Stop boats, save migration
Australian Financial Review
Monday November 16, 2009
Emotion clouds the issue of the genuine status of the Tamils on board the Oceanic Viking, writes Michael Baume.It is one of the Rudd government's major mistakes that must be corrected before it does significant damage at next year's federal election. Firing salvoes of impassioned rhetoric at people smugglers is no substitute for the Howard government's successful border-protection measures - the dismantling of which has led to a flood of boats bringing illegal immigrants. There can be no escaping this as an election issue now that Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has promised to toughen up the government's leaking border-protection policy by restoring successful Howard principles such as temporary protection visas and maintaining offshore processing.The farce over the Sri Lankans refusing to disembark from the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking and the 50-odd boats that have followed Kevin Rudd's foolish dismissal of advice against appearing to soften John Howard's strong stance will be followed by chaos unless there is a significant about-face. There can be no escaping the reality that the Howard measures stopped the boats and the Rudd softening encouraged them. The empty excuses about new "push" factors from overseas rather than the "pull" of Australia's changed policies simply don't stand up. For example, the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking did not just flee Sri Lanka after the end of the civil war - they have been in camps in Indonesia for some years. The incentive to go to sea was the changed perception of Australia's stance; using this illegal, costly and life-threatening back-door entry has been promoted as a sure way to become a permanent resident of Australia. The extraordinary concessions offered to the Oceanic Viking's unwelcome passengers confirm this disastrous impression. Turnbull's proposal to reinstate Howard's temporary protection visas, and the prospect of repatriation if conditions improve sufficiently, would provide a strong disincentive.No matter how much Australians can properly sympathise with the Sri Lankans (and their photogenic and appealing children), the fact is that they are not asylum seekers. Many may end up classified as refugees and there is no doubt that the Sinhalese majority has a dreadful record in dealing with the 13 per cent of the population who are Tamils (and who were the well-educated elite bureaucrats under the British but began to suffer after independence in 1948). The emotive implications of the words "asylum seekers" clouds the reality of their genuine status. Like all but a few of the displaced people trying to enter Australia without the lawful permission required by all nations, the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking had, by the time they arrived in Indonesia or other nations in transit, already escaped from an environment where their lives may have been at risk. It was after they reached asylum that they attempted illegally to move to a more comfortable nation, demanding the right to enter their "asylum of choice", whether they were welcome or not.As several commentators have noted, the Howard government's tough border-protection policy (in which stopping the boats was a powerful symbol of effectiveness) was a key factor in its ability to have the largest immigration program since the postwar years without generating the sort of major internal problems that could well have emerged in a nation where one in four Australians was born overseas. It is questionable whether this success can continue without a restoration of tougher border-protection measures . It is true that unauthorised boat arrivals represent only a small proportion of illegal immigrants, but those who make up the majority by overstaying their visas have at least entered legally and passed basic tests, particularly for criminality. They represent a far lower potential risk than boatloads of Sri Lankans arriving after a war in which terrorism was significant.This is the context in which Turnbull has undertaken to restore the image of Australia as tough on border protection. But instead of this generating rational discussion of how Australia's best interests and humanitarian obligations can best be satisfied, the inevitable response will be accusations of redneck xenophobia. Australians with genuine concerns about refugees should focus on the best way to deal with the 11 million people acknowledged as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees rather than put at risk the border security that has underpinned its successes as the world's most migrant-oriented nation and one of its greatest resettlers of refugees.-Michael Baume is a former Liberal MP and a former investment editor of The Australian Financial Review.
© 2009 Australian Financial Review
Share This