Refugee solution: double intake, cease processing onshore arrivals

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There is only one reason that Australia gives priority to boat arrivals: misguided homage to an outdated international legal instrument.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