home
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Reinstalled Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd recently announced his Papua New Guinea or "PNG Solution" in an effort to halt the escalating number of unauthorized boat arrivals of asylum seekers to Australia shores.
Under his plan, all asylum seekers arriving by boat would be transferred to PNG for "processing"
and no asylum seeker coming by boat would ever obtain permanent
resettlement in Australia, even if they were subsequently found to be a
genuine refugee.
With an election due
sometime before late November, the perception that Australia has lost
control of its borders is the primary issue in a handful of marginal
seats that will decide the election.
Rudd is attempting to
break the people smuggling business model by removing the possibility
that one can arrive by boat seeking asylum and eventually win
resettlement in Australia. Despite the deliberately harsh rhetoric about
the PNG Solution that is designed to deter boat arrivals, Rudd's plan
will not be as effective as might first appear.
Conservative leader Tony
Abbott has derided the PNG Solution as a flimsy two page-agreement "held
together by sticky tape and Blu-Tack." Abbott has an obvious interest
in doing so. But he is correct. Like all effective policies, the devil
is in the detail. In this case, the lack of detail for such an important
policy announcement is astounding.
Can PNG absorb all Australia's boat arrivals?
First, there are serious
doubts that PNG has the capacity to absorb the number of asylum seekers
that will try to make it to Australia, even if there is an initial
deterrent effect following the weekend announcement. Authorities at
PNG's Manus Island Detention Centre, the primary location for processing
Australia-bound boat people, openly admit that current facilities can
only house around 300 people. Given that around 3,500 asylum seekers
have been arriving each month since 2013, even a dramatic slowdown would
overburden the Manus Island facilities.
PNG leader Prime
Minister Peter O'Neill has indicated that the country could take in some
3,000 asylum seekers for processing, although no firm ceiling has been
put on the ultimate number. O'Neill has only indicated that the numbers
of asylum seekers that PNG is prepared to take will depend on the
country's capacity to do so. Although temporary tent shelters can be
built within weeks to accommodate around 600 people, PNG officials have
also indicated that permanent facilities to accommodate the 3,000 people
will take two years to construct.
Left unanswered is where
Australian authorities -- who bear responsibility for the asylum
seekers at all stages -- would send surplus asylum seekers for
processing if PNG facilities could no longer cope, as is likely to be
the case. Due to a 2011 High Court decision which invalidated the
"Malaysia Solution" proposed by previous Labor leader Julia Gillard,
Canberra cannot legally send Australia-bound asylum seekers to countries
that are not signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
and the 1967 Protocol. As PNG and the Philippines are the only
signatories among Australia's neighbors, the suspicion is that
Australia-bound boat people who cannot be processed by PNG will have to
be processed under Australian jurisdiction and resettled in the country
if found to be refugees -- which is precisely why growing numbers of
boat people are arriving in the first place.
If so, Rudd's threat
that no asylum seeker arriving by boat will ever gain entry into
Australia will be demonstrated to be hollow -- which will likely
encourage even more asylum seekers to pay smugglers in an attempt to
gain Australian entry.
Concerns about "culture clash"
Second, O'Neill has
stated that PNG will only resettle asylum seekers who have been found to
be genuine refugees. Several questions arise at this point. Over half of all asylum seekers
have been found to be genuine refugees upon arriving in Australia, with
the number rising to above 90% after going through the Australian
judicial appeals process.
There is already strong
political and social opposition in PNG to resettling refugees in what is
still a vastly undeveloped country. Given PNG's hitherto absent role in
accepting refugees, many in the country express concern about an
imminent "culture clash" in the event of a refugee influx, while many
have openly hostile attitudes towards Muslim immigrants who would
comprise the majority of Australia-bound asylum seekers. This will only
restrict the numbers of refugees that PNG would in reality accept,
increasing the chances that they will be resettled in Australia.
Moreover, O'Neill has
stated categorically that PNG will not allow those asylum seekers who
are subsequently found not to be genuine refugees to remain in the
country. Given that all Australia-bound asylum seekers remain
Australia's responsibility even if they are processed in PNG under
Rudd's PNG Solution, those rejected automatically remain "Australia's
problem" and under Canberra's duty of care. Once again, Canberra would
have few options available besides transferring them to Australian
facilities.
Third, the PNG Solution
is subject to renewal each year, meaning that there will be immense
annual pressure on Port Moresby to annul what is an extremely unpopular
agreement. Although Australia will bear all of the costs for the PNG
Solution, the plan has not been "costed" meaning that Australians are
likely to recoil when the true ongoing expense of the proposal becomes
clear.
Despite all this, we need to remember that this policy is forged in the midst of an election campaign.
Rudd only needs the PNG
Solution to "stop the boats" for a few weeks in order to somewhat
cynically portray the initiative as an ingenious plan. Short term
success in stemming boat arrivals is all Rudd needs, which is just as
well -- because this is all the PNG Solution is likely to achieve.
Home
