In search of a more humane refugee policy

At the start of this week The Australian published an opinion piece by former Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock reflecting on the boat wreck that occurred just off the coast of Christmas Island on December 15, 2010.  These essence of his argument was that a more humane refugee policy would be one that deterred people from undertaking boat journeys to Australia.  His idea of a more ‘humane’ policy is one that includes the excision of islands from Australia’s migration zone, the forcible return of boats when safe to do so and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas.  The suggestion is that if a Coalition government had been in power and these policies had been in place, that this tragedy could have been avoided.

Mr. Ruddock’s memory is either short or selective.  He conveniently forgets to mention the sinking of the Siev X in which 353 asylum seekers died.  These people died trying to reach Australia by boat, just like those people who tried to reach our shores less than a month ago.  And when did this tragedy take place?  In 2001, on the watch of a Coalition government who had in place many of the policies that Mr. Ruddock advocates returning to.

Mr. Ruddock’s stance highlights the short-sightedness of much of the current asylum seeker debate.  It would be disingenuous to suggest that the immigration policies of a destination country play no part in the number of asylum seekers they receive onshore per year.  A tougher border policy will undoubtedly reduce the number of boat arrivals we see.  However, it is equally dishonest to underplay the factors that drive people from their homelands, a facet of this issue that garners no mention in Mr. Ruddock’s article.  As long as wars break out and people are at risk of persecution there will always be refugees.  The numbers will always fluctuate in response to world events.  There will be years when countless thousands upon thousands will require safe haven, just as surely as there will be lean years.

I share one thing in common with Mr. Ruddock.  Neither of us want to see vulnerable people dying in an attempt to reach Australia by boat.  We can scramble to close our borders or we can take a more globally responsible approach.  We can be tough and deter people from getting on boats bound for Australia.  But this action in isolation does nothing to remove the factors that are driving people to flee.  These boats may simply set off for another destination.  Instead of perishing en route to Australia, people may simply be at risk of dying in another stretch of ocean.  If we are serious about reducing onshore arrivals by boat we require not only regional but international engagement.  It will take long term development efforts, focused on improving conditions not only in countries of origin, but also those countries that asylum seekers may pass through en route to their final destination.

We need to leave behind the idea that we need to be cruel to be kind.  A truly humane refugee policy would focus less on deterrence and punishment and simply seek to manage the relatively small number of asylum seekers we receive onshore with a minimum of fuss.  A humane refugee policy simply needs to be kind.