Australia's refugee policy has always been calculating

This proposal may sound anachronistic at a time when it seems to be increasingly difficult to distinguish between refugees and economic migrants. This difficulty, however, has not arisen because migrants now routinely masquerade as refugees but because people are increasingly forced to leave their homes for reasons that include those listed in Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, namely the "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion", and others. They may even include reasons that could, somewhat inaccurately, be described as "economic". By establishing an agency responsible for refugee assistance, the government would acknowledge that it has a responsibility towards people who are forced to emigrate because the push factor (forced displacement) far outweighs the pull factor (the attractiveness of prospective resettlement countries), and that this responsibility is not circumscribed by the requirements of Australia’s immigration program.

Australia does not have a well-established tradition of offering a place of refuge out of a sense of responsibility as a global citizen or for compassionate reasons. The lack of this tradition is also reflected in arguments used today to convince public opinion that Australia should be more generous towards asylum seekers and refugees. These arguments say that asylum seekers and refugees alleviate labour shortages, work hard, revitalise regional communities, and, more generally, make good citizens. It may be strategically useful to point all that out. But should these arguments matter? Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, and has a moral obligation to do far more to assist refugees than it does at the moment. This assistance ought to include the offer of permanent resettlement for people in need of such resettlement. Whether or not refugees constitute also a "migration gain", and whether or not Australia’s assistance would entail benefits that outweigh its costs, should not enter the equation.

The failure to take sides and speak up may have long-term personal consequences for us. I say this as somebody who grew up in Germany, in a society where the failure of so many to speak up when it mattered later had disastrous consequences for how citizens were able to relate to each other and could identify as members of a community bound by language and culture and history.

But I would like to end on a positive note. The Howard government’s hardline approach to refugees is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the willingness of many ordinary Australians in the last few years to assist refugees and asylum seekers – to the extent that some of them are risking a hefty prison sentence by harbouring escapees from Australian detention centres. They consider it their personal duty – as well as their government's – to assist fellow humans in distress, regardless of whether or not they are fellow citizens. Admittedly, the issue of the precise rationale for, and desirable extent of, Australia’s humanitarian commitment and responsibility is so difficult as to be intimidating. But the issue of an individual’s responsibility as a citizen of a globalised world is comparatively straightforward. In the last instance, it is, I believe, also the more important one.