1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. australia and new zealand

1
BORDERED BY LOVE BORDERED BY LOVE.
A Sustainable & Loving Response to the Global Refugee Crisis
Scott Higgins, 2015
A Just Cause is a ministry arm of Australian Baptist Ministries.
This paper represents the position of A Just Cause
and is endorsed by the ABM National Council.
mail@ajustcause.com.au
3
BORDERED BY LOVE INTRODUCTION
The world faces a refugee crisis that is beyond
the capacity of any single nation to resolve. 17
million people are outside their home country
and in need of protection. Two thirds of this
population are in "protracted" situations, which
are defined as populations of 25,000 or more
who have been without a solution for more
than five years. The average length of time is a
staggering 20 years.
These 17 million refugees are in need of durable
solutions, of which there are three:
• voluntarily return home once it becomes
safe for a refugee to do so;
• integration within a country in which a
refugee is hosted;
• the opportunity to resettle in a third
country.
Although collective international action could
provide these solutions, the international
community is failing to provide them at
sufficient scale. Put simply, the demand for
durable solutions overwhelmingly outstrips the
supply. This leaves refugees languishing in
extraordinarily difficult circumstances and
drives many to undertake dangerous journeys to
seek asylum in countries across the world. Until
policy addresses this gap between supply and
demand there will be no resolution to the global
refugee crisis.
Australia’s approach is twofold. On one hand,
we meet some of the demand for durable
solutions by resettling around 11,000 refugees
per annum. On the other hand, Australia
refuses to meet the demand for asylum by those
who travel to our shores by boat. A range of
1
BORDERED BY LOVE punitive measures have been implemented to
ensure asylum seekers are unlikely to cross our
borders and that refuses to ever integrate those
that do.
By restricting the supply of asylum Australia’s
approach does nothing to dampen the demand
for asylum. Although it is often asserted that
stopping the boats has stopped deaths at sea,
the reality is people are still seeking asylum and
still taking dangerous journeys. All that has
changed is the destination.
The long term policy challenge is for the
international community to ensure supply of
durable solutions matches the demand; the
medium term challenge is to achieve this within
our region; and the short term challenge is for
Australia to meet the demand for resettlement
in Australia and asylum in Australia through
thoughtful increases in supply.
The political challenge is to achieve this in an
environment in which the Australian population
is favourably disposed toward resettling
refugees but vehemently opposed to asylum
seekers who seek unauthorised entry to
Australia.
This paper explores the core challenges of the
global refugee crisis, the strengths and
weaknesses of Australia’s current policy
settings, and suggests long term, medium term,
and short term policy settings that will move
Australia toward a position that is more
compassionate, more just and more sustainable,
while recognising the political realities within
which policy must be framed.
THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
In 1960 there were just under 2 million refugees
more than 70% were hosted by just 18
in the world. Today there are more than 12
countries, each of which hosted more than
million under the mandate of the United
200,000. With the exception of the USA and
Nations High Commission For Refugees, 5
France, these countries shared a border with
million under the mandate of the United
nations from which people were fleeing.
Nations Relief And Works Agency For
Palestinian Refugees in the Near East,
MAIN REFUGEE HOST NATIONS END 2013
and 1 million asylum seekers. The
Country
No. refugees1
Human development
status
conditions in which they live, whether in
Pakistan
Low
1,616,507
camps or cities, are difficult and
Iran
High
857,354
dehumanising. In many instances their
Lebanon
High
856,546
freedom of movement is restricted; they
Jordan
High
641,915
are denied work rights; lack access to
Turkey
High
609,938
schools and medical care; can be
Kenya
Low
534,938
arbitrarily detained; experience high levels
Chad
Low
434,479
of violence; and gradually lose hope.
It is estimated that up to two-thirds of
refugees live in protracted situations,
which are defined as groups of 25,000 or
more who have been without durable
solutions for at least five years. The
average length of time for those in
protracted situations is a staggering 20
years.2
Ethiopia
China
United States
Iraq
Yemen
France
Bangladesh
Egypt
South Sudan
Uganda
Venezuela
The world’s refugees need durable
solutions, which can take three forms:
1. Voluntary return home when it becomes
safe to do so;
2. Integration into the life of the country in
which they are hosted;
3. Resettlement in a third country.
Yet rather than equitably sharing responsibility
for providing these, the international
community tolerates a situation in which the
burden of protection is distributed on the basis
of geography. The vast majority of refugees flee
to and are hosted by nations with whom they
share a border. This means a small number of
countries, most of them developing, bear the
bulk of the responsibility for protecting the
world’s refugees. Of the 11.7 million people
under UNHCR mandate who were refugees or
in refugee like situations at the end of 2013,
433,936
301,047
263,662
246,298
241,288
232,487
231,145
230,086
229,587
220,555
204,340
Low
High
Very High
Medium
Low
Very High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
Integration
There are a number of reasons refugees may
not be able to integrate into the life of the
country to which they have fled. Some nations
simply refuse to consider local integration as an
option for refugees. Other nations hosting large
numbers of refugees are chronically
underfunded and struggle to provide for their
needs.
Resettlement
Nor do those nations that have relatively few
refugees offer sufficient places for refugees to
resettle. In any given year the 25 to 30 nations
that have resettlement programs collectively
offer only 80,000–100,000 places. This means
that fewer than 0.5% of the world's refugees
have the option of resettlement. The UNHCR
has identified approximately 800,000 refugees
as most in need of resettlement. Even if just
irregular maritime journeys to Europe, IOM
this number is taken into account, from 2011 to
stated
2013 the number of
places on offer
amounted to just one
REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF MIGRANT
BORDER-RELATED DEATHS
for every 10 refugees in
priority need of resettlement.
Region
Number of Deaths
Years
Asylum Seekers
In the absence of timely
durable solutions it is not
surprising that industrialised
countries are experiencing
increasing flows of asylum
seekers to their borders.
Sahara
1790
1996-2013
USA-Mexico Border
6029
1998-2013
European External Borders
22400
2000-2014
Australian Waters
1495
2000-2014
Horn of Africa
3104
2006-2014
Bay of Bengal
1500-2000
2012-2014
188
2012-2014
Caribbean
One of the consequences is
significant numbers of deaths
among those seeking entry to
countries in which they hope to find protection.
Fatal Journeys, a report by the United Nations
International Office Of Migration, collated data
showing tens of thousands of deaths associated
with attempts at irregular border crossings.
Source: IOM (2014) Fatal Journeys
Those who do manage to reach European shores often
arrive in desperate condition, suffering from thirst,
starvation, exposure and mistreatment. At the mercy of
smugglers and traffickers, many are beaten, raped,
tortured during the journey or tossed overboard simply
for trying to move.3
Death is not the only hazard. Commenting on
Asylum Applications to 44 Industrialised Countries
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
2009
Total Europe (38)
2010
Canada/USA
2011
Australia/New Zealand
Source: UNHCR
3
BORDERED BY LOVE 2012
2013
Japan/Rep. of Korea
AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION SYSTEM
As an island nation geographically removed
from the world's refugee hotspots, Australia
receives relatively few refugees. At the end of
2013 Australia was host to just 0.3% of the
world’s refugees, ie those recognized as
refugees but yet to find a durable solution, and
received just 2% of asylum applications lodged
in industrialised nations.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Resettlement Program
Australia has the second-largest resettlement
program among the 25–30 resettlement nations,
and the largest when considered on a per capita
basis. Historically, offshore resettlement places
have numbered around 6,000 per year out of a
humanitarian program of 13,750. With the
government no longer providing permanent
protection visas to asylum seekers who arrived
by boat 11,000
ASYLUM APPLICATIONS TO INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES
humanitarian places
will be allocated to
Applications to
Applications to
Applications to Australia
resettling refugees
Industrialised
Australia
as % Applications to
from offshore. In
Nations
Industrialised Nations
addition to this, the
334,590
1.0%
3200
number of
302,230
1.2%
3520
humanitarian places
334,460
1.2%
3980
will increase to
377,130
1.3%
4770
16,250 in 2017-18
377,160
1.6%
6170
and 18,750 by 2018360,950
3.5%
12,640
19.4
443,590
11,510
2.6%
2012
488,020
15,790
3.2%
2013
596,660
11,740
2.0%
2014
866,020
8,960
SOURCE: UNHCR
The Refugee Convention, to which Australia is
a signatory, obligates signatories to provide
asylum seekers with protection if their claim to
refugee status is proven and to refrain from
returning them to situations where they may
face persecution. It does not require nations to
offer resettlement to refugees who have fled
their country and are hosted by another nation.
Somewhat ironically, Australia does that which
it is not legally obligated to do - resettles
refugees from overseas - and does not do that
which it is legally obligated to - provide
protection to refugees who arrive by boat
seeking asylum.
Australia has been
extraordinarily
1.0%
successful in
resettling refugees,
most of whom have
gone on to become valued members of our
communities. There is good reason to feel
proud of our achievement. This pride should
however be tempered by the knowledge that
Australia is in a position to operate resettlement
programs precisely because we do not have
large flows of refugees crossing our borders.
We should not make the mistake of thinking
that because we have the second-largest
resettlement program that we are bearing a large
portion of the global responsibility for refugee
protection. The reality is, nine-tenths of the
world's refugees are hosted by developing
countries.
Asylum Seekers
Asylum seekers arrive either by air or by sea,
but public concern and public policy have
focused primarily upon those arriving by boat.
Successive Australian governments have
implemented policies designed to deter boat
arrivals. This began with the introduction of
indefinite mandatory detention under the
Keating government and was escalated by the
Howard government to include the excision of
outer islands from the migration zone, making
it more difficult for asylum seekers to access
Australia’s protection obligations; the
introduction of temporary protection visas;
offshore detention; and turning boats back at
sea. After initially relaxing the deterrence
measures, the Rudd government excised the
entire Australian mainland and determined that
no refugee arriving by boat would be permitted
to settle in Australia. They would be processed
offshore and remain in offshore detention until
offered resettlement elsewhere. The Abbott
government extended this further, announcing
that Australia would not resettle any refugees
from Indonesia who arrived after a certain date,
reintroduced temporary protection visas, and
implemented a policy of disrupting boats from
leaving ports of origin and intercepting and
returning boats that did manage to leave.
Boat arrivals fluctuated throughout this period,
with the reasons for the upward and downward
movements highly contested. Some argue that
pull factors were most significant; others that
push factors were the primary driver. The one
thing that is clear is that it was not until the
introduction of the turn-back policy that the
flow of boats to Australia was effectively halted.
In September 2014 the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection, Scott
Morrison, announced that in the previous 12
months 45 boats had been prevented from
departure from Indonesia, 12 had been
intercepted and turned back and one had
arrived. The aim is to reach a situation where
people smugglers will abandon all efforts to set
out for Australia.
5
BORDERED BY LOVE Four things are, in our view, apparent. First,
Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers has
come at great cost to those seeking asylum,
to our national character, and to our
international reputation.
The deleterious impacts of indefinite mandatory
detention, the slow processing of asylum claims,
the violent and harsh conditions in the offshore
detention centres, the imposition of temporary
protection visas, and the refusal to resettle boat
arrivals are well documented.
It is not only the wellbeing of asylum seekers
that is impacted. Australia has chosen a morally
compromised approach that justifies cruel
treatment of vulnerable individuals. This can
only serve to weaken rather than strengthen our
national character.
Moreover our standing as a global citizen is
being compromised. For example, the Human
Rights Watch 2014 World Report stated
“Australia has a strong record protecting civil
and political rights, but has damaged its record
and its potential to be a regional human rights
leader by persistently undercutting refugee
protections.”5
Second, it is not necessary to treat asylum
seekers harshly in order to stem the flow of
boat arrivals. Arguably, policies that impinged
upon the freedoms of asylum seekers and that
denied them permanent protection in Australia
had some deterrent effect, although there is no
firm evidence to support this conclusion, and
the continuing attempts by asylum seekers to
depart Indonesia means many remain
undeterred. The singularly most successful
policy measure has been that of disruption and
turnback. Since its introduction, only one boat
has made it to Australia. Yet the tensions this
creates with Indonesia, and, in the case of those
who have set out directly from a country of
persecution, the moral repugnance of turning
boats back to the very country asylum seekers
are fleeing, make turnback unsustainable.
Third, the message Australia is sending to
Asylum seeker flows are driven by the lack of
the world is that we have reneged on our
durable solutions available to those fleeing
obligations to asylum seekers and expect
persecution. The failure of the international
others in our region to bear the burden. This
community to provide these leaves refugees
is not sustainable and makes it very difficult for
languishing in dangerous and extraordinarily
Australia to engage in constructive dialogue
difficult circumstances. Dangerous journeys in
around a regional protection system. On Jan 10,
search of asylum are for many the only option.
2014 the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article
By closing its borders to asylum seekers without
outlining the Indonesian government’s angry
addressing the factors driving their journeys
response to the turnback policy.6 Similarly, on
Australia simply pushes them to journey
November 28, 2014, The Australian ran an
somewhere else.
article describing a politically influential
Indonesian Professor arguing that in response
This is borne out in the chart below, which
to Australia's actions Indonesia should shut
shows that the number of asylum applications
7
down its UNHCR processing centres.
being lodged in Australia has declined, yet the
Ironically, Australia’s asylum seeker policies
number of asylum seekers in the world is
may also threaten the international resettlement
increasing. This suggests that asylum seekers
system which the Australian Government
continue to make their way to industrialised
champions. Seeking asylum is essentially a
nations, but with Australia a less attractive
prerequisite for resettlement, as it is only
option, other destinations, particularly Europe,
through travelling to another
country and seeking formal
Asylum Applications to Industrialised Countries
recognition of refugee status that
2012-2013
a person can be considered and
200,000
referred for resettlement by
UNHCR. If other countries
150,000
sought to replicate Australia’s
100,000
approach to asylum seeker policy,
50,000
the international system of
refugee protection (including the
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
resettlement system) would no
longer function.
Europe
Fourth, while the policy
regimes introduced in recent
years have been successful in stemming the
flow of boats to Australia, they have not
been successful in preventing deaths at sea.
It is estimated that between 2000 and 2014
approximately 1437 asylum seekers lost their
lives in transit to Australia.8 This is clearly
something that on compassionate and
humanitarian grounds Australia should seek to
minimise. Yet the current policy settings simply
cut off the supply of asylum in Australia
without doing anything to address the global
demand for asylum.
Canada/USA
Source UNCHR
are being sought out.
We have already noted that the major irregular
border crossings in the world involve significant
risk, including substantial numbers of deaths.
Australia’s policies have succeeded in stopping
the flow of boats to Australia, but they do not
address the underlying cause of dangerous
asylum journeys. Consequently Australia has
not stopped drownings at sea, but simply
exported them elsewhere. A WAY FORWARD
As a member of the international community it
is incumbent upon Australia to do better.
Australia’s policies have led to a short-term
hiatus in boat arrivals, but by failing to address
the broader context driving refugee and asylum
seeker flows there has been little gain for asylum
seekers and our responsibilities have been
deflected to other nations. Australia and the rest
of the international community must address the
vast gulf between the demand for protection and
the supply of protection.
For the short to medium term this must be done
within a political context that will not tolerate
policies that result in the resumption of asylum
boats arriving in Australia. Although we believe
it is deeply regretful that Australia has
abandoned its protection obligations to asylum
seekers, a way forward must be found that
recognises this is the political reality with which
the major parties contend.
Values Driven Policy
All policies ultimately represent a set of values, a
vision of what it is to be human and why and
how we should treat one another. As followers
of Jesus we believe that the supreme value that
should govern our relations with one another is
love. That is, we believe that the essence of our
humanity is realised and expressed when we seek
the flourishing of others and consider the
resources we possess to be gifts from God to
enable us to achieve this end. Moreover, we
affirm that all human beings are created in the
image of God and therefore deserving of our
love, that the most fundamental bond between
us is that of human being to human being and
that this bond trumps all others.
On these grounds we believe that Australia’s
approach to refugees and asylum seekers should
ask this simple question: how can we use the
resources we have to ensure their flourishing?
7
BORDERED BY LOVE While this valuing flows from our particular
faith tradition, it is not unique to us. Other
religious traditions also value our common
humanity and the supremacy of love. Similarly
secular instruments such as the various human
rights conventions ground rights in our common
humanity and call for the protection of these
rights to trump narrow interests.
Long Term Policy Settings
Australia should lobby the international
community for a resolution of the gap between
demand for protection and its supply. This
will require a substantial increase in
integration and resettlement programs for a
short period and be followed by ongoing
commitments to ensure all refugees are able to
access a durable solution within 12 months of
fleeing persecution.
A business as usual approach will not resolve the
refugee crisis. A new, bold initiative is required,
in which the international community takes
action to ensure the supply of protection meets
the demand for it. It should be our objective
that no refugee be left in a protracted situation,
and that durable solutions be available to
refugees whenever they are forced to flee their
country.
This will require renewed efforts to establish
peace in conflict zones so that fewer people will
be forced to flee their homes; reconstruction in
countries of origin to pave the way for refugees
to return home safely and sustainably; a
commitment by host countries to embrace
policies that allow for the integration of a
substantial number of refugees currently within
their borders; and a substantial but temporary
lifting of global resettlement places by the
world's highly developed nations before falling
back to a regular number that is sufficient to
meet ongoing global demand.
We propose that a date prior to 2025 be
designated as the international target year by
which durable solutions are found for all those
under the UNHCR mandate. An international
summit would be held no later than December
2018 at which an equitable formula for sharing
the responsibility of refugee protection is agreed,
followed by a second summit to be held no later
than December 2019 to which each nation
brings its targets for resettling and integrating
refugees out to 2025.
•
It is notable that the nations that constitute the
OECD have a combined annual immigration
intake of approximately 5.5 million. Assuming
the international community is able to secure
conditions in which 20% of UNHCR mandated
refugees are able to voluntarily return home and
that current host countries integrate 30-40% of
those refugees within their borders, the short
term increase in resettlement for UNHCR
mandated refugees would be met by the
equivalent of one year’s OECD immigration
flows.
•
Medium Term Policy Settings
Australia should work with other countries in
our region to develop a workable regional
protection framework that can be implemented
by the end of 2020.
A regional protection framework will see
countries in our immediate region working
together to develop systems by which the claims
of asylum seekers can be quickly assessed and
durable solutions found.
This should begin with an agreement between
the main countries of asylum in our region –
Bangladesh (231,135 refugees, people in refugeelike situations, and asylum seekers at the end of
2013), Nepal (46,541), Malaysia (140,552), India
(192,070), Indonesia (10,326), and Thailand
(141,211) – and the region’s highly developed
nations, each of which is also a destination
country for asylum seekers – Australia (48,062),
New Zealand (1,711), Japan (9,326) and South
Korea (2,945). The agreement would:
•
•
•
define protection of asylum seekers and
refugees as a shared responsibility;
identify the preferred durable solutions for
the existing refugee populations;
outline the obligations and responsibilities
of each party to the agreement, including the
proportion of refugees they will host in
anticipation of voluntary return home once
conditions improve in their home country,
integrate or resettle, and the support to be
offered to lower income parties to assist
them in meeting their obligations;
provide for collaborative funding of timely
processing of asylum claims and decent
living conditions for those waiting for
integration or resettlement;
provide for asylum seeker claims to be
processed speedily and those found to be
refugees to be offered a durable solution
within 12 months of their claim being
validated.
We propose that high-level talks be commenced
immediately with a view to having an agreement
in place and ready to be implemented by 2020.
In the absence of a wider global solution such as
that suggested in our long-term policy setting, it
is possible that a regional approach in which
durable solutions are found in a timely fashion
will lead to increased flows of asylum seekers to
our region. In the event that numbers grow
beyond the willingness of participant nations to
integrate or resettle within a 12 month period,
additional countries may be brought into the
agreement and/or waiting times for integration
and resettlement may increase. In the latter
instance refugees should be given clear
timeframes by which they will be integrated or
resettled.
Short-term policy settings
Australia should signal its willingness to be a
good international citizen by increasing its
humanitarian intake and work closely with
UN HCR and the government of Indonesia to
create pathways by which asylum seekers can
seek refuge in Australia. This will both
provide protection to refugees and replace
punitive deterrence as the preferred method of
disincentivising travel to Australia by boat.
Australia should increase its humanitarian intake
to 35,000 per annum, with 32,000 places
reserved for refugees, and provision to increase
when necessary to accommodate temporary
spikes in refugee/asylum seeker flows that may
accompany crises in our region. This number is
commensurate with the numbers Australia might
expect to take on an ongoing basis in the event
of regional or global approaches being adopted.
Moreover, it provides the capacity for Australia
to continue resettling refugees in greatest need
across the world and engage in positive measures
to disincentivise people smuggling to Australia.
We believe that Australia's refusal to accept
asylum seekers who arrive by boat is a serious
abrogation of its responsibilities under the
Refugee Convention. As noted above, this
policy does not stem the flow of asylum seekers
across the world, nor does it prevent deaths at
sea, but simply pushes asylum seekers into other
routes and the protection burden onto other
nations. If replicated by other nations, it would
see the collapse of the international protection
system. Australia should recognise that irregular
flows are a reality of a supply-constrained world
and provide pathways by which people can
safely seek asylum.
Australia's current policy settings are based upon
the implementation of punitive measures to
disincentivise travel to Australia by boat. We
believe Australia should replace these with
positive measures that achieve the objective of
di-incentivising dangerous travel but also offer
protection to those needing it. This means
taking steps to ensure that supply of protection
matches demand for asylum in Australia.
Four factors are significant. First, demand for
protection in Australia is muted due to its
geographical isolation. Most refugees elect to
stay close to their homeland in countries where
there is shared culture. Where they do seek
asylum in an industrialised nation the vast
majority opt for the United States or Europe.
Consequently Australia has never received more
than 3.5% of asylum applications made to
industrialised countries.
This suggests that with policies that provide
pathways for asylum seekers to settle Australia
can expect to receive 1.0%-3.5% of global
asylum seeker flows. Policy settings may well be
a pull factor in shifting this from 1.0% to the
vicinity of 3.0%, but more open policies are
unlikely to see demand for settlement in
Australia balloon beyond this. Given the rising
number of asylum seekers across the world,
Australia should expect to receive 16,000-28,000
asylum seekers per year (assuming 800,000
asylum applications to industrialised counties per
annum).
Second, a critical factor driving people onto
boats is the poor treatment they receive in
countries through which they transit. In
Indonesia and Malaysia refugees and asylum
seekers have few of their rights recognised and
processing times for recognition of refugee
status can run into years. A shift in policy within
Malaysia and Indonesia would substantially
reduce the demand for the services of people
smugglers to transport asylum seekers to
Australia.
Third, although Indonesia has been the primary
ASYLUM APPLICATIONS TO AUSTRALIA
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of asylum
12,640
11,510
15,790
11,740
applications to Aust
Proportion of applications
3.5%
2.6%
3.2%
2.0%
to industrialised countries
Source: UNHCR, “Asylum levels and trends in industrialised countries”
9
BORDERED BY LOVE 2014
8,960
1.0%
final transit point for those seeking
maritime entry to Australia, Australia
historically has resettled few refugees
from Indonesia (see the table on the
following page). With authorised
pathways difficult to access it is not
surprising that those intending to seek
asylum in Australia have been driven
onto boats.
PROTECTION VISAS GRANTED TO REFUGEES
RESIDING IN INDONESIA
Years (calendar/financial)
Visa grants
2001
2
2002
39
2003
100
2004
103
2005
48
2006
13
2007
87
2008
45
2009
95
2010–11
480
2011–12
181
2012–13
605
2013–14
600
2014–15
450 (planned)
Fourth, while the current raft of
policies has seen a slowdown in asylum
seekers making their way to Indonesia,
the increasing accessibility of
international travel and rising asylum
numbers globally, offset by decreased
demand arising from decent conditions
Source: Elibritt Karlsen, “Refugee resettlement to Australia: what are the facts?”
in Indonesia, makes it is reasonable to
Australian Parliamentary library
assume that asylum flows would return
comfortably accommodate its commitment
to previous levels of around 15,000 per annum
within the boundaries of the proposed
once Australia re-engages its protection
humanitarian program;
obligations.
Australia should therefore enter into a bilateral
agreement with Indonesia to establish joint
asylum and refugee protection processes. This
would see:
1. Both parties commit to ensuring asylum
seekers have their claims to refugee status
quickly and thoroughly assessed using
UNHCR guidelines, are treated with dignity,
have access to decent standards of living,
and have their human rights protected;
2. Agreement by each nation to
integrate/resettle a particular number of
refugees each year. This number will be
sufficient to enable durable solutions of
integration in Indonesia or resettlement in
Australia to all refugees hosted by Indonesia
and provide those refugees with notification
at the time their claim is proved of the
country and the date by which they will be
integrated/resettled. Given the relatively
small numbers of refugees and asylum
seekers typically hosted by Indonesia (at July
2014 Indonesia was host to 3,830 refugees
and 6,286 asylum seekers11) Australia will
3. Asylum seekers arriving by boat from
nations other than Indonesia would be
processed at jointly coordinated facilities in
Indonesia, with Australia guaranteeing
resettlement should they be found to be
refugees. In the event these flows became
systemic rather than occasional Australia
should seek to make arrangements with the
country of departure similar to those
proposed for Australia-Indonesia.
Ensuring sufficient integration and resettlement
places are available within a reasonable
timeframe, giving refugees certainty about that
time frame, and ensuring they are able to live
decently while they wait for voluntary
return/integration/resettlement will
disincentivise dangerous means of travel to
Australia.
The use of a positive approach to asylum seekers
therefore makes punitive measures redundant.
This will enable Australia to end the turnback
policy; close the detention centres on Nauru and
Manus Island; end indefinite mandatory
detention on the Australian mainland; ensure a
robust refugee determination system; and offer
all asylum seekers already residing in Australia
and who are found to be refugees permanent
protection visas, along with the financial, social,
and psychological support they require to
construct decent lives within our country.
Finally, the Australian government should
launch a community education program to
address negative sentiment around asylum
seekers and ward off concerns around a scaled
up humanitarian program. This campaign would
highlight the contribution refugees have made to
Australian society and the benefits of the revised
humanitarian intake.
CONCLUSION
In formulating refugee and asylum seeker policy we must not lose sight of the fact that these policies
impact deeply on the lives of people who have experienced persecution. These are people who desperately
need the assistance of the international community, but to whom that community is turning a blind eye.
As a good international citizen Australia must do better than protect its own interests. We must also look
out for the interests of our fellow human beings. This demands a shift in our approach to refugees and
asylum seekers along the lines developed in this paper. As a good international citizen Australia should
immediately replace the negative and harmful policies of deterrence with the positive policies of
protection, and begin work on a regional framework. As a great international citizen Australia should
make it an ambition to broker a global agreement that will see timely, durable solutions for every human
being forced to flee their homeland. 11
BORDERED BY LOVE For most countries on this list the numbers cited represent the number of refugees living within their borders at the
time the data was gathered. For developed nations such as the United States and France these figures reflect the
number of asylum seekers who were recognised as refugees over the past 10 years and do not include refugees
resettled in those nations.
2 Loescher, G., and Milner, J., “Protracted Refugee Situations”, Forced Migration Review 33
3 UNHCR (2014), “UNHCR Observations Regarding the Rome Conference of the EU Horn of Africa Migration
Route Initiative, 28 November 2014”. Accessed at http://www.unhcr.org/54bd0a409.html
4 Department of Immigration and Border Protection (December 2014), “Australia’s Humanitarian Programme
2015–16 and Beyond”
5 Human Rights Watch (2014), World Report 292
6 Rowe, David (Jan 10, 2014), “Turnback Angers Indonesia” Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed online
7 Cassells, Deborah (Nov 28, 2014), “Closing Jakarta UNHCR office the ‘solution’ to boat people”, The Australian
8 Brian,T and Laczko, F., Editors (2014), Fatal Journeys. Tracking Lives Lost Through Migration, IOM
11 UNHCR Indonesia website. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488116.html Accessed 2.5.2015
1