Asylum seekers: time for the Australian Solution

Isabel says:

07:06am | 06/11/09

Agree totally in principle. The only qualifier is what happens when Australian officials in Indonesia have processed the upper limit of the number of refugees which can be accommodated in Australia leaving many thousands more in Indonesia who stood too long in line to be processed? They will get on boats. Perhaps we could look at it another way. Welcome people who have the courage and desperation and willingness to put their lives at risk. Use a post WW2 solution and send refugees to areas where they are needed to further development in Australia - like tropical north WA, QLD and NT. Lease to them enough land to scratch a living and freehold it when they have remained there for x years. Those who arrive by plane could be located likewise but without the benefit of eventual freehold. Learn that courage and get up and go is more highly regarded than the possession of money. Just a thought.

watty says:

07:37am | 06/11/09

Isabel I think a large number of our multi generation farmers , even with their vast knowledge of the land, are already finding it hard to “scratch a living” in outback Australia.

Water,or the lack of, is one of the biggest problems in providing for an “Australian Solution”

Perhaps if the Rudd Government had started a major project to harness the huge rainfalls experienced annually in the North
and the seasonal rainfalls in the South this problem could be alleviated.

We run a network of gas pipelines criss crossing Australia, we have railway lines nearly circling the country so why not a few large dams and a network of water pipelines?

Darwin pumped it’s water from Manton Dam and it’s gas from the Centre to Darwin quite successfully.Why not the rest of Australia.

Freddo says:

07:54am | 06/11/09

Or Just as easily,
we could remove ourselves as a signatory nation to the Refugee convention and then choose to take a certain number of the most needy refugees from the camps.

Shane says:

08:13am | 06/11/09

Mr Rudd needs to get these people to Christmas Island and process them ASAP. Leaving them stuck on an Australian Ship for weeks on end is unacceptable to civilsed society which we pride ourselves on. Australian Authorities on board the ship are trying to make conditions for them even worse by not allowing them to shower enough and rationing their food in the hope they will change their mind and disembark. This also is not civilised. He also needs to urgently revise his Border Protection Policy and send a clear message to smugglers and asylum seekers that he has changed his policy and it is no longer easy to claim asylum in Australia by turning up here on boats.He can’t allow this ship to just continue to sit there, overcrowded with people suffering on board. He has no choice now. Mr Rudd I say change back the Policy and get the message back out there quick! Discourage them from comming.

Socrates says:

08:33am | 06/11/09

Is this just another case of the legal industry wanting to further expand their wealth development by creating more fee opportunities?

There seems to be no valid reason for spruiking that illegal boatpeople should be given precedence over the much more deserving refugees who have correctly applied for admission to Australia.  It may have something to do with the fact that the genuine refugees have no money and do not “need” expensive legal mouthpieces.

Millsy says:

08:40am | 06/11/09

If Rudd would have dealt with this boat quicker and brought them to Christams Island for processing, he would not have drawn so much attention to the ship. Now that it’s been going on for so long i’m sure every asylum seeker and people smuggler are sitting watching for the inevetable outcome, which will be to bring them here. If he doesn’t he runs the risk of suicide on board an Australian ship for the whole world to watch. It’s gone on for long enough and is drawing more and more attention as the days tick by. Rudd should have moved quicker and not let this drag on and on and on.

Jane says:

08:41am | 06/11/09

@Freddo Gee, that’s noble. Is that how Australia is going to behave from now on? Sign agreements and then when it gets a bit hard, say “Oooh, no, I don’t want to play any more?” We signed it, we have to deal with the consequences. “We should remove ourselves…” Unbelievable. Try that with the bank when you want to get out of your mortgage, will you? And let me know how it goes.

Freddo says:

09:38am | 06/11/09

Jane,
you’re talking about the UN here, not a bank.
The refugee convention was written 60 years ago to deal with the problem of war caused refugees. It was specifically not meant for migration or to allow refugees to choose which country they would go to. It was meant to stop them being killed.
How people who have been living safely in Indonesia for years can now claim asylum is beyond me.
The rules of the convention are hopelessly out of date and need revision.

Len says:

10:03am | 06/11/09

Kevin Rudd has been too busy hitting the airwaves and tV screens. 14 INTERVIEWS THIS WEEK!  It appears he is more concerned about the next poll than making any decisions on asylum seekers. Stop worrying about yourself and your polls Rudd and get these guys off our ship!

Voxpop says:

10:05am | 06/11/09

Shane I like the ideas you’ve put forth - we need to give asylum seekers better options than for them to desperately seek help from people smugglers.  We also need to give much harsher sentences to those convicted of people smuggling as they are the only criminals in this mix and they risk the lives of everyone on board.  Thankyou for moving this debate forward in terms of trying to find the correct *solution*

It is not illegal for an asylum seeker to try to come to us by boat as some are still trying to claim and the term asylum seeker only applies until they are processed (which as you say is best done by Aus officials).  Once they have been processed between 85% and 98% are found to be true Refugees and the others are sent back.  This is a great system, we are controlling who comes here by doing all the checks.  It’s the people smugglers that advise them to destroy their papers and so if we can get to them while they still have their ID it makes the process quicker.

I don’t like all the talk of queue-jumpers as it generally comes from people trying to look like they have compassion only for what they term as *true* refugees - and yet we know that most of the boat people that have come here are true refugees.  I find this talk hollow and dishonoust as most of the people saying it don’t really want any of the refugees here no matter how they come or on what timeline - whether the camp or detention centre takes 4 years or 10 years to process their claim.  So the queue’s are not equal in length anyway.

And then there’s the talk of why can’t they stay in Indonesia as they are safe there and no longer fleeing the persecution in their home land.  They ignore the fact that Indonesia do not take refugees but hold them there in limbo for possibly 10 years before being processed and all that time they are not recognised as citizens with rights within that society.  I and everyone else in this great country would not want to put ours and our families lives on hold for so long.  All they want is a chance to work and support their families and lead a normal life - you know the type of things we take for granted.

H says:

11:15am | 06/11/09

Shane - your solutions fill me with hope. Well said man.

Charles says:

11:29am | 06/11/09

Shane, your solution might work if the classification of refugees had any integrity, however, it doesn’t.  Every official in countries from which most of these illegal immigrants come from, maintain they are just that, and the evidence would bear it out.

How someone supposedly fleeing for their lives from an impoverished country can get on a plane, fly to Indonesia and Malaysia, and then pay someone a huge wad of cash to put them on a boat, sometimes years after their initial flight, is not an asylum seeker in my view.  They are merely economic migrants shopping for a country.

Therefore, your solution is not one at all, as the UNHCR and Australian migration officials have been unable to stand up to these people and recognise that all they are doing is depriving genuine refugees of their opportunity to escape being left in a camp somewhere.

It goes against the average persons idea of a fair go, and we should not let them get away with the audacious and fraudulent things they do.

Carl Palmer says:

11:31am | 06/11/09

@Voxpop says: 11:05am | 06/11/09

I resent you comment that

“I don’t like all the talk of queue-jumpers as it generally comes from people trying to look like they have compassion only for what they term as *true* refugees - and yet we know that most of the boat people that have come here are true refugees”.

And then continue with  

“I find this talk ***hollow and dishonoust*** as most of the people saying it don’t really want any of the refugees here no matter how they come….”

As for the above, I consider myself to be compassionate. I do not consider myself to be hollow nor dishonest. Peter Costello’s comment on this matter was spot on and explains the reason why the current administration is struggling with the issue.

Socrates comments are very reasonable and are neither hollow nor dishonest. They are very companionate and very sensible for the reasons outlined in Mr Costello’s article.
You can have the bleeding heart view, I haven’t attacked that but don’t include me in your dribble. 

Enough on this matter

Katrien says:

11:36am | 06/11/09

Great article and great discussion. It’s inspiring to see people speaking logically about this and coming up with strategies to accommodate asylum seekers into this country. I work with Refugees and Migrants and it’s such a slap in the face to hear the negative and derogatory comments being made recently about Asylum Seekers. Every day I see proof that we are a better society because of them.

Keep pushing your Australian Solution. We need more voices like yours.

Shane Prince says:

12:21pm | 06/11/09

Socrates suspicions are misplaced. Yes I am an expensive lawyer, normally. However, I have never taken a dollar from a refugee for acting as their representative (and I have acted in such cases for the last 7 years). I like many other lawyers in the community, act on a pro bono basis for refugees and asylum seekers and I can assure you there is no lucrative legal industry to promote. Refugees and asylum seekers are almost always penniless having usually used all of their money paying bribes and people smugglers to escape their home country. To make full disclosure, I am occasionally successful in Court and obtain an order for costs against the Minister in the usual course, however such orders do not always cover my costs and these wins are very hard to obtain in a system which is deliberately designed to limit the role of the Courts. It is my ambition to never again have to represent another asylum seeker in the legal system. I look forward to a system which is sufficiently fair so as to require no legal disputes.

Jim Fletcher says:

02:24pm | 06/11/09

Seeing we have lawyers, together with compassionate and informed people commenting on this issue, could someone explain what the outcome might be given the following scenario.
If we bring the people now aboard the Australian Custom vessel to Christmas Island, and it turns out that some or all of them have been living in Indonesia for some considerable period of time, and as such were obviously not escaping from a life threatening situation. Would they be eligible for asylum, and if not what likely outcome might be followed.
I am not attempting to be half smart on this, it just appears to me to be a possible outcome, and I would welcome informed comment.

Mick says:

02:38pm | 06/11/09

What do we do with people who are not found to be genuine asylum seekers now under Rudds Policy? I don’t know, what is Rudds policy on that? Other than blame the Opposition for not having a policy?

Isabel says:

02:47pm | 06/11/09

As I understand it, those refusing to leave the boat (which only happens to be Australian as the nearest to effect a rescue) are totally the problem for and of the Indonesian Govt. Kevin Rudd / Australia has no jurisdiction. solution would be for the Indonesians to give them another boat and let them set sail for Australian waters within/from which they could be legally transferred to Christmas Island.

BTW, I don’t regard the tropical North as being the Outback. I believe the Ord river region is capable of further development.

Garry says:

02:54pm | 06/11/09

Jim and Mick, “It’s a very difficut and challenging situation” “Tough but Humane” “Calm and Patient”  the answer from our own Prime Ministers mouth.

Shane Prince says:

02:56pm | 06/11/09

Jim, thanks for your question. The answer is that the time they have spent waiting in Indonesia will not change their claims under the Convention. The obligation under the Refugee Convention arises if a person is outside of their country of origin and owing to a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason they are unable to return. Once that test is met, Australia has protection obligations to them under international law unless one of the exemptions applies- the exemptions don’t include having been in another country for some time. If Indonesia were a signatory to the Convention (and it is not) then they could make claims in Indonesia for protection. Unfortunately, until they can arrive in a Country which is a signatory to the Convention they will continue in limbo.

Mick, under Australian law, any one whose claim to asylum is rejected and who may not obtain any other type of visa must be removed from Australia. This is exactly the same process that existed under in legislation during the Howard years. If anything the removals process now occurs with much greater determination than under the previous Government.

Freddo says:

03:33pm | 06/11/09

@Jim Fletcher,
Whether they have been living in Indonesia and for how long makes absolutely no difference to their Refugee status under the convention.
This is why i think it is disingenuous for people to say that 95% are found to be true refugees. The convention makes no differentiation as to whether you are in any current danger. The test is whether you would be persecuted in your home country.
The refugee charter is outdated and needs to be changed so the people that are most in need are helped first and not left to rot in some camp.

Shane Prince says:

06:49pm | 06/11/09

I am afraid that Freddo’s proposals to change the refugee convention are at odds with its purpose to which many civilised countries, including Australia, subscribe. The charter is to protect those who have to flee their home countries and to protect them from being returned there. Nothing protects a person in Indonesia from being returned to their home country. Until a person is in a country which guarantees that they will not be returned to their home country then they remain in danger and they live under the shadow of possible return at any time. If they have a permanent right of abode in a safe third country then that is a different and they will not be entitled to a protection visa under Australian law.

Freddo’s comments are also incorrect in that the 95% figure for people who have been given protection visas under Australian law. Those visas will not be granted if a person has not availed themselves of a right to live in a safe third country.

Those rotting in Indonesian detention centres are unlikely to have any particular right to be in Indonesia.

It is true that the refugee convention arose from the horrors of the treatment of Jewish people during the second world war. That is not to say that it should be confined to dealing with that particular episode in history. Persecution is not frozen in time. It is vital that all people are accorded the protection which was not provided to those Jewish people who sought to flee their oppressors. The only way to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again is to never slacken our vigilance.

John says:

09:28pm | 06/11/09

The problem isn’t the refugees it is rudd and his government.

Caz says:

11:04pm | 06/11/09

A long time ago (probably 25 years ago), I read a “quotable quote” in the Readers Digest that went something like this: It is far easier to be outraged by an injustice half a world away, than it is to deal with the atrocities in our own back yard.

As wonderful as it would be to ensure every human being in the world had the kind of opportunity that the majority of Australian’s have, I would like to work towards every Australian having those opportunities, not just the majority. Until then, it is immoral to give priority to other people. They, their family, their immediate neighbours and their nation are responsible for themselves. Of course, personal responsibility is so not politically correct.

Mohammad Abedin says:

02:46am | 07/11/09

It’s look very good idea Shane. I also think Australia should increase refugee numbers. Australia takes only 13,500 refugees per year. Compare with world refugees it’s only one present, and OCDC country Australia position in 37 out of 40. If Australia wants global leadership need to show leadership everywhere.

B.R.M Ferry says:

07:56am | 07/11/09

People check the facts. A boat in distress with unknown people on board in Indonesian waters & asked by Indonesia was anyone able to assist a stricken vessel as per International Treaty. Australia had a ship present went to their aid, performed a rescue on behalf of Indonesia. Result they must be returned to Indonesia. End of story.  The facts have been lost by individuals & groups of Do-gooders who I believe have shown a lack of common sense.  Sure Australia must support a refuge intake BUT only thru the proper channels & not by queue jumpers who should be not allowed in until they fill the correct position in the line of thousands wishing to come and are genuine refuges & fulfill AUSTRALIAN standards.

Lyndsay says:

03:31pm | 07/11/09

... and now we have the Pacific Highway solution - takes 20 years to implement. Meanwhile, it’s Muslim Mania.

M Cooke says:

11:28pm | 07/11/09

This is The Australian People Solution, GET RID OF THE RUDD GOVERNMENT PROBLEM SOLVED, the way this incompetent Government is shaping up it will soon be booted out of office.

Murray says:

06:24am | 08/11/09

B.R.M. Ferry - It’s not “End of story”  They won’t get of the ship, now what?

Juju Maccas says:

08:18am | 08/11/09

Voxpop says:11:05am | 06/11/09
‘And then there’s the talk of why can’t they stay in Indonesia as they are safe there and no longer fleeing the persecution in their home land.  They ignore the fact that Indonesia do not take refugees but hold them there in limbo for possibly 10 years before being processed and all that time they are not recognised as citizens with rights within that society.’

Good system - seems to work for Indonesia and no one is whinging to the U.N. about making them change their system of detention….

Freddo says:

08:11am | 09/11/09

@Shane,
surely as a lawyer you know that it is against international law for any country, whether a signatory to the convention or not, to send someone back to a country in which they will be persecuted. Indonesia would therefore be prevented from sending these people back to Sri Lanka as well.
http://www.unhcr.org/3c0f495f4.html

Shane Prince says:

04:24pm | 09/11/09

Dear Freddo, Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, the obligations of Indonesia to refugees under international law are very different to those of Australia which is a signatory. Any customary international law developing around non-refoulement is far inferior to Australia’s international obligations under the treaty (which by the way apply to any refugee on the Oceanic Viking given that the Ship is Australian territory). Indonesia does not have a system of its own to determine whether a person is a refugee- unlike Australia. Accordingly, your argument is a little academic because if there has been no determination that a person is a refugee then Indonesia has no obligations to them under the customary international law to which you refer- even if it does extend to individuals rather than mass movements of people.

That leaves aside the devestating answer from Juju Maccas. A person who is a legitimate refugee (and that is presupposed in your point) should be able to give his or her children a future. It is a form of persecution for such people to be unable to plan a future and get on with their lives waiting in limbo in Indonesia. The Convention provides that humane next step and customary international law does not. 

I am not sure why someone as obviously well informed as yourself is hunting for a reason to not treat those seeking Australia’s protection according to principles of decency which Australia helped to champion after WWII.

Steeve says:

01:01am | 10/11/09

I have a solution,..Buy the ship off from P&O. Give the boat to the sri lankan govt and sail it right back to them in Colombo.  their people = their problem
Their navy cannot deal with the problem then we need to either give them the tools to do so or make our problem their problem.
It is not racist to dictate who can and cannot come into our country legally, illegally or otherwise.

Voxpop says:

06:56am | 10/11/09

Thanks for a great Post Shane and all of the responses you’ve given - I learn a little more each day;-)  Would it be possible to do a piece on Refugees who’ve been through the processing and have been living in Aus for a number of years now?  Something that highlights the benefits they make to our society - it’s seems that there are too many selfish people who don’t want to share our ‘dwindling water supply’, standard of living and welfare to refugees.  They make out that these people will be a drain on our society yet I believe that they have a stronger work ethic than many Aussies and will take the opportunity to lift their family status and contribute to our society in many more ways than just being a tax payer.

Freddo says:

09:30am | 10/11/09

Shane,
thanks for your response. I have no problems with accepting refugees. I would actually like us to double or even triple our humanitarian program. I just don’t like being dictated to on method of entry (same with plane arrivals).
I think there are refugees who are far more in need of our help than these 78 Sri Lankans.

Shane Prince says:

01:51pm | 10/11/09

Freddo,

I enjoy our chats, I hope we are not boring the others. There is no threat to Australia’s sovereignty posed by refugees. No one has dictated that we should be a signatory to the Convention. It is something Australia did of its own sovereign free will. Those seeking protection under the Convention are simply accepting the offer given to the world freely by Australia- they dictate nothing. I just don’t see a reason for saying that one person’s life is more deserving than another’s. Whom ever asks for protection from Australia as a refugee and is within its area of Australia’s responsibility should be protected because that is what Australia has agreed to do (during the Menzies Government) and we should honour that commitment.  Australia, by signing the Convention, determined in advance who may come to Australia and the circumstances in which they may come in respect of refugees. The Convention is not directed to save refugees that we pick and choose- such an approach would not have dealt with the problems faced during the war.  In any event, the comments of Voxpop are of assistance here, one could argue that those who have the initiative to get up and try to get a better life for their families are the type of people who will work and make a contribution to this country. If my family was threatened I would do all I could to save them and we cannot blame people for doing that which we would do ourselves.

Freddo says:

02:37pm | 10/11/09

Shane,
i hate to say it, but i’m slowly coming around to your point of view. I still don’t like the sight of refugees starving in overseas camps whilst more educated and prosperous people travel by boat or plane but i get your argument. It is probably impossible to say that one life is more important than another’s.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

04:56pm | 12/11/09

The refugees do not own the Oceanic Viking, the Australian Taxpayers do:  the refugees are writing cheques their bodies cannot cash! (with credits/apologies to Top Gun producers).  Get these people off our vessel!!
To our cringeworthy government I would say, stop weasling and just get on with it!

Voxpop says:

03:38pm | 13/11/09

Julie Coker-Godson - go back to the MSM pages where your hateful diatribe fits in best (the Top Gun comment gives you away ).  Or better yet grow a brain - it’s incredible how truly ignorant people can be.  I’d be embarassed to write comments that are factually wrong and just plain stupid but that’s all you get over on news.com.au it’s full of zenophobic rants.