Should the government set aside a few thousand places in Australia's annual refugee intake to be sold to the highest bidders?
Such a suggestion probably seems outrageous, a heartless sacrifice of human concerns on the altar of economic rationalism and the free market. But it is not so different from the current situation, where Australia faces what amounts to an illicit market in refugee places.
People claiming to be refugees are paying crime syndicates to bring them to Australia illegally, and to instruct them in the most effective ways of taking advantage of our comparatively liberal immigration and welfare programs. As there are only a fixed number of refugee places available, wealthy asylum-seekers are displacing those in genuine need who are too poor -- or maybe too scrupulous -- to jump the queue.
Reports suggest that illegal immigrants are willing to pay as much as $45,000 to the criminals who are transporting them to Australia. It is true that some of these people may actually meet the United Nations definition of a refugee, having a well-founded fear of being persecuted in their own countries because of their political opinions, ethnicity, social group or religion.
But it is also certain that many of the illegal entrants are simply attempting to get around Australia's migration requirements by falsely stating that they are escaping from persecution. Some do not even come from the countries they claim to be fleeing, and destroy their passports and other documents in the hope of preventing authorities from discovering the identity of their true homeland.
Others are "forum shoppers". These are people who qualify as refugees, but who have residency rights in another country which, while offering them a safe haven, is not a place where they wish to remain, because the economic or social conditions are not sufficiently to their liking.
Despite the heavy penalties Australian law lays down for people smugglers -- up to 20 years in prison and fines of $220,000, as well as confiscation of their boats -- it is a growing racket, as lucrative as drug trafficking, but with much less risk. And as experience with the narcotics trade around the world has clearly shown, the threat of life imprisonment or even capital punishment is not enough to deter criminal gangs who stand to make millions of dollars on a single deal.
But why should all the money go to foreign crooks? Surely it would be preferable if the large sums that illegal entrants seem ready to pay went into Australian public coffers, where they could help to provide a higher level of post-arrival services so as to integrate needy refugees more effectively into the wider community. The money could even be used to give us a better coastal surveillance system, allowing surfers and fishermen to concentrate on their recreation without having to double as guardians of our shores.
It seems reasonable to expect that were the government to put them on the market, refugee places would fetch as least as much as the criminal syndicates are now charging, perhaps considerably more. Auctioning, say, 2,500 places a year at an average of $40,000 each would bring in $100 million.
Those who were able to purchase places would obtain a comfortable risk-free trip to Australia, secure in the knowledge that on arrival they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and treated as though they might actually be genuine refugees. Such a scheme would cut much of the ground from under the illegal people-traffickers by siphoning off their most lucrative potential customers. It might even serve to allay at least some of the opposition to immigration by cutting its costs to the Australian taxpayer.
Another major benefit would be that the successful bidders could commence their new lives in Australia without first breaking our immigration laws. Given that many of the desirable aspects of our way of life depend on a widespread respect for the rule of law, new arrivals should not gain the impression that Australia condones -- and even rewards -- illegal behaviour and rorting. This would be a further step towards reducing public disquiet about immigration.
So although a government-run market in refugee places would clearly disadvantage the poor, it would still be morally and practically superior to the current illicit market, which is just as discriminatory. Nevertheless, such a scheme is never likely to be adopted. It would cause apoplexy amongst the soft-hearted spokespeople for the Uniting Church, the Australian Democrats, and all the other self-appointed keepers of the nation's conscience.
Yet these same groups are bitterly attacking the Federal Government which, with somewhat reluctant Labor support, is attempting to make Australia less of a soft touch, and so reduce the "pull factor" which sustains the illicit market.
Certainly, it is valid to question whether or not the government's measures will actually work. While I believe we should maintain a generous immigration and refugee program -- though one that gives due consideration to social harmony and the national interest -- I think the real problem with the recent moves against illegal entrants is that they may not do enough to undermine the "pull factor".
It is fanciful to suppose that diplomatic moves and stronger actions against people smugglers will make much of an impact on the illicit trade in asylum-seekers, without correspondingly tough measures designed to make Australia far less attractive to would-be illegal immigrants. And given the nature of the problem, it is also wrong to think that such tough measures are somehow unfair or unjust.
Unless they realise this, the caring advocates from the refugee lobby will only be manifesting a failing they share with many of their kind -- so preoccupied with displaying their tender hearts that they ignore the need to develop hard heads that might offer genuinely equitable and effective solutions to difficult social problems.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment