SUBMISSION
TO THE EXPERT PANEL ON ASYLUM SEEKERS
Introduction
Since 1992 successive
Australian Governments have tried to discourage asylum seekers coming to
Australia and thus avoid our obligations under the Refugee Convention to
provide protection to asylum seekers. This was done by the introduction of mandatory
detention, temporary protection visas, the excision of islands from our
migration zone, and by sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island.
Changes made by the Rudd Labor Government were intended to eliminate the most
extreme elements of harsh deterrence. The stalemate in the present policy
proposals provides an opportunity to completely rethink the way we treat asylum
seekers and to implement a more humanitarian asylum seeker policy.
What the objectives of Australia’s asylum
seeker policy should be
1.
Comply with the principles of the
Refugee Convention
2.
Respect the human rights of asylum
seekers and refugees
3.
Comply with the UN Convention for the Rights
of the Child and complementary protection legislation
4.
Establish alternative pathways to
resettlement that discourages asylum seekers travelling to Australia onboard unseaworthy
boats
5.
Show compassion to people in distress
6.
Avoid costly long term detention of
asylum seekers in offshore detention camps that are known to cause psychological
distress and long term harm
Suggested
policy
Ensure all asylum
seekers are promptly assessed in the region (with the right of review)
Provide security check
refugees (with the right of appeal) before they come to Australia.
Promptly bring asylum
seekers accepted as refugees to Australia in substantially increased numbers.
Make it easier for
refugees to have family reunion in Australia.
Increase capacity
within the above policy framework to fund asylum seeker programmes including
providing accurate information to the Australian population regarding refugee
issues and to combat racism.
Overview
Labor
for Refugees understands that the expert panel has been requested to provide
advice and recommendations on policy options aimed at preventing asylum seekers
risking their lives on ‘dangerous boat journeys’ to Australia.
Labor for Refugees is an organisation with a very
extensive membership of committed people who deal with asylum seekers on a day
to day basis. Our members have the benefit of understanding the motivations and
reasons for asylum seekers embarking on dangerous sea journeys, because we talk
to those people and we have their confidence.
Labor for Refugees is very concerned that in order
for the Panel to make recommendations which will be effective, it must
understand the motivation for asylum seekers embarking on sea journeys. We
believe that this understanding is lacking in the debate. There is one key
point that our members want the Panel to appreciate, which is that asylum
seekers get on boats because when they arrive in Indonesia they are told that
they will not be processed for protection in Australia for more than 10 years.
That is why families get on boats. They see their children's future evaporate.
It is vital to understand that this key factor, which
motivates asylum seekers to embark on sea journeys, is a product of an
artificial and deliberate policy of successive Governments to restrict the
places for resettlement of those who are refugees present in Indonesia.
The two key facts, not appreciated by many to whom
we have spoken, are these:
Australia
only settles an average of 56 refugees from Indonesia per year;
There
are only 4,239 asylum seekers present in Indonesia.
Given the small number of asylum seekers who make it
to Indonesia, there is simply no justification for the restriction of places
which creates the delays that motivate people to embark on sea journeys. If we
are to break the 'people smuggler's business model' we must give people a
'queue' to join.
If the proportion of resettlement places allocated
to Indonesia is increased to a more reasonable level, say 2,000, then
Australian officials could tell asylum seekers that they could expect to be
processed in 2 years by Australian Embassy officials (as opposed to the 2 UNHCR
officers currently burdened with the caseload).
In our experience, the key cause of desperation
amongst asylum seekers is uncertainty and the absence of a clear and defined
pathway. If that desperation can be removed we believe that the motivation to
take boat journeys will be removed.
Further, the increase in resettlement from Indonesia
is likely to be offset against reductions in visas to boat arrivals, as people will
no longer embark on sea journeys.
This
proposal will not create any 'honeypot' effect in Indonesia. There are
considerable logistical difficulties which already prevent people from reaching
Indonesia; that will not change. The ‘honeypot’argument against giving
refugees safe passage from Indonesia ignores the difficulties that refugees
experience in getting to Indonesia: the cost, time, their health, their ability
to travel etc. Note that almost all of the asylum seekers in Malaysia and Thailand are from
Myanmar and asylum seekers from Myanmar cannot get to Indonesia because
movement outside of refugee camps in both countries is heavily restricted.
In
the 1970’s, resettlement pathways were established for asylum seekers, enabling
them to be assessed in countries of
first asylum (Malaysia, Thailand and Hong Kong); this did not result in a flood
of asylum seekers and there is no reason to think that it would be different
now.
Indeed,
if it is accepted that the current policy settings involve maximum pull factors
for people to travel by boat to Australia, then it must be accepted that the
maximum pull factors for people to go to Indonesia already exist; and yet the
numbers there are still small and there no substantial increase in people in
Indonesia in recent times. The 'honeypot' argument should be rejected.
In fact, it will be in the interests of Indonesia to
clear as many people through a better resettlement process to Australia.
We see this Panel as offering the only potential to
provide a circuit breaker to what has been a toxic and false debate. This is a
real opportunity for the true underlying problem to be addressed in a sensible
way as we have proposed.
Guiding Principles for Reform
In
undertaking this task, we urge that the panel adopt the following principles as
a guide:
·
Genuine concern and compassion for the
wellbeing and future of asylum seekers who come by boat; alternatives to
‘dangerous journeys’ should not be driven by political considerations. That
people are willing to risk their lives in such circumstances is an indicator of
desperation. Policy should not be simply motivated by border control and
exclusion but a genuine desire to find safer alternatives for people in need of
protection.
·
Respect for the integrity of the Refugee
Convention and the international protection frameworks and compliance with
Australia’s legal obligations under the convention and complementary protection
legislation
·
Respect for the time-honoured maritime
principle of rescue at sea above all other considerations. Preservation of
lives and prevention of tragedies requires constant vigilance on the part of
Australia, in collaboration with Indonesia. Given Australia’s superior
capabilities for surveillance and rescue, it is essential that the Australian
Maritime and Safety Authority take the lead role rather than relying on the
lesser resources of Indonesian maritime authorities in responding to vessels in
distress en route to Australia.
·
Recognition that punitive policies
targeting asylum seekers arriving by boat are contrary to the Refugee
Convention by discriminating on the basis of mode of entry
·
Recognition of the profound
psychological harm caused to asylum seekers found to be refugees of harsh
deterrence policies including offshore internment in remote Nauru and Manus
Island and Temporary Protection Visas.
·
Recognition of compelling ‘push’ factors including internal
conflict and human rights abuses that influence the decision to seek irregular
access to Australia’s protection frameworks from source countries such as Sri
Lanka, Afghanistan and Burma
·
Recognition that the vast majority of
asylum seekers who come by boat are found to be in need of protection and are
therefore by definition, vulnerable people who have experienced trauma
·
Recognition of the very limited options
for asylum seekers in Indonesia and Malaysia in being resettled permanently
within a reasonable time-frame; that pathways to resettlement are not well
established and supported in the region
·
Recognition that while it is desirable
for Australia to control entry, it will not always be possible to achieve this
in the context of world-wide forced migration movements
·
Recognition that Australian Government
policies such as severe restrictions on refugee family reunion contribute to
the number of irregular arrivals
·
That the Bali Process should involve
genuine engagement and collaboration with countries of the region aimed at
addressing the needs and human rights of asylum seekers and refugees, and
raising the standards for protection within the region.
Labor for Refugees is concerned that the overheated
public discourse and politicisation of refugee and asylum seekers policy is
extremely damaging, undermining the status of refugees and asylum seekers in
the community and harming their chances for successful settlement. It also
damages the prospect of balanced decision-making on policy, distorting public
perceptions about the numbers of people seeking asylum. Australia’s geographic
isolation means that relatively few asylum seekers will actually make it to
Australian shores. The most recent UNHCR statistics for 2011 show that
Australia recognised 5,726 asylum seekers as refugees in 2011, just 0.56% of
all individuals and groups recognised as refugees globally. The vast majority
of refugees and asylum seekers continue to be hosted by developing countries.
Measures
to prevent asylum seekers risking journeys by boat
1. Immediately establish pathways to
resettlement from Indonesia. Over the period 2001-2010,
Australia has accepted only 56 refugees from Indonesia per year, and only 24 in
the past six months. This is despite Indonesia being the primary exit point for
boats of asylum seekers to Australia and despite the fact that there are
currently 4, 239 refugees in Indonesia awaiting resettlement. Lack of formal
pathways to resettlement is directly contributing to irregular arrivals. Labor for Refugees recommends that 2000
places be allocated annually to resettlement from Indonesia. This would
effectively create a queue for resettlement in Australia.
2. Assist with the processing of
refugees in Indonesia and the region. This should include
increased funding to the UNHCR in Indonesia in particular and processing of
applications by the Australian Embassy, with staff preparing reports assessing
claims which could then be sent to Immigration for completion. This may
necessitate increased staffing levels at the Embassy, with costs offset against
a reduction in processing costs on Christmas Island.
3.
Currently, there
are only TWO people in Indonesia processing refugees, with UNHCR funding
expected to be halved over the next few years. If we are serious about stopping
people getting on unsafe boats, we need to increase funding to UNHCR and have
more people processed in Indonesia, so refugees can see that they will
have their claims heard, for free, rather than paying large sums to people
smugglers.
4. Increase the refugee intake to
Australia to 20,000. This would allow Australia to offer a
more regularised process of resettlement from countries of the region whilst
also continuing to resettle refugees from other zones of conflict. The offshore
component, 6000 places annually, of the refugee and humanitarian quota of 13,750
offers little flexibility to achieve this. Labor for Refugees supported the
proposed increase of 4000 extra places for resettlement from Malaysia, but we
do not support under any circumstances the return of asylum seekers to
Malaysia.
5. Create a separate quota for preferential
and concessional refugee family reunion in the Family stream of the annual
migration program. Labor for Refugees supports the
de-linking of sponsored places for family reunion, including split family
members, under the Refugee and Humanitarian quota, and the creation of a
separate category allowing for increased refugee family reunion in the annual
migration program. This is a policy response which could be implemented almost
immediately. The Refugee Council of Australia and other agencies have
identified the lack of opportunity for family reunion as a significant factor
contributing to irregular arrivals. The
cost of family reunion is now prohibitive for refugees in Australia, with the
Special Humanitarian program providing the primary option to bring separated
family members to Australia. The linking of the humanitarian quota to the
acceptance of asylum seekers as onshore refugees means that places are reduced
for family reunion. This not only distorts the refugee and humanitarian
program, it also creates artificial (and damaging) competition between refugees
and asylum seekers. Other major resettlement countries do not link offshore and
onshore refugee programs and make separate provision for family reunion.
6. Regional cooperation. The
recent tragedies involving sinking of boats highlights the urgency for
Australia to work collaboratively and constructively with neighbours in our
region to find solutions to refugee movement and protection. The Bali Process
should not be used merely for the purposes of achieving exclusion of asylum
seekers from Australia by thwarting boat departures but should aim to extend,
through inter-country cooperation, access to protection and resettlement for
refugees. This includes accelerated processing and support for refugees and
asylum seekers living in the region, including access to housing, health,
education and employment. Enduring solutions are needed which enhance
protection and minimise harm to vulnerable people.
- Cost
advantage of onshore processing. Processing of
refugees onshore will work out to be ten times cheaper than processing a
refugee in Nauru or Christmas Island and will avoid the potential for
substantial litigation. The money which is saved by way of onshore
processing of refugees can then be used for a range of other
considerations, including funding to UNHCR, building facilities for
processing and even go towards the cost of settling refugees in the
community.
- Labor
for Refugees vigorously opposes:
·
Return of asylum seekers to Malaysia
·
Offshore processing on Nauru or Manus
Island
·
Reintroduction of Temporary Protection
Visas
·
Towing boats back to sea/enforced return
to Indonesia
- It
is crucial that we learn from the experience of offshore processing and
TPVs under the Howard years. If we are
genuinely concerned for the welfare of asylum seekers, these policies must
not be reintroduced. The so-called Pacific Solution was high cost not only
to the Australian taxpayer but in terms of adverse impacts on asylum
seekers, most of whom qualified as refugees. The experience of
incarceration in remote detention camps re-traumatised these vulnerable
people, the majority of whom eventually resettled in Australia. The
devastating mental health and family impacts of TPVs is well documented. The
reintroduction of TPVs would be intentionally harsh and punitive, contrary
to the Refugee Convention and would target only those coming by boat. The
exclusion of family reunion created a direct incentive for women and
children to come by boat. It is well known that most of the passengers who
drowned on the SIEV-X were seeking to reunite with family members.
