Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

Some of these statements are incorrect or incomplete in a way that might hinder the casual reader.

The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their countries of origin any time they choose. But all of the members of those families claim to have fled their countries of origin because they face a real risk of persecution or significant harm in those countries, and they claim not to wish to return because of that risk. It is not possible to assert whether the members of those families are or are not refugees until their claims have been processed. Papua New Guinea found at least 56% of claimants to be refugees in need of protection[1], and is still processing some claims. As at 8 October 2015, Nauru had found 75% of claimants to be refugees in need of protection.[2] Nauru has not finished processing the balance of the claims.

While those on Nauru are technically free to participate in the Nauruan community (and the article does not assert otherwise)—in the sense that they can now leave the detention compound and wander around the island—they have no rights other than those granted to them by virtue of their "regional processing centre" visas (which are granted upon being transferred to Nauru from Australia). Nauruan law requires that asylum seekers be provided with, amongst other things, adequate food, clean and sufficient clothing, and access to medical facilities,[3] all of which in practice can only be obtained at the regional processing centre (funded by Australia). They are not allowed to take food or water with them and they are subject to searches upon entry and exit. Until 5 October 2015, it was a condition of the RPC visa that the visa holder reside at the centre and not leave the centre without approval. Most of the asylum seekers on Nauru never consented to being taken to Nauru or being detained in those circumstances. The condition was lifted when the High Court of Australia heard a challenge to the legality of Australia's participation in the detention of those at the centre.[4] (Some retrospective laws were passed and the challenge failed.)

It is true that the measures taken by the Australian government to provide for offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea have deterred people from taking a perilous voyage to Australia by boat, whether to claim protection or otherwise. It is true that deaths at sea have reduced from several hundred a few years ago to almost nil.

The controversy behind these laws is whether that end is sufficient to justify the means, namely, Australia's involvement in bringing about the circumstances in which asylum seekers now find themselves on Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

It is not correct to say that "the only people who have been harmed are those that have self-harmed". Independent bodies have conducted their own investigations and found that many asylum seekers who have not self-harmed are suffering from inhuman and degrading treatment in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.[5] There are many other credible and significant reports of harm.

It is an oversimplification to say that "[t]he laws have broad support amongst Australian voters". The policy is divisive, complicated, and there are many different views about its merits.

Many refugee advocates who are qualified as Australian lawyers choose to act for some of these people on a pro bono basis and do not "prosper" from it. In some instances, where an Australian court finds that the Australian government has engaged in unlawful conduct in relation to a particular matter, the court may order the Australian government to pay costs. There are vanishingly few other instances in which any lawyer for a refugee would receive any money or material benefit.

While it is true that Australia "maintains a sizeable immigrant intake", that has nothing to do with Australia's humanitarian or refugee intake, which is treated separately to its migration program. The intake for the migration program has been at about 190,000 for the past few years, whereas the humanitarian intake is typically about 12,000 (or about 6% of the migration program).[6] The refuge offered to an additional 12,000 Syrian refugees last year is commendable.[7] The fact that the United States may not have done the same is not to the point.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/08/png-of...

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/nauru-backtracks-on-vo...

[3] Asylum Seekers (Regional Processing Centre) Act 2012 (Nauru), s 6(1).

[4] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/1.html

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/09/un-rep...

[6] http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...

[7] https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Refu/response-syrian-humanita...

Are you Andrew Bolt?

Hear Hear... these bloody Americans I tell you. Here they are getting ready to elect the Wall Builder and still pointing the finger...

They call them refugees but a big point of contention is often they migrate half way across the world and pay for a people smuggler, when 25000 genuine refugees were accepted that didn't try to push their way in. This leaves a black mark against your name and takes away the chance from a genuine refugee that couldn't afford to migrate and pay a smuggler to get asylum.

Can we take more? probably.

Should we let people that can afford to migrate to Indonesia and pay a people smugger to jump the queue get preference? Hell no.