Although the Federal Government has yet to set a date for this year’s federal poll, it isn’t difficult to tell that we are entering the fourth month of an election year. How? By the at times utterly inexplicable preoccupation with so-called “boat people” both as a subject for political debate and as a topic addressed by the media. Even the supposedly venerable Sydney Morning Herald succumbed to temptation, publishing what by any objective account ought to be considered fairly bland figures on recent boat arrivals as front page news.

The figure of just over 6000 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by sea in 2009. Although this is about a 30% increase on the figures from a year earlier, the argument that this number pales in significance compared to foreigners who simply outstay their visas after arriving in Australia by plane has been gaining considerable traction in recent months. Some would argue that the fact that the bulk of this latter category is in all probability constituted by Britons and New-Zealanders alleviates the xenophobia that underlies many Australians’ concerns about boat arrivals. Others – mainly those of the other end of the political spectrum to defenders of refugee rights on the left – will point out that people arriving through the nations’ airports are at least subjected to relatively extensive security screening. Clearly the former argument, whilst not necessarily being entirely inaccurate, is cynical, and the latter is simplistic, as if concern over irregular arrivals is founded upon the risk of inadvertently accepting criminals and terrorists, it is clear that standard visa checks and airport security are far from infallible in protecting against this eventuality. In any event, it is quite clear that the issue of “boat people” receives disproportionate coverage in the media, occupies an excessive place in Australian political debate, resulting in (or perhaps from) an inaccurate appraisal of the gravity of the matter in the voters’ minds.

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers arriving by sea are granted refugee status and resettled in Australia. As I have pointed out before on this blog and elsewhere, it is little short of preposterous to associate less repressive immigration detention and administration policies as a major factor in determining the number of boat arrivals. This is not only because there is outwardly little appreciable difference between the policies of the current Labor government and the former Howard Liberal government, but because most people’s idea of “getting tough” on border protection seems to focus on cracking down on the asylum seekers themselves, rather than the often opportunistic smugglers who agree to ferry them from overseas destinations – primarily Indonesia – towards Australia. However, it should be noted that even this argument is over-simplistic, as the people smugglers so often denigrated by Australians political figures are overwhelmingly poor Indonesian fisherman who struggle to make a living from their original calling in the face of widespread depletion of fish stocks in the region’s oceans. Nonetheless, it is certainly far more plausible to argue that these often destitute people smugglers are more likely to be receptive to “dissuasive” border protection measures than the asylum seekers themselves. It is absurd to argue that people would voluntarily subject themselves to several days or weeks in absolute squalor, at great risk to their health and safety, merely in order to cynically abuse Australia’s legal immigration channels. It is for this reason that the only useful purpose of the term “queue-jumper” in relation to the asylum seeker debate (slanted as it is towards the relatively small numbers of “boat people”) is to flag a great deal of ignorance and insensitivity on the part of those who utter it.

Furthermore, it is either poor judgement or simply disingenuous to simply amalgamate the debates on boat people and immigration as a whole. It is quite impossible to discuss the aims, problems and realities of regular immigration (related mainly to filling skills shortages in critical sectors of the economy) and those underlying illegal immigration and refugees. The latter rarely inhabit the same world as the former – in both literal and figurative terms – and so it is silly to bind together policy approaches to both. This is particularly true given that Australia’s high rate of immigration will become increasingly relevant to the debate on environmental and housing issues in coming years, whereas our obligations to refugees – many of whom are escaping overseas conflicts in which Australia is directly implicated – form part of our status as a responsible member of the global community. The issues underlying these two loosely related but nonetheless very distinct policy areas are fundamentally incompatible, meaning we must be careful to avoid considering them as the one and the same. This is yet another reason the term “queue-jumper” is as silly as it is irrelevant. Put simply, potential refugees – particularly those destitute and desperate enough to risk coming to Australia by boat – must not be considered as competing with economic migrants for the right to settle here.

The word from the relevant United Nations agencies – those that deal with refugees and asylum seekers around the world, such as the UNHCR – is that global irregular migration patterns are primarily influenced by factors in the country of origin. Indeed, international agencies and NGOs alike consistently argue that this is by far the greatest factor behind illegal immigration. On the surface, this is pretty evident. When was the last time we saw Europeans, Japanese or Americans claiming political asylum? But even in less broad terms, there is a strong logic to support this view. Recent intense conflict in Sri Lanka, political turmoil in Iran and ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are fuelling the current waves of arrivals. This simple fact may give us a hint of what will no doubt for some be an uncomfortable truth: illegal immigration is just one of numerous global issues that can only be fundamentally tackled through development aid and international cooperation. For the reasons examined above, simply cracking down at the very final stage of the global refugee production process – in other words enacting “tougher” border protection policies in Australia – is likely to have little or no effect on overall trends to which Australia is subjected.

This means that the boat people debate that holds so much sway in political and media circles in this country is fundamentally misguided. No doubt balking at the true scope of action required to tackle irregular immigration, the main political parties only tinker at the edges. The main culprits are the Liberals, who prefer to focus on the most vulnerable actors – the refugees themselves. Labor tends to see a slightly bigger picture – with the main focus being on the smuggling networks who feed the stream of boats arriving in Australian waters, despite the fact that many of those apprehended are no more conniving criminals than the wretched asylum seekers they harbour, often out of basic financial necessity.

The Australian public needs to be educated to accept that while conflict rages in vulnerable regions of the globe, demand for asylum in Australia and elsewhere will remain. It is unconscionable to actively participate in such conflicts – regardless of the justifications advanced for doing so – while inhumanely treating the poor and desperate that these wars inevitably produce. Clearly adequate checks need to remain in place in order to manage refugee intake and assess what course of action is in the best interests of both asylum seekers and Australia. However the hollow mantra of the “deterrent effect” espoused by the Liberals, and to a lesser extent by the ALP, should be recognised for what it undoubtedly is – an illusion, meaning that there is no plausible justification for processing illicit arrivals offshore as opposed to in mainland facilities that are many times cheaper to maintain.

But most of all, this issue must cease to be a political football exploited for electoral advantage and must be treated with an appropriate dose of perspective.

Advertisement