Refugee solution: double intake, cease processing onshore arrivals

The only humanistic and legally viable solution to the refugee crisis is to adopt a clear two-pronged approach. The first limb is to considerably increase the number of off-shore refugees we absorb. The second part is to deny refugee eligibility to people who arrive in Australia without pre-existing refugee status.

This would end precarious voyages to our shores and mandatory detention. At the same time, it would result in enormous public revenue savings.

Our migration policy is based almost solely on what immigrants can do for us, not what we can do for them. Hence, we encourage students, tourists and business arrivals and in the main, reject those in need.

Our sympathy gland needs to swell. The lottery of birth places far too big a role in our migration decisions.

We should increase our intake of displaced people to say 10% of total migration numbers. This would mean that our total humanitarian intake would be approximately 30,000 per year – more than double the current quota of 13,750. If all these people are processed offshore it would still be a net financial gain to Australia. There would finally be an end to the revenue black spot caused by the cost of mandatory detention and processing applicants.

The additional cost of settling the larger number of refugees would be a fraction of the current cost of the misery that is the refugee industry.

Ideally, Australia should absorb even more than 30,000 refugees annually. Our abundant resources and infrastructure could accommodate a massive increase in humanitarian arrivals. Once the hysteria associated with the current refugee debate passes and we move on from the tone-lowering themes of mandatory detention and "passive invasions" a more enlightened community may broaden its mind and borders to the needs of the destitute.

But for any policy to work, it needs to be politically saleable. A doubling of current numbers refugee numbers would be politically controversial, but the community would support it given the immense benefits in the form of bringing to an end the current calamitous refugee picture.

The other part of the solution requires us to disentitle asylum seekers who come by boat from refugee eligibility. There are two imperatives driving this. The first is pragmatic. We should not encourage or reward uncontrollable risk. Paternalism is justified where the activity involves a grave risk to the individual.

This is especially the case where they are incapable of making an informed assessment of the danger. Asylum seekers have no control over the seaworthiness of their vessel and no remedy if things go wrong. There is no safe way to come to Australia by boat. These people, and their children, need to be saved from themselves.

The second reason is principled. Australian has a strict annual cap on humanitarian arrivals. Each boat arrival by an impatient, relatively well-off (by displaced person standards) asylum seeker reduces the opportunity for any of the other 15.2 million refugees patiently waiting off-shore to come to our opulent shores. While there is no queue in which these 15.2 million people are assembled, there are Australian migration places which they can potentially fill. Their prospects have been made virtually hopeless.

This year 6232 asylum seekers arrived by boat (and about half that number by plane), thrusting themselves into our sphere of moral concern. In the process they wantonly faded out from our radar the needs of often more desperate asylum seekers.

If the boat numbers continue to increase at current levels, by next year all of the 13,750 places will be taken by those whose only basis for preferential treatment is the temerity to command our attention and the resources to accompany their imposing nature.

There is only one reason that Australia gives priority to boat arrivals: misguided homage to an outdated international legal instrument.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees requires countries to give asylum to people that come within its shores who are in genuine fear of persecution in their country of origin because of their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership of a distinct social group.

The Convention was drafted with a view to protecting mainly Europeans fleeing after World War II and giving preference to people who needed protection as a result of Western sensitivities and priorities.

It is designed to give safe harbour to people who manage to hobble from their country to a bordering country.

The Convention was never intended to apply to migrants who roll out a world map and strategically plot which of the 140 countries that have signed the Convention they think will best advance their economic prosperity.

Most of the people arriving by boat (5219 out of 6232) are from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Sri Lanka. These people are from half way around the world. They didn’t stumble into Australia. They skated over or near dozens of other safe countries en-route to Australia. They paid smugglers at least $5,000 for the boat journey. This is more than a years’ average wage in each of those countries.

It is an abuse of the rights accorded by the Convention to grant places to strategic travellers over the genuinely displaced and economically immobile.

Australia needs only to comply with intention and spirit of the Convention, not worship its literal terms.

Australia is uniquely placed in relation to its refugee intake. We are an island. There is no safe way to get here. We do not have any refugee producing neighbours. We are entitled and should refuse refugee eligibility to any person who appears on our shores unannounced.

This leaves the difficult situation of what to do with asylum seekers who come by plane. Principle dictates that they too must be prohibited from applying for refugee status, save for the exceptional case where a change to their personal circumstances or the social and political landscape in their country since their arrival makes them a refugee. These ‘sur place’ claims are already part of our existing law and the numbers are negligible.

The only downside of the above solution is an arguable technical breach of the Convention for refusing refugee eligibility to those who thrust themselves onto our shores. This risk is small. Not only because from a legal perspective we are probably entitled to refuse such processing, but even more importantly from a pragmatic perspective no international agency (even the UNHCR) could possibly oppose a policy that resulted in a doubling of our refugee intake.

In any event, international law is simply an international expedient, followed by countries only when it is in their interest. The world would undoubtedly be a better place if the above proposal was implemented - even if it contravened the Convention.