BY SARAH STEPHEN
Immigration minister Philip Ruddock announced on May 7 that Australia's immigration intake for 2002-03 would rise for the fifth consecutive year. The federal government will allow between 100,000 and 110,000 new migrants into the country. The last time immigration reached such a level was in the late 1980s.
Some letter-writers to major newspapers have pointed to an apparent irony that immigration has increased under a government which was elected by tapping the sentiment against migrants whipped up by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. The Coalition was returned to office last year on the back of a campaign of that demonised refugees.
However, numbers alone don't tell the whole story. The Coalition government has massively redistributed immigration places from the family reunion and humanitarian categories to the skilled and business categories. The latter will constitute 60% of the total 2002-03 intake (60,700 places). Twenty years ago, these categories provided only 20% of new immigrants.
Ruddock has claimed that there will be no change to the refugee and humanitarian intake. This is not true. There will be a significant reduction in the number of refugees that Australia will permanently resettle.
The refugee quota of 12,000 has not increased for eight years. It breaks down to 4000 refugees to be resettled from offshore, 6000 humanitarian entrants from offshore and 2000 places for those who apply for refugee status within Australia.
In a May 7 press release, Ruddock stated: "Australia's resettlement program is, therefore, focused on those in the greatest need of resettlement." This is a lie.
The 4000 places set aside for refugees resettled from offshore are usually filled by those whose claims are processed in refugee camps by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). These people would be entitled to stay permanently in Australia.
However, in 2002-03 the category will also include the resettlement of asylum seekers detained on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who are assessed to be refugees. This could number close to 1500. However, these refugees will never be entitled to permanent residency.
By including resettlement of these refugees in the overall quota, the government has substantially reduced its overall permanent refugee resettlement quota. The "Pacific solution" refugees are only eligible for three-year temporary visas. They are not eligible for the full range of benefits and services that UNHCR-resettled refugees are entitled to can access, and they face return to their country of origin if the government deems it "safe" when their visa expires.
Australia has a responsibility to permanently resettle all "Pacific solution" refugees. The immigration department has not filled the 12,000 quota for the 2001-02 year, having set aside 6300 places for anticipated arrivals. Only 1212 asylum seekers arrived prior to the September Tampa stand-off and the imprisonment of later arrivals on Pacific islands.
Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett commented in a May 7 press release: "The humanitarian program which will take 6000 people is made up of people in refugee-like situations who are healthy, young, have links with Australia and can afford to pay for their flight. Whilst they are deserving of resettlement, they should not be pitted against those who have attempted to arrive by boat or who are forced to flee second and third countries in pursuit of safety."
Margaret Piper, the Refugee Council's executive director, commented on May 7: "It is the minister's decision how the places in the program are divided. He could have chosen to direct the intercepted refugees elsewhere — after all, there are 8000 other places available to him — but instead he elected to take places away from the UNHCR program."
Prior to the election of the Coalition government in 1996, the processing of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia had no impact on the resettlement quota. Whether 200 or 2000 people applied for asylum after reaching Australia, by plane or boat, the same quota of 12,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants were resettled every year.
Ruddock changed the law to link the onshore and offshore intake, with the intention of increasing popular resentment against asylum seekers who arrived without prior authorisation. Ruddock ensured that each asylum seeker who arrived in Australia and was granted refugee status "displaced" a UN-assessed refugee in a camp in Africa or the Middle East.
The intake of onshore and offshore asylum seekers should be de-linked immediately. The humanitarian category should be widened further to remove the requirement for existing ties with Australia, and the ability for government officials to pick and choose on the basis of skills and health status.
The government should provide avenues for those who do not fit the narrow UN refugee definition, yet face substantial persecution, to be permanently resettled in Australia. Last but not least, the offshore refugee intake should be massively boosted.
From Green Left Weekly, May 15, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.