, 89% in the Netherlands, 70% in Turkey, 53% in Switzerland, 30% in Canada and 20% in France, according to a 2009 UNHCR report. Yet in the same period, Australia saw only a 19% increase.

Australia's numbers are small in absolute terms as well. Australia may have received around 1,700 asylum seekers by boat so far this year, but this is tiny compared to other countries. Italy alone received 36,000 boat arrivals in 2008. Most asylum seekers prefer to go to the United States (who received 49,000 asylum seekers in 2008), Canada (36,900), France (35,200), Italy (31,200) and the United Kingdom (30,500).

The reason for large increases in the abovementioned countries in 2008 is not because they have all 'gone soft' on asylum seekers. It is largely because of the continuing or escalating violence in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka, to name but a few. In other words, an increased number or intensity of worldwide 'push factors' have forced a larger number of refugees from their homes.

So as the number of asylum seekers rises across the rest of the world, Australia can reasonably expect that it too will have a share in this global trend. And despite our recent increase, we still have far fewer asylum seekers now than we did in 2001 (when we received more than 5,500 asylum seekers by boat) or in 2002 (almost 3000).

Now to second premise of the punitive-hardliners: that the government should not have made these reforms to our asylum policy in the first place. In response to that, I ask you to consider the following facts (with statistics provided by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship or from official reports by the UN and other expert organisations).

It is a fact that unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia continued to increase after the introduction of temporary protection visas in 1999 (48 percent more asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2001 than in 1999). Boat arrivals only started decreasing in 2003 when global asylum numbers started dropping. The evidence suggests that temporary protection visas have no value as a deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals.

It is a fact that the policies of temporary protection visas, mandatory detention and excision are breaches of Australia's international human rights obligations under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission and other human rights organisations. Are the punitive-hardliners willing to say that they understand human rights law better than these expert organisations? Or are they saying that they don't care if Australia breaks international law, when they call for the reintroduction of the 'Pacific Solution' or temporary protection visas?

It is a fact that anyone who comes to Australia seeking our protection - regardless of whether they come on a boat or on a plane - has a right under international and Australian law to apply for that protection. As an asylum seeker, they have legal status. It is up to us to fairly assess whether or not that person has a genuine need for protection. If not, we have every right to send them home.

It is a fact that most asylum seekers come to Australia by plane, not by boat. In 2008, over 96% of asylum seekers arrived by plane - hardly the kind of statistic to justify the punitive-hardliners' histrionic focus on boat arrivals.

Lastly, it is a fact that all of the recent reforms to asylum policy - such as the abolition of detention debts and Temporary Protection visas, the reform of work rights for asylum seekers and the introduction of a Bill on Complementary Protection - are reforms that have been recommended in the past by bipartisan Senate Committees. They have also been recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the UN Human Rights Committee. So when Malcolm Turnbull, Sharman Stone or Colin Barnett call for an independent inquiry or re-examination into Australia's refugee policies, shouldn't they look first to the independent inquiries and reports that already exist, and look to implementing the reports' recommendations?

Ever since the shame of the Tampa years, Australia has struggled to lift itself out of a morass of inhumane asylum policies. More recently, we have emerged into a brighter space of greater integrity and humanity. Let's make sure that we don't regress to that dark chapter of our history, when our harsh asylum policies made headlines all over the world. Let's hope that Kevin Rudd handles the fear tactics and the political pressure as befits the people of Australia - with fairness, decency and humanity.


Sources of statistics used in this opinion piece:

UNHCR (2009). Asylum levels and trends in industrialized countries 2008: Statistical Overview of Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe and selected Non-European Countries. 24 March 2009.

UNHCR (2009). All in the same boat: the challenges of mixed migration. www.unhcr.org/pages/4a1d406060.html

UNHCR (2009). Conflicts in Afghanistan and Somalia fuel increase in asylum seekers. 24 March 2009. www.unhcr.org/49c8a8d62.html

Parliamentary Library of Australia (2009). In: Background Note: Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Appendix A: Boat arrivals since 1976 by calander year. (Online only) 25 June 2009 updated 14 July 2009; 4 August 2009.
www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_ftn42

Migration Amendment Act 1992. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998). Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals. Commonwealth of Australia, May 1998, Canberra. www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/asylum_seekers/h5_2_2.pdf

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2004). A last resort? National inquiry into children in immigration detention, Commonwealth of Australia, April 2004, Canberra. www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/index.html

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1953). Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva. www2.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm

Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (2006). Administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958. Recommendations 8, 31, 33, 47, 52, 53, 54 and 56. Commonwealth of Australia 2006, Canberra.

Senate Select Committee on Ministerial Discretion in Migration Matters (2004). Recommendations 10 and 19. Commonwealth of Australia 2006, Canberra

UN Human Rights Committee (2000). Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee:: Australia. 24/07/2000. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of Section 3. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva. www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/A.55.40,paras.498-528.En?OpenDocument

UN Human Rights Committee (2009). Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia. 02/04/2009. Paragraphs 19, 23 and 24. Adopted on 2 April 2009 at the ninety-fifth session 16 March- 3 April 2009. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/co/CCPR-C-AUS-CO5-CRP1.doc