#ausvotes

Greens Asylum Seeker Policy

• Summary

  The Greens are the only party who want to absorb the small number of genuine asylum seekers that seek refuge from persecution in Australia. Both the ALP & LNP in their view have historically engaged in implicit and complicit aversion toward accepting these suffering and displaced human beings. With 95% of asylum seekers found to be genuine and the support of the United Nations Refugees Convention, the Greens insist that we honour the Australian tradition of tolerance and a fair go.

  
  

  More

  The Greens disapprove of the long standing bipartisanship in Australia over the use of asylum seekers and refugees as political lures, incensing and polarising the electorate. Suffering individuals have for too long been treated as scapegoats and as a means to achieve the ends of political gain. The Greens adopt a compassionate policy toward asylum seekers, who in their view ought to be treated humanely and have their needs for protection assessed within Australian jurisdiction on the mainland. They should not be relocated to another country in some kind of morbid Guantanamo Bay rendition. On the contrary, the Greens find that individuals suffering persecution have every right to seek asylum under principles of International Law, and they abhor the provocation that the major parties have brought to the issue. In their view the ALP and the LNP are engaged in a race to the bottom as far as the subject of asylum seekers is concerned.

  
  

  Inflammatory comments by both the Coalition and the government insisting that asylum seekers are illegal aliens are unconscionable. The Greens feel that Australia ought to address the matter domestically instead of passing the problem elsewhere. While asylum seekers need to be processed within Australia, the Greens also call on the government to encourage Indonesia and Malaysia to sign the United Nations Refugees Convention and support Asian Pacific cooperation signatories.

  
  

  The Greens demand that Australia recognise that seeking asylum from persecution is in no way illegal. In order to safeguard the interests of children in particular, asylum seeker policy ought not to deter individuals suffering persecution from seeking asylum. Apart from the fact that seeking asylum is absolutely lawful under International Law, in 2009 alone 50 000 ordinary visitors to Australia overstayed their visas. On the contrary, it is these people in fact who have breached the law – not asylum seekers.

  
  

  Statistics reveal that 95% of asylum seekers when processed are found to be genuine refugees, and yet the total number of refugees in Australia represents less than 1.5% of our entire immigration program. If queue jumping is an issue, it is hardly discernible within the sheer multitude of applications. In 2009 for example, Australia’s immigration actually dropped by 25% due to the Global Financial Crisis and still we accepted 250 000 immigrants with a mere 3441 asylum seekers being given refuge; at this rate Julian Burnside QC contends, that the Melbourne Cricket Ground would take 20 years to populate to its capacity. Considering that 12 000 asylum seekers were processed in 2000, and another 12 000 processed in 2001, certainly, the prospect of Australia increasing the number of refugees she accepts each year is sustainable.

  
  

  Australia accepts only 1% of the world’s refugees, the large majority of which at present hail from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. The Greens recognise that fleeing one’s homeland is not a venture executed in a planned and orderly fashion providing for contingencies along the way, and disapprove of the demands placed upon refugees to produce specific documentation to the exclusion of all other evidentiary justification. The Greens oppose the Coalitions Temporary Protection Visa’s as this practice divides families and induces excluded family members to take life threatening risks in attempts to reunite with loved ones. Still, a fair system must be developed to identify genuine refugees who have a right to our protection. These we ought to welcome for historically they have proven to be excellent citizens. Those processed and found not to be genuinely fleeing persecution ought to be returned home in safety and not be simply turned back in the diabolical vessels they have arrived in under atrocious conditions. Relying on remoteness of damage as absolution is a relic of the Howard government’s refusal to make The Apology to Indigenous people

  
  

  Suspending the procession of applications to deter an influx of asylum seekers is profoundly cruel. In particular, the recent suspension of Afghani applications based on a review of improving conditions in Afghanistan is controversial and clearly contradicts the government’s parallel commitment to maintain troops within Afghanistan. When the UN has yet to alter its perception of Afghanistan, and when Australian soldiers are risking their lives there to rid Afghanistan of Taliban occupation, it seems anomalous to avoid processing their asylum seekers in order to deter an influx.

  
  

  The government’s failed attempts to reach a solution by imposing the burden of asylum seekers upon East Timor is insensitive to the delicate state of the East Timorese economy and social structure. Ironical as it may seem, the former Member of Higgins’ brother, Mr. Tim Costello, Executive for World Vision, has indicated that a processing centre in East Timor would be nothing short of detrimental to a developing country that has a frail and recovering society as it is. She simply cannot afford to settle asylum seekers. To impose these known consequences upon East Timor, when Australia is fully equipped to address the issue domestically is unjust. Australia cannot relieve itself of her responsibility to ensure asylum seekers are treated humanely and with respect. While Australia is the wealthiest in the region, East Timor is the poorest. We need to absorb those in need of refuge; we cannot dispel the problem by burdening another country into providing a solution. In any event, the cost of processing on our mainland is far cheaper than that of building infrastructure elsewhere in places such as Nauru. Nauru is not a signatory to the Refugees Convention and the infrastructure built by the Howard government will need approval from the United Nations. Considering the UN was critical of Howards Pacific Solution in Nauru, she seems an unlikely alternative that in any event, would require expense.

  
  

  The Greens notice that both the ALP and the Coalition have an established history of unproductive initiatives when resolving the issue of asylum seekers. The enduring nature of this practice suggests that it may well be intentional; discussing the prospect of a processing centre with only those not interested in the proposition, appears to be incongruent with achieving results.

  
  

  The Greens represent that Australian tradition of tolerance and acceptance. Most Australians whether hailing from arrival on the First Fleet or subsequently, have families that have settled here under precisely the same conditions. Over the years we have developed a larrikin personality that befriends strangers and judges them on their individual merits. If it is not enough that we are a leader in the Asian Pacific Region, we have an obligation under International law to discharge our responsibilities to asylum seekers humanely. Originally a nation of convicts, it appears trite that we now tar asylum seekers with the brush of mistrust and exclusive policy.