A balanced view of asylum seeker policy
Illustration: Rocco Fazzari
THE government's panel of experts on asylum seekers has brought a refreshing even-handedness to the business of forming Australian policy on this most difficult of problems. They have certainly managed to put together recommendations which, in a rational world, ought to offer something to both sides of politics. We will find out when Parliament resumes today whether that gives them any greater prospect of being implemented.
The government has accepted the recommendations in full, probably with a large sigh of relief. But that decision, like every other one in the tortured process that has been Australia's border protection policy, is determined by politics. It wants to ensure that if the opposition does block the measures, it is blamed for the consequences.
The panel's members say they were unaffected by the policies of either side in drawing up their plan. Their recommendations are intended to ensure there is no advantage to refugees arriving illegally by boat; to increase the incentive for asylum seekers to wait their turn in the queue of refugees, and also the disincentives for pushing in. An extra 6000 places a year under Australia's humanitarian program will be made available immediately, with more to come within five years - figures which go a long way to matching the existing numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals, an entirely reasonable and justified mechanism to accommodate the numbers wishing to come here. On the other hand, the panel also recommends that those who persist in trying to enter illegally by boat be deprived of the right to sponsor relatives afterwards under the special humanitarian program; they would have to apply as others do under the family stream of the broader migration program. Refugee advocates deplore it, but it is surely a reasonable restriction, and one which tests the sincerity of those claiming to be refugees and not merely economic immigrants.
The opposition should be pleased that the panel endorses offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea as a disincentive to illegal boat arrivals. The government should be happy that it also endorses Malaysia, though it said the agreement there needs more work.
At the same time the panel has brought some realism to the debate about achieving a regional solution. The opposition's objection to the Malaysia solution has been justified by the argument that Malaysia is not a signatory of the United Nations refugee convention. As one of the panel members, Professor Michael L'Estrange, pointed out, few countries in Australia's region are members. Any regional solution will have to involve as many countries in the neighbourhood as possible, or risk being ineffective. There is the additional argument that the Coalition's vociferous objections to co-operating with Malaysia on this issue needlessly jeopardise relations with a friendly country, as the remarks of Malaysia's high commissioner to Canberra show. Many countries in the region are struggling with refugee inflows far bigger than Australia's.
The government is keen to see a solution which might end the perception that it has lost control of the situation. That it has been prepared, after rejecting the idea many times, to consider offshore processing on Nauru shows how eager - desperate might be a better word - it has become.
The opposition, of course, would love the government to continue struggling with this intractable issue. It has declared with some justification that the panel has endorsed its approach. Its strategy until now has been to rub the government's nose in the mess, and to try to make it admit the Howard government was right all along. With the government's full acceptance of the recommendations, that admission, for what it is worth, has virtually been made. Given the growing toll of drownings, it is time to end a deadly and cynical game, and put this latest version of Australia's deterrent to the test.