Definitions:
Asylum-seekers: Individuals who have sought international protection and whose claims for refugee status have not yet been determined.
Internally displaced persons: People or groups of individuals who have been forced to leave their homes or places of habitual residence.
Who is UNHCR? The United Nations Refugee Agency , or UNHCR (its official name is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 and began work in 1951, on a $300,000 budget, on a three-year mission to help the remaining 1 million World War II refugees return to their homes.
Some Facts: how did we come were we are today?
At the end of 2009, some 43.3 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced due to conflict and persecution, the highest number since the mid-1990s. This included 15.2 million refugees,
It is clear from these figures that issues arising from the movement of displaced people are unlikely to wane any time soon. The regional UNHCR representative, Richard Towle, pointed out in 2009 that further destabilisation of countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka, would inevitably lead to more people seeking asylum in our region regardless of national border protection policies or changes to migration legislation.
In terms of refugee resettlement, only about 20 nations worldwide currently participate in UNHCR resettlement programs and accept quotas of refugees on an annual basis. Australia is one of the countries formally participating and each year the Government allocates around 13 000 available places through the Department of Immigration’s Humanitarian Program. In 2008, Australia accepted the third largest number of refugees for resettlement in the world (8742) after the USA (60 191) and Canada (10 804) under the UNHCR resettlement program.
While the total number of asylum applications in Australia increased by about 29 per cent in 2009, compared to 2008, numbers still remained relatively low (6170 compared to, for example, 49 020 in the USA, 41 980 in France and 33 250 in Canada).
Opinion poll data show that boat arrivals have always been an issue of concern to the Australian public, and opposition to boat arrivals has increased steadily over the last four decades. While the first wave of ‘boat people’ (1976–81) was initially received by the Australian public with sympathy, continuing arrivals quickly became a matter of increasing concern. Public discussion soon focused on such issues as rising unemployment and the impact of people ‘jumping the immigration queue’s. 25 Boat arrivals were a dominant topic in the news at the time of the 1977 federal election, with widespread claims that Australia was losing control of migrant selection.
In September 2001, 77 per cent of Australians supported the Howard Government’s decision to refuse entry to the Tampa (ships name) and 71 per cent believed boat arrivals should be detained for the duration of the processing of their asylum application.
In July 2009 Amnesty International commissioned Nielson to conduct a poll on attitudes to asylum seekers. The results of the poll indicated that there was a great deal of misinformation and confusion concerning asylum seekers arriving by boat, with the majority of respondents believing that 80 per cent of asylum seekers in Australia arrive by boat. Despite this, 69 per cent of respondents agreed that asylum seekers should be given the same rights regardless of their mode of arrival. However polling conducted by the Lowy Institute in 2010 found that 78 per cent of Australians were either somewhat concerned or very concerned about asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat.
The political and policy response to boat arrivals has typically been twofold: emphasising the importance of ensuring that those arriving unauthorised by boat meet the Convention definition of a refugee and attempting to stop further flows of people from reaching Australia in this way.
In 2004 HREOC published A last resort? The report of a national inquiry into children in immigration detention, which was highly critical of the mandatory detention of children. The inquiry found that ‘Australia’s immigration laws, as administered by the Commonwealth, and applied to unauthorised arrival children create a detention system that is fundamentally inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The inquiry further found that children in long term immigration detention were at risk of serious mental harm and that failure to remove children from detention together with their parents constituted cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment.
The Howard Government rejected the findings and recommendations of the report and in June 2004 reaffirmed its commitment to the policy of mandatory detention, including that of children. The then Immigration Minister, Senator Vanstone, stated that ‘to release all children from detention in Australia would be to send a message to people smugglers that if they carry children on dangerous boats, parents and children will be released into the community very quickly’. I believe senator Vanstone was right; if we are to curtail people smugglers activity it is imperative to show relentless strength and determination over compassion and empathy. These bastards play on weakness.
The ‘Pacific Solution’
In the pre-election environment of 2001, the Howard Government introduced legislative changes allowing some of Australia’s territory to be excised from the migration zone in order to discourage non-citizens from arriving unlawfully in Australia by boat. People attempting to do so since then have been intercepted at sea where possible and either returned to Indonesia, removed to third countries in the Pacific, or sent to Australia’s immigration facilities at Christmas Island. Any claims made by those people for refugee status could then be processed by the Immigration Department outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts, and with no guarantee of a resettlement place in Australia. These border protection measures were officially known as the Pacific Strategy, although they became colloquially known as the ‘Pacific Solution’.
Between 2001 and February 2008 a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Of these, 1153 (70 per cent) were ultimately resettled in Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled 705 (around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia.
Temporary Protection Visas
In October 1999, the Howard Government introduced Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) for asylum seekers who arrived unauthorised and were subsequently assessed by the Immigration Department to be refugees. A TPV was valid for three years, after which time a person’s need for protection would be reassessed. Holders of TPVs were provided with access to medical and welfare services, but given only reduced access to settlement services, no access to family reunion, and no travel rights. If a person who held a TPV left Australia their visa could be cancelled. Approximately 11 000 TPVs were issued between 1999 and 2007, and approximately 90 per cent of TPV holders eventually gained permanent visas.
-
It should be mentioned that large numbers of people (the highest numbers prior to 2010) continued to arrive unauthorised by boat in the financial year in which TPVs were introduced, and the financial year immediately following.
Boat arrival numbers in Australia have fluctuated significantly over the last 30 years in response to global events. Government responses over the years have included measures aimed at ensuring that those arriving by boat are genuine refugees, policies aimed at protecting our borders, including through cooperation with neighboring countries, and policies aimed at deterring unauthorised boat arrivals.
Jame’s Commentary: As you would have noted from the above information whilst the Howard Government was not as successful as Abbott likes to make out, the Howard Government was the most successful to date because the then opposition did not politicised the issue to the degree Abbott has today. With the recent high court decision whether Nauru, Manus or anywhere ells, without parliament intervention changing the law the can be no offshore long term solution. Now that every one knows that the majority of boat people will gain access to Australia, Mr Howard’s deterrents have all but dissipated. However, Mr Rudd should have never dissolved aspects of Mr Howard’s policy as he has definitely made the situation worse just by having the matter scrutinized further. Governments should not change policies on the bases of ideology or political expediency alone. Rather they should first be able to prove to its constituency the policies failure then implement a better strategy for a deliberate predetermined preferred outcome. Mr Rudd had no such policy in place other than wanting to please the left of his party and further secure his position.
Solution: Rule 1 is to give hope:
Australia needs to increase the asylum-seekers intake from 13,000 to say 25,000 so as to give hope and make asylum seekers feel a sense of more to loose if they leave the queue.
Rule 2 Compassion with conditions
I do not believe that offshore detention is the only deterrent. I believe those that come as refugees must be embraced and assisted to settle ASAP. They should undergo a compulsory 12 month course which would teach them Basic English, basic laws to obey, our culture how to find work. etc. Further, boat people with children should be processed through onshore detention but include temporary protection visa for six years with an understanding that once their place of origin is not in conflict they would be returned back to their country.
Rule 3 Cheats can’t prosper
Arriving illegally must serve penalties and the world must know it. I mean these people choose to pay ten plus thousand dollars each for a back door entrance into Australia. Boat people must have a disincentive; they must be protected with very limited access to settlement services and no access to family reunion. If boat people know that one day they may be returned they will think twice coming.
Conclusion
Our Government which ever in power, must ultimately have the right to advocate who stays and who goes. They should be allowed to implement their policies and if Australian disapprove vote them out on election day. Immigrants should be integrated with the nations required labour needs and development. Migrants should not have the choice were to live, but rather governments taking into account work experience, family needs like schools and hospitals and infrastructure development should determine were incomers are placed.
What do you think.