Asylum backflip about political expediency: CSU experts

15 AUGUST 2012

The federal government accepting all 22 recommendations of the expert panel on asylum-seeker policy is a pragmatic political compromise that could have been reached some years ago, says a CSU political scientist.

The federal government accepting all 22 recommendations of the expert panel on asylum-seeker policy is a pragmatic political compromise that could have been reached some years ago, says a Charles Sturt University (CSU) political scientist.
 
Dr Dominic O’Sullivan, a lecturer with CSU’s School of Humanities and Social Sciences, said there were no complicated proposals or deep political principles motivating the government and opposition’s decisions in the current compromise.
 
“Politically, there is short term mileage for the opposition in having the government back-down over off-shore processing. But in the longer term, if the policy reduces boat arrivals, the government may benefit by having the issue off the political agenda by the time the election campaign begins next year.”
 
However, Dr O’Sullivan also noted that political principle remains absent from the debate.
 
“Neither the government nor the opposition is particularly interested in a principled debate over the nature of Australia’s humanitarian obligations.”
 
He suggested that a debate based on political principles might have seen a policy solution reached much sooner.
 
CSU justice studies academic, Ms Alison Gerard believes the portrayal of refugees who arrive on boats as “illegal” or “criminal” made off-shore processing a more palatable option for the expert panel and the federal government.
 
“However, the government is breaching their international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention by sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island before deciding on their applications for protection,” she said.
 
“Asylum seekers have committed no crime in arriving in Australia by boat. Asylum seekers have largely been forced to land in Australia this way due to our tiny resettlement quotas and strict visa system.
 
“Outsourcing Australia’s obligations to refugees to countries with less geo-political muscle in the region is a dirty game. The policy will lead to legal uncertainty for people easily identifiable as vulnerable, having escaped persecution and violent conflict in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka. This impact of the policy will be felt physically and mentally.
 
“Australia is also setting a dangerous precedent for the international community. The UK has been calling for off-shore processing for some time under the auspices of ‘safe havens’. These would enable the UK to deport asylum seekers to an external processing site to await the restoration of stability in their country of origin. Importantly, these plans set a time limit of six months. Current arrangements before the Australian parliament have no time limit.”

Share this article
share

Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Share by Email Email
Share on LinkedIn Share
Print this page Print

Albury-WodongaBathurstCanberraDubboManlyGoulburnOrangeParramattaPort MacquarieWagga WaggaCharles Sturt UniversityInternationalSociety and Community