The Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock, has ordered a suspension of assessment of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and has ruled out granting visas to about 1600 asylum seekers from East Timor, some of whom arrived up to eight years ago.
Mr Ruddock’s decision has caused consternation among refugees support groups, civil libertarians, migration lawyers and others. It is almost as if the man can do nothing right and that whatever he does must be condemned outright.
This newspaper has been a stern critic of the Government’s mandatory-detention policy and the policy of attempting to divert asylum seekers who arrive in small boats to Pacific islands for processing, rather than bringing them to Australia. Mandatory detention is unnecessary and expensive. Detention in remote camps – particularly of children – for indefinite periods is inhumane. Diverting people to poor Pacific nations is corrupting and unnecessarily expensive.
That Mr Ruddock and the Government are misguided on these questions, however, does not mean they are misguided on every decision they make with respect to asylum seekers. The decisions made this week with respect to Afghan and Timorese asylum seekers make good sense – at least up to a point.
Australia has an important role in accepting refugees – to giving succour to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland because of their political, religious or ethnic affiliation. There are far too many refugees in the world for Australia to take but a very small proportion. So we must be careful in our selection.
It would be foolish and unfair to take anyone who turns up, particularly if they arrive from a country which enjoys diplomatic relations with Australia and which would accept people back if it were found that they did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Sending back people who are not being persecuted, but who just aspire to share in Australia’s higher standard of living would enable Australia to accept more genuine refugees.
When the latest wave of Afghan refugees began arriving, Afghanistan was being ruled by the Taliban. The Government was notorious for persecuting – indeed executing — any who defied it. In these circumstances, Australia should have been more generous, even if the asylum seekers were using people smugglers. Desperate persecuted people use whatever means to escape. Australia should not have shut these 5000 or so people away in remote detention centres.
Like the refugees from Kosovo, they could have been placed in the community until conditions improved. Events have now shown that to have been possible.
Now conditions have changed in Afghanistan, it is obvious that the basis for refugees status for many asylum seekers will fall away. For example, a frequent claim is a fear of young men being drafted into the Army or of belonging to a different ethnic group than the Taliban or having offended some of their religious strictures. It might well be difficult for these people to go home now, but they will be able to once the winter is over.
Similarly, with the Timorese, though there is an argument that the long-staying refugees should stay on humanitarian grounds. If it were otherwise, no refugee would be secure from deportation once conditions in their home country change.
Australia should now start releasing asylum seekers from detention – particularly families with children. This could be done with strict reporting conditions and sponsorship by Australian families or charities. It would be on the clear understanding that as winter in Afghanistan ends, the likelihood would be that they would be sent home.
Australia’s refugee policy should be one of giving refuge against persecution – not a policy of settlement for anyone arrives nor a policy of assuming that anyone who arrives is a threat who must be locked up.