Death at sea
Australia is, by far, one of the most successful societies on the planet. This is not hubris, the UN says so. Australia regularly ranks in the top 2 or 3 countries according to the Human Development Index. That we managed to avoid the Great Recession is just icing on the cake: we are the country which is still living in the Great Moderation.
There are about 10 million refugees around the world, according to the UNHCR. (We can ignore Palestinian "hereditary refugees": they are just defined as such to create sticks to beat Israel with--Israel simply accepted as citizens Jewish refugees from the Middle East; Arab countries typically make it very difficult for Palestinians to become citizens, because that would stop them being refugees.)
Since having an opportunity to live in Australia is much better than being a refugee, that gives at least 10 million people who are officially refugees and would be better off living in Australia. That is a lot of potential demand to live in Australia: potential demand that no plausible level of refugee intake would eliminate. Not least because if Australia simply agreed to take all refugees, that would, in itself, create more reason to become (officially) a refugee.
Which leads to one of the big divides in Australian politics: between those who believe entry to Australia should be outsourced to people smugglers and those who do not. This is not a matter of who openly holds that, but the predictable consequences of various policy choices. Which is highly topical because over 100 people have apparently drowned trying to illegally enter Australia.
There is a standard evasion which can be dismissed: that it is simply a sign of "desperation". Nonsense, desperate people do not carefully avoid a series of jurisdictions because they do not want to go there and those jurisdictions are not signatories to the Refugee Convention to get to Australia because they do want to go there and it is a signatory.
As an aside, that being a signatory to said Convention makes you are magnet for refugees is making the legal regime it creates increasingly untenable. Decisions by judges elevating that effect (such as the High Court's decision about the Malaysian solution) just hasten its likely collapse. After all, on the logic of that decision, if Australia denounced the Convention it too would become an "unsafe" destination for refugees and so no better than Malaysia.
So, it is about costs (including risks) and benefits. The better shot at improving things for oneself and one's family paying a people smuggler is, the more people are going to do it. As the people who have made the attempt openly say:
"One of my friends went about six months ago and another a year ago," Mr Mami said. "My friends tell me to go to Australia, they were completely satisfied with their conditions on Christmas Island, they play sport, have internet, it is very good."
Or, as another survivor asks:
"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted.
"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and then no-one will come."
Yes, indeed: good question.
Even Robert Manne has been willing to state the obvious:
"I have to say that I think the Rudd government made a mistake and it pains me to say this, actually," Manne said.
"I think it was a mistake to believe that if you humanised the policy you wouldn't have a return of the boats.
"I think the Left, generally speaking, has been dishonest about that question."
Turning to Kevin Rudd, sitting beside him, Manne continued: "I think that what you did was humane but you didn't calculate what you should have calculated, that the problem would return.
"I think the Left is wrong to say and you're wrong to say that your policy didn't get the boats to return.
"I think it's now a terrible problem for Labor."
A former Coastwatch member expresses his entirely understandable frustration here.
The real tragedy is that Australia had a policy that was working. The Howard Government's policies had dramatically reduced the flow of boats, and so the deaths at sea. The lower the payoff (i.e. difficulty in gaining residence), the fewer who will chose to either offer to transport or pay for such transport, so the smaller the black market in people entry by boat.
It did involve such features as detaining children but, given a choice between detaining children and children drowning at sea, I vote for detaining children.
The real question is how many people will drown so that folk in inner city dinner parties can congratulate themselves about their ostentatious "compassion".
(And, not incidentally, express their ostentatious moral superiority over their fellow Australians who want some say over migration policy--which can only happen if the policies voted for are enforced. A problem we also see in the US and Canada. One of the tricks being that even to raise inconvenient questions is to taken as displaying one's moral vulgarity.)
UPDATE Robert Manne returns to the point that offshore processing works.
There are about 10 million refugees around the world, according to the UNHCR. (We can ignore Palestinian "hereditary refugees": they are just defined as such to create sticks to beat Israel with--Israel simply accepted as citizens Jewish refugees from the Middle East; Arab countries typically make it very difficult for Palestinians to become citizens, because that would stop them being refugees.)
Since having an opportunity to live in Australia is much better than being a refugee, that gives at least 10 million people who are officially refugees and would be better off living in Australia. That is a lot of potential demand to live in Australia: potential demand that no plausible level of refugee intake would eliminate. Not least because if Australia simply agreed to take all refugees, that would, in itself, create more reason to become (officially) a refugee.
Which leads to one of the big divides in Australian politics: between those who believe entry to Australia should be outsourced to people smugglers and those who do not. This is not a matter of who openly holds that, but the predictable consequences of various policy choices. Which is highly topical because over 100 people have apparently drowned trying to illegally enter Australia.
There is a standard evasion which can be dismissed: that it is simply a sign of "desperation". Nonsense, desperate people do not carefully avoid a series of jurisdictions because they do not want to go there and those jurisdictions are not signatories to the Refugee Convention to get to Australia because they do want to go there and it is a signatory.
As an aside, that being a signatory to said Convention makes you are magnet for refugees is making the legal regime it creates increasingly untenable. Decisions by judges elevating that effect (such as the High Court's decision about the Malaysian solution) just hasten its likely collapse. After all, on the logic of that decision, if Australia denounced the Convention it too would become an "unsafe" destination for refugees and so no better than Malaysia.
So, it is about costs (including risks) and benefits. The better shot at improving things for oneself and one's family paying a people smuggler is, the more people are going to do it. As the people who have made the attempt openly say:
"One of my friends went about six months ago and another a year ago," Mr Mami said. "My friends tell me to go to Australia, they were completely satisfied with their conditions on Christmas Island, they play sport, have internet, it is very good."
Or, as another survivor asks:
"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted.
"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and then no-one will come."
Yes, indeed: good question.
Even Robert Manne has been willing to state the obvious:
"I have to say that I think the Rudd government made a mistake and it pains me to say this, actually," Manne said.
"I think it was a mistake to believe that if you humanised the policy you wouldn't have a return of the boats.
"I think the Left, generally speaking, has been dishonest about that question."
Turning to Kevin Rudd, sitting beside him, Manne continued: "I think that what you did was humane but you didn't calculate what you should have calculated, that the problem would return.
"I think the Left is wrong to say and you're wrong to say that your policy didn't get the boats to return.
"I think it's now a terrible problem for Labor."
A former Coastwatch member expresses his entirely understandable frustration here.
The real tragedy is that Australia had a policy that was working. The Howard Government's policies had dramatically reduced the flow of boats, and so the deaths at sea. The lower the payoff (i.e. difficulty in gaining residence), the fewer who will chose to either offer to transport or pay for such transport, so the smaller the black market in people entry by boat.
It did involve such features as detaining children but, given a choice between detaining children and children drowning at sea, I vote for detaining children.
The real question is how many people will drown so that folk in inner city dinner parties can congratulate themselves about their ostentatious "compassion".
(And, not incidentally, express their ostentatious moral superiority over their fellow Australians who want some say over migration policy--which can only happen if the policies voted for are enforced. A problem we also see in the US and Canada. One of the tricks being that even to raise inconvenient questions is to taken as displaying one's moral vulgarity.)
UPDATE Robert Manne returns to the point that offshore processing works.