The present system of dealing with asylum seekers who arrive by boat is cruel (intentionally) and hideously expensive. There is a rational alternative to the intentional cruelty of the present system. That system reflects the attempts of both major parties at the last election to outdo each other in their promises to mistreat a particular group of human beings.
And it’s expensive. The current system costs between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. That’s a big number: think of it as one million Geelong chopper rides each year!
Australia’s treatment of boat people needs a radical re-think. It is shameful that we are now trying to treat asylum seekers so harshly that they will be deterred from seeking our help at all. It is shameful that this deliberate mistreatment of asylum seekers has been “justified” by describing them falsely as “illegal”, when in fact they commit no offence by coming here and asking for protection. It is shameful that the deliberate Coalition lies about asylum seekers have not been roundly condemned by the Labor party. It is shameful that, out of an alleged concern about asylum seekers drowning in their attempt to reach safety, we punish them if they don’t drown.
There are better ways of responding to asylum seekers. If I could re-design the system, I would choose between two possible models.
A Regional solution
Boat-arrivals would be detained initially, but for a maximum of one month, to allow preliminary health and security checks. That detention would be subject to extension, but only if a court was persuaded that a particular individual should be detained longer.
After that period of initial detention, boat arrivals would be released into the community on an interim visa with a number of conditions that would apply until the person’s refugee status was decided:
• they would be required to report regularly to a Centrelink office or a post office, to make sure they remained available for the balance of the process;
• they would be allowed to work;
• they would be entitled to Centrelink and Medicare benefits;
• they would be required to live in a specified rural town or regional city.
A system like this would have a number of benefits. First, it would avoid the harm presently inflicted on refugees held in detention. Prolonged detention with an unknown release date is highly toxic: experience over the past 15 years provides plenty of evidence of this.
Second, any government benefits paid to refugees would be spent on accommodation, food and clothing in country towns. There are plenty of towns in country areas which would welcome an increase in their population and a boost to their local economy. According to the National Farmers Federation, there are more than 90,000 unfilled jobs in rural areas. It is likely that adult male asylum seekers would look for work, and would find it.
However, even if every boat person stayed on full Centrelink benefits for the whole time it took to decide their refugee status, it would cost the Government only about $500 million a year (an earlier version of this post said $500,000. My mistake), all of which would go into the economy of country towns. By contrast, the current system costs between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. We would save billions of dollars a year, and we would be doing good rather than harm.
A variant of this would be to require asylum seekers to live in Tasmania instead of regional towns. As a sweetener, and to overcome any lingering resistance, the Federal Government would pay one billion dollars a year to the Tasmanian government to help with the necessary social adjustments. It would be a great and needed boost for the Tasmanian economy, and Australia would still be billions of dollars better off.
Genuine regional processing
Another possibility is to process protection claims while people are in Indonesia. Those who are assessed as refugees would be resettled, in Australia or elsewhere, in the order in which they have been accepted as refugees. On assessment, people would be told that they will be resettled safely within (say) two or three months. Provided the process was demonstrably fair, the incentive to get on a boat would disappear instantly.
At present, people assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia face a wait of 10 or 20 years before they have a prospect of being resettled. During that time, they are not allowed to work, and can’t send their kids to school. No wonder they chance their luck by getting on a boat.
Genuine offshore processing, with a guarantee of swift resettlement, was the means by which the Fraser government managed to bring about 80,000 Vietnamese boat people to Australia in the late 1970s. It worked, but it was crucially different from the manner of offshore processing presently supported by both major parties. In addition, other countries also resettled some of the refugees processed in this way. It is likely that Australians would be more receptive to this approach if they thought other countries were contributing to the effort.
A solution along these lines would face some practical problems. At present, the end-point for refugees who reach Australia via Indonesia is a dangerous boat trip. You have to be fairly desperate to risk the voyage, which probably explains why such a high percentage of boat people are ultimately assessed as genuine refugees: over the past 15 years, about 90% of boat people have been assessed, by Australia, as refugees lawfully entitled to our protection. If the end-point is less dangerous, it is obvious that a number of people will set out who are not genuine refugees. That would cause a problem for Indonesia, and Australia would have to help Indonesia deal with that problem. But since our current system is costing about $5 billion a year, we can probably work out some arrangement with Indonesia which suits them and us.
There is another problem. Because we have been indelicate in our relations with Indonesia in recent years, the Indonesian government may not be receptive to an approach like this. Their reluctance may be softened if Malaysia was also recruited for a similar role.
Both of these solutions have these features in common: they are effective, humane, and far less expensive than our present approach. But more than that: they reflect the essential decency of Australians – something which has been tarnished and degraded by our behaviour over the past 13 years.
Your Regional solution sounds good. We have to do something for these people. My only concern might be that regional Australia is already under pressure, so adequate financial assistance is vital. The Government can’t just dump them and run.
They will need to obtain drivers licenses, in order to work on rural properties, because the public transport system is gone. ( thankyou LNP). Anyway sounds good. Something has to give, because our leaders won’t. They are a law unto themselves and need to be stopped. For good !
Yes. The regional solution is good but the skills needed by Australians to help integrate refugees are few and far between. Services in rural Australia are as you say under pressure. I know, I moved from Melbourne to a rural town. Very few facilities. Lots of immigrants already struggling with the bad attitudes from local people with very little understanding of the situation new arrivals in Australia face.
It’s not their home and they bring a lot of cultural practices with them that some people in small towns do not have the time or inclination to accept. As such, many immigrants are left isolated and alone, mixing with the wrong people.
It needs some planning but yes, a good idea. Rural Australia needs decent people willing to work. Lots of them. Goodness knows the resident Australians (white and black) won’t do half the labour jobs readily available due to bad attitudes. Without labour business cannot flourish. Agriculture needs labour.
Go for it, Julian, but please make sure rural Australia gets the right support so your idea can grow.
There is an ongoing issue with Australias poor regional infrastructure and that in the opinion of some experts are stating that Australia’s population cannot support adequately a population that exceeds 26 million, a big country needing more development before it opens it gates to the refugees.
It doesnt take a QC to work out that our treatment of Asylum Seekers is going to be an indelible black mark against the once admired character of Australians. Upon reflection when this gutless mean selfish Australia is thwarted and the Spirit of Hope and Fairness is returned as our Hallmark, we will look back in anger and disgust . Disgust at our selves for letting it happen and anger that our brand has been so tranished that it may never recover. In many ways there is a likening to the proverbial german people still wearing some of the guilt of allowing Hitler to direct the country to be responsible for such evil. Sure we are not gassing people but offshore detention is an extreme step . what would be the next step? Not that far away. We will be wearing this national guilt fro quite a while yet.
Both excellent ideas. I hope that these can be promoted within parliament some how.
Very sensible. However, any proposed solution, to have a chance of popular acceptance, needs to address the ‘floodgates’ fear which lies at the root of the current inhumane policy.
The solution needs to give a reasoned assessment of possible numbers now and future and how a number of that order would not mean the end the Australian way of life.
Both of these solutions make such good sense for a variety of reasons, but I particularly like the humanity aspect. So many of us Australians have been shamed & saddened by the current policy of the government & opposition. Thankyou Julian for your continued efforts. You are a voice politicians would do well to listen to.
Great idea and a win-win for everyone, can hold our heads up again
Julian
Such an intuitive, fair and cheap option. Why can’t our politicians see this?
Because it wouldn’t work. We would be flooded with fake refugees, all of whom would be guaranteed Centrelink and work opportunities.
I don’t agree.
94% of boat people are ultimately assessed, by us, as genuine refugees.
The reason is that it’s a very dangerous voyage: you have to be fair dinkum to take the risk of getting on a boat.
I like these suggestions, especially the regional towns and cities one. Just so sensible. Human. And obvious.
sounds good to me. I like the regional town option. Would be interesting to do a poll of region towns and cities to find out how many would like to benefit from it.
I live in a Regional town in Qld. We have 16 Bangladeshi men living here, who, the people, clubs and businesses are fighting to keep here. They have been here 3 years, have integrated really well and become valued members of our town. We are ignored by Government, despite our Mayor and Councillors phoning Peter Dutton,numerous letters, petitions and published stories regarding this when the previous endeavours failed to even be acknowledged. We live in fear that Immigration will deport our friends. We are a success story already. Listen to us!!!
“At present, people assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia face a wait of 10 or 20 years before they have a prospect of being resettled. During that time, they are not allowed to work, and can’t send their kids to school. No wonder they chance their luck by getting on a boat.” ….and no wonder ISIS recruit so many so easily. Refugee camps must surely be ideal hunting grounds for those who would completely destroy these vulnerable people who need our help so desperately.
It is the only solution to treat others how you would like to be treated. At one point in our human existence we have all experienced being refugees.
Dear Julian,just read your soulutions to the Refugee issue.As per usual,you’re ideas about ‘best outcomes’ allround are just too too brilliant.Wish we had direct voting rights for Parlimentary positions,because you’d get mine for Immigration Minister,no worries mate.Afterall,it’s well past time ALL AUSSIES had the same humane feelings towards ‘our fellow man,woman,&child,as ultimately,we’re all citizens of this ‘ONE WORLD’.So please keep up your noble work Mr Burnside!
A very well thought out proposition. We will also have some money to upgrade Concord Hospital
In the 50s and 60s, there was a movement to make migrants welcome in the community – resident Australians were encouraged to call on them, befriend them them and give support in whatever form was appropriate. I would like to see this approach revived when we finally allow refugees to settle in Australia.
‘Multiculturalism’ was not a bad idea, do you think?
What a relief to hear a humane approach to refugee resettlement t hat appears to be a win/win – welcoming people who have suffered so much and offering them with the possibility of a new, peaceful and meaningful life and at the same time investing less financially than in the current resettlement disaster
The detention of people seeking asylum in Australia is horrific and completely unnecessary on so many levels. We have a friend who was studying here when the Beijing massacre occurred. The government at that time gave everyone 4 years amnesty to just be a part of Australia and find their space… do many remember that – not many is my guess as it went so well that nobody really noticed. We have children and families here who should be welcomed into our communities want this and support this. Julian Burnside you are my hero – but we everyday Australians need to take up our voices and change this terrible treatment of people who seek to live here and create their places in our communities. We can only give the Chinese, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and so many more communities who enrich us and share this space we love. We are willing to share our homes and our lives to support the asylum seekers to come out of detention.
Julian thank you for this well considered article. Locking up refugees is unconscionable. Australia can no longer call itself an advocate of freedom while it does this. Locking up children indefinitely is even worse and another stolen generation in the making. There needs to be a bilateral change of heart on this matter. Until then Australia’s shame is there for all the world to see.
The present ridiculous treatment of refugees has to change,and quickly.
I well remember Johanna, as I grew up in the 1950s in a street where nearly everyone was from somewhere else. Although my mother’s family had been here for 5 generations with origins in Germany and Scotland, my father was a migrant from England. My primary school classmates were from Hungary, Poland, Italy, England,Holland and many other lands, as well as indigenous. Some even had concentration camp numbers tattooed on their arms. What a rich cultural melting pot we enjoyed among the “New Australians” as they were called back then as everyone built new lives thankful for the safety and opportunities. Thank you Julian for such sane suggestions to the current cruel stupidity and enormous waste of money.
Julian Burnside I think we need you in Parliament!
Yes. Yes. Yes! Its great that Julian speaks out.
Can anyone tell me why our parliaments can’t see the logic of such arguments. It’s so humane unlike the current approach of in stilling fear and injustice and creating long term misery. Go Julian.
I have a slight preference for Julian Burnside’s first option. I would add access to school education to the Centrelink and Medicare access. I loathe what we care doing in the so called policy of preventing drownings at sea. Option 2 addresses this- perhaps we should work on both- as we haven’t really experienced the floods of refugees which will try to arrive with global warming.
In 1954 my family paid 10 pounds sterling to be shipped from England to seek a better life in Australia and were immediately settled as genuine Australian residents. But we were white, from Britain, and thus fitted in perfectly with the society and prevailing attitudes as they were at that time. And there were no rabid bigots, of course, screaming “Keep the Poms out!” — (maybe just a few disgruntled outbursts now and then in the pubs). It angers and shames me to see the heartlessness and brutality that a majority of our people are now supporting, or ignoring, against migrants with the same urgent (desperate) hope and need today. We should be much better than this, and our politicians should be even better.
I particularly like the idea of people seeking asylum being sent to regional centres and rural towns.Some of the wasted billions can be spent expanding refugee services in these places, as well. Health services, language training, schools, counselling, and other services can be funded and provide employment for locals.
Here in South Australia, when asylum seeker families were housed in the Woodside Army Barracks in Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills, locals initially were concerned and some even held protests.
By the time the gov’t closed the Inverbackie centre, the locals were dismayed to see the asylum seeker families go. The asylum seekers spent money in the shops, their children went to the schools (which got more funding), and goods and services were purchased. The local economy benefited. The people benefitted. The asylum seekers benefited by being treated more humanely. Locals protested at the closure of the centre and the people seeking asylum being moved away.
I was to very concerned see these families, with their children, moved out to areas with harsher conditions.
I believe the positive Inverbrackie experience for both locals and asylum seekers would be replicated in rural towns, especially as the asylum seekers would be living in the community, not in locked in barracks.
I speak of the highly positive benefits to Australian towns available by implementing Mr Burnside’s excellent idea. The benefit to the people seeking asylum goes without saying.
The benefit to our collective conscience as a nation is, as the saying goes, priceless.
I am delighted to see this information being put into public space. We need to talk and change the present damaging and illegal government policies.
When I started Primary School a lot of my classmates were refugees from Europe.I remember the A.B.C. had radio lessons in learning to speak English every morning.When I was at High School some of my classmates were Dutch from Indonesia.I had lovely friends and they all contributed to what Australia is now – the good part.
I love it! I won’t stand by and turn my back. A community helps those in need, even those outside the community, to welcome them in. The major parties are not acting in our best interests by turning away innocent refugees. It’s how we treat people in times of need that shows who we really are.
I worked on Manus.
I don’t sleep much any more so immagine what 28 months behind that wire has done to those poor souls. Anything is better than this but do it now.
Right now, grant everyone who was detained on Manus and Nauru, full Refugee status. Just by virtue of having been held there, they are all undisputedly and genuinely refugees from the horrors of detention on Manus and Nauru so deserve Australia’s immediate protection from those dangers and tortures.
I would genuinely like to know what cruelties the Australian Govt inflicted on the refugees in detention in Manus. Would you be able to give me a brief account?
I am a fan of Julian Burnside and his ideas of how to settle the refugees. However I would like to know just how many extra people he thinks Australia can manage to settle comfortably and happily without too much of a restrain on our resources i.e education, health, social welfare. And mostly I would like to know what he suggests we do once this limit is reached and the boats keep coming. Please answer Julian.
I think it is unlikely that boat arrivals would go much past 25,000 in a year. That’s the largest umber ever in recent history.
But to put that number in context:
– annual immigration rate (i.e. permanent immigrants, not refugees): between 150,000 and 200,000 per year
– number of visa overstayers in the community at any given time: approx 50,000
– the boat trip is dangerous, so a person has to be pretty serious about their need for protection. the risk of the journey puts a natural limit on the number of people who will try it.
So, if the boat arrival rate stabilised at 25,000 a year, we could cope without much trouble. If it grossly exceeded that figure, I would be surprised and I would accept that it had to be re-thought. For example, we might have to consider discouraging the bombing of Syria, so fewer people needed to flee.
Multiculturalism is the only way all Australians can call Australia home. But it requires a leader who supports it wholeheartedly and uses the appropriate language to spread a positive attitude about it to the populace. Calling refugees ‘illegal’ is the opposite of what is needed to achieve a harmonious blending of cultures.
Julian, your plans are humane, logical and economically practical. The fact that your plans have not been implemented just shows how bereft of ideas our politicians really are. Sadly, it also shows just how proud our political parties are. They do not wish to be seen to be promoting refugees coming to Australia. The “stopping people dying at sea” philosophy is a furphy as those seeking refuge are just dying away from our borders. Let’s stop the state sanctioned torture in the name of the Australian people. Let’s listen to people like Julian Burnside who something intelligent to add to the conversation.
I think both major parties have been hoist on their own petard. In their desperation to stop the boats and the drownings, yet feeling the strong political instinct to pander to the sentiments that undeniably helped get Howard re-elected after the Tampa incident, they simply chose the option that achieved both outcomes. I think this was done in the vain hope (and with a good deal of cognitive dissonance at play) that it would be a short term policy with a brief period of pain. I don’t think they factored in the possibility that they would have to keep defending this policy in subsequent election campaigns and would be left in the plainly paradoxical position of trying to appear human and humane on whole variety of issues while at the same time trying to defend this patently in humane policy. This might be a cinch for a populist demagogue but neither Turnbull or Shorten look comfortable in the role. They support the current policy because not to do so is polically dangerous. Mr Burnside’s suggestions are eminently sensible and would be very workable if we had a leader or two with the political courage to lead us all to see that this is a better way forward.
The initial period in detention may have to be up to 3 months as some arrivals have health conditions which need to treated before release (eg TB) and identity and security checks sometimes take a while
Regional towns are a good idea. It worked very well with the boat arrivals in the late 90s
If treatment is needed, then longer detention (in an open facility) makes sense.
But security checks are done slowly and should not stop them being released into the community.
one month is enough for preliminary security checks, then the bureaucrats can take as long as they like
I understand, but if refugees don’t try to escape to safetyk they risk being killed by their persecutors. Or they head in a different direction and risk drowning in the Mediterranean, or suffocating in a van.
In any case, they are just as dead as if they had drowned.
The main difference is that we don’t see it. That’s not much of a gain if it comes at the cost of imprisoning hundreds of people indefinitely and driving them to despair and madness.
We have a very small window of oppotunity before the Federal election to really bring pressure on all parties to implement these changes. Might I suggest that your solutions – both regional and Tasmanian be sent to all candidates for both Houses. There is clearly a ground-swell of support amongst the Australian population to bring an end to this inhuman detention. If nothing else, the financial savings should appeal!
Actually I see two possibilities for hope. Howard’s trick was to introduce anything unpopular immediately after winning, so that it had blown over by the next election. So, whoever wins the election could close Manus and Nauru immediately following the election and introduce something like you’ve suggested. It’s unlikely that either party would say anything before the election as they’re both terrified it would lose them votes. Given the action refouling the Sri Lankan asylum seekers today, the LP doesn’t seem likely to do the right thing. Would Labor? Second possibility (and more likely) is that the Greens get the balance of power and force the issue.
I like this! It’s not perfect, sure, but we need solid ideas and this is solid. One question: on what are you basing that $500,000 figure for Centrelink benefits? It seems extremely low – is it based on the number of asylum seekers we’re getting now, or a projected future number? A more humane refugee policy will attract more refugees here, which I am all for, but we do need to take it into account if we present this as a more financially viable option.
The $500 million figure is based on an assumed arrival rate of 25,000 per year (the highest ever) and Centrelink benefits of $20,000 per year
Yes, the article says $500,000 which Eleanor rightly picked up. But $500 million makes more sense, and still is much better value (and much more humane)than the 4-5 billion!
Thank you for clarifying this Julian – in the text it states $500,000 not $500,000000, which did indeed seem very low.
Excellent piece – I am continually dismayed by those who cry out “Well what else are we supposed to do, just let them all in?” as though the current “solution” is the only possible one. And the worst of it is that so many hide their support for our current policy under the pretence of wishing to prevent drownings at sea that helps them sleep better at night.
I really like this plan on ethical grounds, but a lot of people I meet tell me they vote based on finances rather than ethics. To sway the opinion of those people, you need much clearer costings. Your article says $500,000 per year, your comment here says $500 million. That’s a big difference!
There are other significant costs that would be involved in regional resettlement, such as healthcare (I assume the $4-5 billion figure includes healthcare whereas the $500 thousand or million doesn’t). People also seem to be concerned that the number of people seeking asylum would increase after a regional resettlement program is implemented – future projections about this possibility would be helpful. Maybe you could get an economist/researcher from a uni to do some clearer costings and future projections for you to quote?
Good luck, I really appreciate a strategy which includes putting forward solutions rather than just talking about a problem!
Hi Julian- the figure quoted in the article is $500,000 rather than $500 million, so that’s probably why it seemed quite low to Eleanor.
Great article. Any comment on how the number of asylum seekers may increase if a more humane, accepting policy is adopted? I’d be interested to hear your opinion on how high a sustainable intake would be, as I assume our current intake of roughly 14-15 thousand per year would well undershoot that mark.
That is a typographical error then? In the original post, an amount of $500,000 was quoted. $500m makes more sense.
Yes: $500,000 was a typo (I do my own typing, and I make mistakes).
As you point out, $500 million makes more sense. It’s 25,000 people by an average $20,000 per year Centrelink benefits.
All back of the envelope stuff, but you see the point.
Julian – are you saying that 25,000 refugees would cost us $500 million? I don’t think that this number would be enough. What about the refugees languishing in camps overseas for up to 10 or more years? They don;t have the money to pay the people smugglers but the quota that we take is now reduced because of the ones coming in by boat – many of course true refugees but not all. What about the hopelessness of these who see that unless they can somehow pay to come on a leaky boat, there is no hope at all?
Yes: if we had 25,000 refugees ALL on Centrelink benefits (which is very unlikely) it would cost the economy $500 million a year, which is a lot less than we are spending now. And the $500 million would be spent in the rural towns and cities where the refugees would be required to live until their refugee status was finally determined.
I don’t think there is a problem with our offshore resettlement quota: the two programmes could be coordinated sensibly.
My point really is that we are paying a ludicrous premium to rid ourselves of boat people, and it is costing us not only a huge amount financially: it is costing us our reputation as a decent country which values the ideal of a “fair go”. Consider the fact that Abbott was utterly dismissive of the fact that a UN agency said we were in breach of the Convention Against Torture in our treatment of a specific group of refugees.
I also believe offering settlement in regional areas of Australia is a great idea. As asylum seekers come with a multitude of skills they will bring these to areas that have been suffering from neglect and the movement of populations away from regional towns. So much could be done in a positive way to help them to get started in these areas. The government could provide incentives to update their current skills or to retrain or to open new businesses in small towns. People could also be employed to create much needed infrastructure such as alternative energy schemes. Refugees learning English could help out as volunteers in schools and hospitals and charitable organisations so they feel a part of local communities and bring their stories and cultures into that community. Even if this was expensive to set up it would be cheaper than the current inhumane options the government and the opposition advocate. Resettlement of people who want to be in Australia and will work to create a new life will also rejuvenate these areas and add to the ongoing story of migrants and their importance in modern Australian history.
If I may add to your alternatives. I had a dream the other night that Australia was the main player in providing sea transport from Malaysia and Indonesia for the thousands of refugees. We collaborated with the two countries and established accommodation and embarkation facilities. Whereby the Indonesian and Malaysian respective authorities readied the people for a sea voyage on Australian Naval ships ie. hospital and troop. That way the processing would be “off shore”. The ships travel to Australia. En route they are further health and security checked. Then delivered to different ports around Australia. The brass bands are playing as our rural and regional hosts take responsibility for their charges. I know our town would welcome some.
This is the voice of reason and of course it’s the solution. But the policy is not one of reason -or leadership and the main parties aren’t likely to look for reasoned measures. Look at the places they want to send people to in the name of regional solution. None of them equipped to settle refugees. all of them poor and beset by social, economic and usually political problems. Look what happened when New Zealand offered to take people who are currently in ‘our’ detention centres. Being Australian right now feels like being stranded in a quagmire!
Very logical, especially the Tasmanian option 1/ to shut up the bigots who think asylum seekers are a danger “let loose” so a island is preferred . ( Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots who will find that to be an issue ) 2/ Tassie and SA have currently a sluggish economy . As history has proved , refugees arriving into Australia have boosted the economy significantly and this is a fact that can’t be argued with – after all it is a fact !
Question – what political party would take up this logical alternative – because I want to vote for them .
These seem like excellent, sensible, humane, and cheaper ideas than what we have now.
My only question is why do you only note Indonesia? Is there a reason you haven’t included countries like Malaysia or Thailand (or others?)
No: I would include Malaysia. I don’t know how many of the m touch down in Thailand, but if it’s a non-trivial number, I would include Thailand
I wish people would not mince their words on this issue. The current policy is to torture asylum seekers in order to deter others from coming. This is clearly immoral and one day Australia will be apologising for this shame. Even if the defence often used of stopping drownings at sea is effective it makes it no less immoral. “Torture” is not an exaggeration. Incarcerating innocent people indefinitely and not giving them any hope is torture as demonstrated by the recent self-immolation of 2 asylum seekers.
So sensible, rational, humane, compassionate and entirely achievable. Now to find politicians with both heart and tenacity to make it happen.
The refugees can also be processed in the refugee camps – and (gasp!) flown to Australia once shown to be genuine.
Yes: that is more or less the solution Malcolm Fraser used in the late 1970s for Vietnamese refugees.
It would require us to cooperate with Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and potential resettlement countries such as USA, Canada, New Zealand etc.
We’ve done it before; we could do it again.
I believe the 12,000 refugees we recently “accepted” are being settled here at the rate of 25 per month.
If we keep that rate up, the last of the 12,000 will arrive here in FORTY YEARS!! (100 every four months, 300 per year, so 3,000 takes 10 years and 12,000 takes 40 years)
Canada processed nearly 20,000 in weeks.
WTF???
How can we make this happen? The idea of regional / Tasmanian resettlement are sound and decent. There must be a way to rattle Bill & Malcom on this over the next 58 days leading up to the election. If only this election was a plebiscite on asylum seekers and retention vs abandonment of the current despicable offshore regime. Change.org petition? Any other suggestions? There is a groundswell across the country of more compassion and civility on the treatment of these our fellow world citizens.
I’m heartened to see such a respected public figure express a more reasonable, practical and humane response to refugees, than the cruel approach adopted by our government and our would-be government. I particularly like the suggestion that these people be allowed to work and access benefits/services. This would speed their probable final integration into Australian society, contribute to our economy and reduce the likelihood of developing resentment towards us, within the immigrant communities.
Of course there will be problems to overcome, in dealing with those individuals that we deem not to be refugees, but that problem already exists and our current system is no solution.
Thank God for a man like Julian Burnside and his ability to come up with solutions that would work for the benefit of asylum seekers, our own economy, and our standing in the international community. It is about time we as a nation set an example to the rest of the world in human decency, compassion and a genuine love for our neighbours regardless of where they come from. Let those who have ears hear what is being said to our nation.
Great to read these supportive comments but the issue is how do we get the powers that be to implement such ideas. Will everyone who has commented favourably contact their MP/ senator and say that their vote depends on fair and humane processing of asylum seekers.
Persuade the National Party. The have candidates in the rural areas that would benefit from an idea like this.
And they can influence LNP policy
A wonderful idea, but that figure of $500,000 for all costs seems to be either missing a few zeros or incorrect in the context, given how many asylum seekers are waiting in detention. At ~$250/week Centrelink benefits, one person would be roughly $13k/year, so $500,000 is only enough to cover ~40 people. Is it supposed to be $500 million to cover ~38,500 people? Certainly far better than $4 billion.
Yes: $500,000,000,000: $500 million
My typo. My mistake
I think a plan to address this issue should also consider why these people have the need to leave their countries in the first place. We should look to solve the problem at the source rather than waiting for the issue to come to our shores. Why don’t we look at spending time and money outside our borders to put pressure on other countries and help them to make life safe for their citizens?
Our local politicians are out on the hustings – we should be telling them all, from both major parties, that we will not be voting for them until we have seen their leaders publicly and sensibly discuss the Burnside policy options. We ARE the groundswell.
I totally agree we need to respond to the worlds refugee crisis in a humane way. Your ideas are of interest and have certainly worked well in Australia’s past. May I be the elephant in the room? There was no terrorism as there is today historically. For our country to remain a safe attractive place to live we do need to screen new Australian’s accurately. Can this be achieved realistically in one month? Also where is UN in all of this? My husbands parents were displaced people after the second world war and were welcomed with opened arms in Australia. It was the UN who screened them in camps in Europe and they were send to either Australia, Canada or America. Why is this same process taking 10 to 20 years of processing by the UN Indonesia? Particularly in light of the fact we have an unfilled quota of 12000 people to bring in to Australia at present; I number I would love to see increased. It seems to me a lot of the issues in Europe and Australia are a result of the UN’s ability to process these people. Are we able to assist at that level? Feedback is appreciated.
I don’t agree.
If you look at the 20th century, it was characterised by terrorism: the Irish troubles from 1916; the Red Brigade, the Baader Meinhoff gang, etc.
And it did not start in the 20th century. If you look at the Gunpowder Plot of 1603 in London, you will see a terrorist plot that was vastly more imaginative than September 11.
And then there is State terrorism.
So although I understand your point, I don’t agree with its premise. And in any event, a person who risks their life to flee terrorism is unlikely to be a terrorist themselves.
What a tragedy that Julian has been espousing these ideas for many years but we are so terrified of defenceless people, and dislike them so much that most have not even bothered to read them.
Pathetic
Great idea. Should have a clause in it that any children that are move into regional towns are required to join a local sporting club. Sport is a great tool to break down barriers and help families become part of the community. The more that these refugees become part of the community, the more these communities will support these plans. All started by a refugee kid that could kick a check side from the boundary, or bowl a real good flipper.
Thank-you once again Julian Burnside for your considered and thoughtful responses to the dreadful situation concerning asylum seekers and refugees . Both of your possible alternatives are good and it seems to me that help needs to be sort from all areas of the media.Proper,factual,.actual and intelligent reporting of events and reasons needs to be available.Only then will the larger public have a chance to make unbiased and reasonable assessments for themselves.
An excellent contribution to level-headed policy discussions neither Govt or ALP wants to engage in. These ideas run broadly parallel to the Greens policies. I am hoping for Greens to hold the balance of power, to bring humane and rational thought to this tragic situation. One obstacle Julian hasn’t mentioned is the dehumanizing and punitive culture in the Dept of Immigration itself… and the incompetence. Bangladeshi asylum seekers have been living and working in Kilcoy for several years, doing voluntary community service as well as holding paid jobs in the abbatoirs where few Aussies will go. And now Dept of Immigration is about to deport most of them! That’s the kind of ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ mentality we’re up against.
Both options are better than the current inhumane system we have but resettlement to regional Australia or Tasmania requires a strong investment in community education to overcome the racism and xenophobia that currently exists in many parts of Australia and that current permits both major political parties to maintain policies of indifference.
Thank you for offering such a sensible solution. What do we need to do to get your ideas serious air play in parliament? Can we start a petition?
Why not?
A lot of people processed during the “Vietnamese Solution” didn’t have papers.
Our obsession with ID is not really an excuse for mistreating people. Rather, it reflects a deep concern that boat people might be dangerous undesirables. But logic and history both contradict that fear.
Logic: people who risk their lives to flee extremism are probably not extremists themselves. And extremists/potential terrorists are likely to be able to get fake documents and come here by plane, which is far safer and far cheaper.
History: boat people are under-represented in Australia crime statistics.
It is true that we cannot guarantee that every boat person wishes us well, but almost all of them turn out, on assessment, to be refugees legally entitled to protection.
On the flip side of all this: if we continue to mistreat people who have committed no offence (and, contrary to what Dutton and Morrison would have you believe, it is not an offence to arrive in Australia, without papers, seeking protection from persecution) it is possible that some of the people we mistreat or some locals who are troubled by our bad behaviour, will be radicalised. We may actually be creating the problem we fear. Such things have happened before.
The initial one month is not intended to see the identity checks completed: it is to show that we are not into “open borders” and to identify anyone who has a communicable disease
Julian your ideas and comments are eminently the way we should go. On the subject of costs of all this please search for MMT ie Modern Money Theory and Prof Bill Mitchell of Newcastle Uni. I’m sure you will quickly see that what we would spend on your solution is an investment. There can be no economic reasons against doing this, only political reasons. Thank you
Good Morning, Your idea is along the lines of an idea that I have had for several years, I also agree that resettlement in a country area is the optimum solution. Once it has been decided that this money will be spent, isn’t it then a process of identifying [along with consultation with the stakeholders]what is the best outcome for these unfortunates so they too can have a safe life with dignity and hope.
My idea is along the lines of :
Settlement in a country region.
GIVE them say 100 acres and build them a house
GIVE them training,plant and equipment and technical and practical support, to plant a crop .
GIVE them financial support until they become self sufficient
GIVE them medical cover
They must remain on the property for 10 years when ultimately title passes to them.
If they leave before 10 years [assuming all reasonable circumstances] then they are returned to their country of origin [not sure about that one]
You may say there are a lot of GIVES, but I’m sure the quantum of dollars will be less than what its costing now with this broken system.
You may also say, that’s not fair to our existing unemployed , I say offer it to them as well, the money is being spent anyway.I know that my suggestions are raw ,probably not that well thought through and can have holes punched through most of them, but I hope you get the idea of the “flavour” of my thoughts. Something along these lines may work because the present system is NOT .
Your aspirations are laudable but do not address the general concerns of thinking/voting Australians.
As the elephant in the room is obscured/not seen by your many admirers I will elaborate.
If it is a given that the financial realities are as you have predicted.
How do you assimilate people who do not ultimately identify with democracy and give no quarter to apostates ? I could go on and cover the issue of their ultimate disdain for people not of their own beliefs. This includes additionally the divisions under the general heading of their own religion but is especially so for infidels.
What has been suggested in the readers comments could be first extended to the folk who have supported the nation in various forms over many years.
Please bear witness to the many happenings elsewhere on the planet and reflect on the issues facing non-believers in the countries that many of these folk are emanating from.
I have not even touched on the issues of women’s rights and education thereof, gay rights etc when overlaid with the acknowledged objective of these folk for Sharia law.
Google is a wonderful resource, if you have yet to travel to these countries where people are being offered settlement. ( UK, Sweden, Germany, Norway etc)
Your readers may also wish to research the thorny issue of reciprocal acceptance, should they wish to move to any of the various countries where the dogma of their religion is asserted and certainly not up for discussion, competition or adjustment.
The amount of Australian self loathing is a never ending surprise not only to me but Muslim acquaintances I have spoken to. They are equally surprised at the folk we have ‘let in’.
Not all people are bad but most can be led astray particularly when their book of reference is what they are belted with in order to coerce.
Thousands of Australians have surrendered their own lives in order that we have a greater opportunity to lead our own lives.
Be proud and appreciate the Australians who have gone before.
Do not surrender Australia to the people who would flood and change the way of life.
Previous migrants, refugees were not hampered and chained to a dogma that absolutely joins church and state.
Help certainly but do not abdicate your children’s heritage
The point you overlook is that boat people come here in numbers which are tiny when compared with our orthodox migration system. Voluntary migrants (approx 150,000 to 200,000 per year) come here for financial benefit. Refugees come here to escape persecution. Almost all boat people are ultimately assessed as genuine refugees. The largest ever arrival rate of boat people was 25,000 in one year (not surprising, given that they risk their lives to get here).
If we value our national character, I would prefer to see us treat people decently who are looking for a safe place to live.
Given the absolute failure of the UNHCR policy and implementation,as demonstrated by 4500 drowning (documented) and the resignation of their most senior officials who openly admitted that the UNHCR policy and implementation had contributedt to the unregulated migration of thousands of people including extremist fleeing judgement, compared to obvious reduction in arrival by boat and the associated misery you tout as being your main concern,how justify your position in holding up the immolation of one or two people as a comparison ? Whilst I agree that every life is precious, it seems that you wish to offer bait to desperate people on accepting and encouraging the trade of people smugglers and the associated crime that runs within that seam of policy thought bubble. The evidence is also clear evidence that the open border policy of the UN is a failure, evidenced by the Brexit vote, that labels 51% of the British nation as xenophobic.
As for using Tasmaina as an immigration gateway, I assure you would then need a passport to enter mainland Australia or indeed to enter Tasmania ? Dumping thousands of people in Tasmania , would be another version of Greece.
Legislation to limit travel from regional Australia to Metropolitan Australia for new migrants would be impossible to police, and an adequate background check on migrants arriving without a passport is clearly going to take longer than three months , so clearly you utopian dream of the millions of displace persons assimilating seamlessly into Australian society is pure fiction and seems to lack any reality at all.
I would also like to note the the Vietnamese how integrated so well into the mainstream of our culture , do not have a history for the sort ingrained violence and intolerance that we seen now in The EU & Turkey.
The comment on the ability of the Vietnamese to integrate because they do not have the inherent violent negative traits must be addressed.
To ignore the reality of the consequences of this cohort of refugees and ‘migrants’ is possibly more irresponsible than the present government’s position of inaction/avoidance in the treatment of this particular group.
All the above commentaries make the presumption that the only solution is to bring ‘migrants’ of all sorts in, not just this group in Manus.
There is a legitimate concern, based on the benefit of hind sight from Europe showing exactly the consequences and repercussions of a large influx of this particular group, as to whether Australia should even be endangering our communities and facilities, legal, educational and social.
Even though it is not right and proper to condemn the whole complete population of migrants for the intents and actions of a small percentage, that small percentage has essentially destroyed the fabric of what was Europe, and is still deteriorating.
Having said this, let’s work from the premise that Australia is not going to allow the Manus group in, and that the Australian population is moving towards a more closed approach.
What then are the discussions to convince Australia that what has happened in Europe will not occur here (especially considering that all indications show that Australia is starting to experience what Europe had also).
You are plainly concerned about Muslims in the community.
In my opinion, views like yours do immense damage to our community.