ASYLUM SEEKERS -- A PROBLEM THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY

The depressing news, for me at least, was yesterday’s headline in The Australian: Labor Asylum Solution Swamped. The infrastructure of Nauru and Manus Island proved to be inadequate to cope with the huge influx of boat people, 7829 people since August of this year. Mr Bowen’s proposal to grant them bridging visas, as a substitute for offshore processing, is clearly fraught with danger; they will not be allowed to work, they will be given a subsistence allowance and some help with accommodation almost certainly in or around capital cities. We can expect boredom, resentment, and a growing pool of people who, out of desperation and poverty, will be drawn to illicit activities. There will be a veritable storm of protest, criticism and accusations. Eventually the government will cave in. The overwhelming majority of the asylum seekers will be given permanent visas to remain in Australia. 

The reaction from the opposition leader was true to form: destructive criticism without offering an alternative. But at least there was a promise of one. I can’t wait. And then there is the gaggle of geese known as the Greens. They invariably occupy the moral high ground. The very, very high ground. Its a bloody wonder that they don’t develop a collective nose bleed.  They sure as hell have little to offer other than a stream of moral platitudes. And this they can afford to do because they only need some 10% of the votes to retain their Senate seats and thus remain on the gravy train.  

Australia is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as are 136 other countries, of which only 9 countries participate in accepting and resettling refugees. Australia is one of these countries, and has agreed recently to increase the intake quota to 20,000 per annum. In relation to our overall population, it is a generous offer. I understand that NZ, for example, takes in 750 per annum. However, if we were to limit our intake to this number, and the current trend of some 8000 boat people arriving here each quarter continues, then we can safely predict that most of the refugees in the camps, who patiently await their turn to come to Australia, will continue to wait indefinitely.

If I am to be permitted a short aside: I have two friends, both retired academics. Some time ago we decided that periodically we will take a car trip to somewhere remote in Australia, eat counter lunches and drink cheap, but hopefully palatable wine. The main aim of the trip, however, was to solve the problems of the world. Which we do.  However, it should be added that we labour at a disadvantage of an extremely limited audience. In fact even our children show little or no enthusiasm for the array of remedies that we come up with designed to cure anything from global warming to the Middle East conflict.

Several years ago we visited the Snowy River project, a magnificent site which brought back some warm and emotional memories to me, especially when we visited a tiny little place called Brandy Mary marked only by a grave stone. The project itself was perhaps the largest single such undertaking by the Commonwealth government which brought thousands of refugees from war torn Europe to work on the scheme. It was a good project that brought this country much benefit, including a wave of migration that made tangible and significant contribution to this country and who overwhelmingly were proud of taking part in this historic construction.

This year we began our journey in Mount Isa, with my friends making their way from Armidale and Brisbane. We went north west to Northern Territory, crisscrossing our way to Katherine, Darwin, and then into north Queensland and eventually back to Mount Isa.  And everywhere we went we saw vast tracks of land, largely uninhabited.  As we travelled through towns and mining communities the lament we heard was that there was not enough people living in these places or willing to work there. Everywhere we stopped we were were serviced by young men and women on working holidays in Australia. Moreover, we saw traces of previous migrations: Chinese who grew vegetables and Afghanis who pioneered the transport system.  Bob Katter is right: numerous projects of local significance could be started that would have a fast and meaningful impact on the local communities – dams, irrigation, roads, bridges, land clearing etc.  All three of us agreed that here was an opportunity to make good use of the people who wish to settle here.

What I am driving at is this: Australia has a legal and even a moral obligation to provide sanctuary to refugees. However, there is nothing wrong, I feel, in asking for something in return; a right of passage if you will. Small projects, Commonwealth funded, that would be of immediate and profound significance to the local area; mining communities that are short of labour; stations and properties that need labour and cannot source it.   Two, perhaps three years of work in the remote parts of Australia, and then they are free to go wherever they chose. And I wager that some will stay. A similar programme has been in place, very successfully, in the medical profession. Doctors with recognised qualifications, many from the Indian subcontinent, are invited to come to Australia and work in areas of need for a period of time, which I understand to be 10 years. Then they are free to take up positions of their choice. There is no shortage of candidates, which, by the way, are extremely well paid.

Thus, perhaps naively, my solution is a quid pro quo one: Australia will provide you a sanctuary and you, in turn, will, for a period of time, work in remote rural areas. For many of the asylum seekers this would not be such a burden: many come from isolated rural communities in their own country. 

As it stands, the latest wave of migration has been less than satisfactory. The percentage of unemployed 5 years after coming here remains high. They tend to settle in urban areas and they compete in a job market for which they are not qualified. They settle close to each other making for slow integration and development of enclaves, which may or may not be a good thing. In view of what has been outlined here, perhaps, just perhaps, this suggestion, which is by no means original, may be of merit.

Finally, I would like to end this item with a comment on another item on the front page of The Australian: a certain former Iraqi asylum seeker, now residing in Australia, states that the new rules are cruel. He came here on a boat in 1999, laboured under the temporary visa arrangement, left Australia for Iraq to visit his ailing wife, and would have remained in Iraq if not for the fact that he made friends with Australian soldiers and was thus labelled as a collaborator. We learn all this through an interpreter, the services of which he no doubt had when fraternising with our troops back in the old country. Threatened once again, he made an arduous return journey back to Australia, via three intermediate countries, and a stint on Christmas Island. He is now here for good, lamenting the hard times he had. Well my friend, in the six years you been here you could have made an effort to learn English and you did not. Your lament that you have lost 6 years of your life while waiting for your family in Australia is spurious. You are alive and so is your family. And nowhere in the interview did I hear a word of gratitude for being accepted into this country. His journey back to Australia took him through Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia – countries populated by his co-religionists. Not one of these countries offered him a safe haven, nor did Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Qatar, perhaps because they are not signatories to the Refugee Convention.

Work can be found in Australia. Migrants interested and committed to staying in Australia, educating their children and building a future here, find jobs.  And then there are those who are content to stay on the
dole.