2015-04-13
Rachel Poole
A favourite government mantra of late is “we've stopped the boats”. This catchy phrase, if repeated enough without context, suggests benign leaders nobly preventing the invasion of foreign water travellers who threaten the Australian way of life. The term 'border security' is an emotive topic artfully exploiting our innate fear of that which is different and unknown. However, the official explanation is that stopping the boats stops people smuggling and deaths at sea and saves costs associated with housing displaced people. Is either claim credible under the facts or is stopping the boats merely an effective slogan?
The Immigration Minister Peter Dutton claims Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) is a successful policy, citing the 15 boats containing 429 asylum seekers being turned around since the policy began in 2014. These boats were returned to Indonesia and Sri Lanka, sometimes without the support of local authorities. Only one vessel arrived in Australia in 2014 and the passengers were transferred to Nauru.
The official Australian government concern is that people smuggling is responsible for many deaths at sea and the only way to stop this practice is to ensure those in the boats will never be settled in Australia.
However the people smuggling business is still lucrative. Asylum seekers may not be granted access to Australian soil but instead pay passage to enter Indonesia, where they cannot legally work and often become homeless. There are also reports of asylum seekers who are killed and tortured after being returned to their countries of origin — meaning fewer deaths because of people smugglers but more by political or war-related violence.
'Stopping the boats' is an expensive practice. The Abbott government's failed efforts to return 157 asylum seekers to India cost the taxpayers more than $12 million as passengers were held at sea for nearly one month. This amount includes costs of running the ships, legal costs against a High Court challenge and Scott Morrison's travel costs to India. For this cost, every asylum seeker onboard could have been housed and fed in Australia for at least one year. This is without factoring in the annual cost of nearly $2.9 billion in maintaining Australian detention centres.
Boats are still coming to Australia; they are simply being sent away more efficiently. However if the definition of 'stopping the boats' is interpreted very narrowly to be 'landing on Australian soil', OSB has been a success. Nevertheless the government's asserted policy aims appear to fail on facts. The obscene costs of our 'border security' program and the number of deaths occurring with or without people smuggling to Australia suggests this is not about saving lives or saving costs — it is about saving votes.
A UN report shows the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced worldwide has exceeded 50 million for the first time since World War II. Australia's contribution includes fewer than 0.3% of the 11.7 million refugees under the UNHCR's mandate living in Australia. This places Australia 48th out of 187 countries, and our ranking slides to 74th when accounting for wealth. For a country usually proud of its friendliness and 'fair go' attitude, Australians show a remarkable indifference for people who are every bit as human as we are.
So what is the solution for this unnecessarily cruel and seemingly exorbitant policy, which given all facts, appears to be a political response to appease Australian xenophobia? Processing asylum seekers onshore in either community detention centres (less than $100,000 pa per person) or on a bridging visa (around $40,000 pa per person) are often suggested by refugee advocacy groups and provide considerable savings to the taxpayer. The human cost is also less in this option, preventing the inhumane conditions found in offshore detention centres or possible harm in their home nation from boat turnarounds.
The seriousness of this issue is international and one every nation, especially wealthy ones, have a duty to engage with. Yes the boats have been ferried away in a manner that glorifies three-word slogans, but the policy fails on all counts of common sense and compassion.
Rachel is a best described as an angry lawyer who dislikes injustice and writes at the https://thebowmenreport.wordpress.com