WHAT if?
Another government?
imagine if another government other than liberal or labour was in power. Do you think the policies would change? Clive Palmer claims that one of his policies is 'Revising the current Australian Government’s Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle'. This political claim is extremely broad and doesn't address detention centres or onshore processing. Sadly, although everyone wants asylum seekers to be addressed as a humanitarian issue, the government will always put forwards the political and economical view because that is what they have been employed to do. Their interests must always lie in the benefit of the immediate Australian population, which means asylum seekers are not a matter of urgency.
No Detention Centres?
If there were no detention centres asylum seekers would be given what they came for- a better life. Australia would be internationally recognised as a generous country. There would be more people in Australia to benefit to the economy, pay the taxes, do the work and boost the population- everything that Australian demographers and economists could want. On the humanitarian side of things, Australia would no longer be breaking UN law, or causing traumatised people to become even more traumatised and in a seriously bad mental state. Australia would become more multiculturally diverse and we would be doing our part to share our resources with our neighbours. There is only one earth that we all must share.
On the other hand, if there were no detention centres, and limited processing, there is a threat of people who want to do no good. Citizens would have to pay taxes to support asylum seekers until they could manage themselves and the government would need to either build up or find a way to build out to provide housing. If these asylum seekers came without skill and were immediately let into the country without training their would be no jobs for them, roads would become more polluted and therefore the environment would struggle. Australia has a large land area available, but it does not have the resources to make this land liveable.
What does more damage? Letting asylum seekers into the country or keeping them in detention?
Since this test can not really be concuted, the information must go based on surveys, stories and ideals. By keeping people in detention we are damaging their mental health and, in some circumstances, risking their physical health also. At the moment, taking asylum seekers straight into the country would cause tax rises, as well as housing, education and envrionment strain. The obvious answer, if a proper imediate processing plan was put into place that asylum seekers should be let straight into the community. At the current moment in time we do not have this however, and must deal with the situation that we have. Keeping asylum seekers in detention is a costly effort, with over $1 billion spent on the management of detention centres in the past financial year. This figure means that around $119000 is spent per asylum seeker per year on keeping them in detention. Along with this there are the costs of building new detention centres and an extra $25,000 that needs to be spent on mental health problems per person per year for those who have stayed in detention. So when the government really thinks about it what would cost more?
It has been found that of the 12,100 people who have been released from detention since November 2011 only 5 have been charged with a crime- and this crime could potentially have been provoked by an attitude picked up within detention. These rates would most likely be lower than those of the rates of people born and continually living in Australia. When these statistics are shown, what evidence does it really provide that asylum seekers will harm the nation?
The idea of community processing ( being accepted into the community and given funds to help them rebuild) being a less cruel way to process asylum seekers has been found to work, with (as of 2011), less than 20% relying on government hand outs after being settled for some time. Community processing is the closest and best thing for asylum seekers to being accepted straight into Australia. Not only this, but is found to be much cheaper- saving $333 per person per day off the cost of mandatory detention ($339 per person per day).
If community processing is practically accepting them into the country, for a much cheaper cost and processing them in a much more humane way, then why are we not doing it? Human rights austalia believe that the government do not mind throwing away billions of dolalrs to see people suffer if it means keeping up the idea of xenophobia and putting forward the ideal that Australia is so strong and can not be invaded by anyone. But really asylum seekers are not an invasion- they are a plea for help. We need to look at this from a humanitarian persepctive rather than a political one. After all, what is more important than a human life?
imagine if another government other than liberal or labour was in power. Do you think the policies would change? Clive Palmer claims that one of his policies is 'Revising the current Australian Government’s Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle'. This political claim is extremely broad and doesn't address detention centres or onshore processing. Sadly, although everyone wants asylum seekers to be addressed as a humanitarian issue, the government will always put forwards the political and economical view because that is what they have been employed to do. Their interests must always lie in the benefit of the immediate Australian population, which means asylum seekers are not a matter of urgency.
No Detention Centres?
If there were no detention centres asylum seekers would be given what they came for- a better life. Australia would be internationally recognised as a generous country. There would be more people in Australia to benefit to the economy, pay the taxes, do the work and boost the population- everything that Australian demographers and economists could want. On the humanitarian side of things, Australia would no longer be breaking UN law, or causing traumatised people to become even more traumatised and in a seriously bad mental state. Australia would become more multiculturally diverse and we would be doing our part to share our resources with our neighbours. There is only one earth that we all must share.
On the other hand, if there were no detention centres, and limited processing, there is a threat of people who want to do no good. Citizens would have to pay taxes to support asylum seekers until they could manage themselves and the government would need to either build up or find a way to build out to provide housing. If these asylum seekers came without skill and were immediately let into the country without training their would be no jobs for them, roads would become more polluted and therefore the environment would struggle. Australia has a large land area available, but it does not have the resources to make this land liveable.
What does more damage? Letting asylum seekers into the country or keeping them in detention?
Since this test can not really be concuted, the information must go based on surveys, stories and ideals. By keeping people in detention we are damaging their mental health and, in some circumstances, risking their physical health also. At the moment, taking asylum seekers straight into the country would cause tax rises, as well as housing, education and envrionment strain. The obvious answer, if a proper imediate processing plan was put into place that asylum seekers should be let straight into the community. At the current moment in time we do not have this however, and must deal with the situation that we have. Keeping asylum seekers in detention is a costly effort, with over $1 billion spent on the management of detention centres in the past financial year. This figure means that around $119000 is spent per asylum seeker per year on keeping them in detention. Along with this there are the costs of building new detention centres and an extra $25,000 that needs to be spent on mental health problems per person per year for those who have stayed in detention. So when the government really thinks about it what would cost more?
It has been found that of the 12,100 people who have been released from detention since November 2011 only 5 have been charged with a crime- and this crime could potentially have been provoked by an attitude picked up within detention. These rates would most likely be lower than those of the rates of people born and continually living in Australia. When these statistics are shown, what evidence does it really provide that asylum seekers will harm the nation?
The idea of community processing ( being accepted into the community and given funds to help them rebuild) being a less cruel way to process asylum seekers has been found to work, with (as of 2011), less than 20% relying on government hand outs after being settled for some time. Community processing is the closest and best thing for asylum seekers to being accepted straight into Australia. Not only this, but is found to be much cheaper- saving $333 per person per day off the cost of mandatory detention ($339 per person per day).
If community processing is practically accepting them into the country, for a much cheaper cost and processing them in a much more humane way, then why are we not doing it? Human rights austalia believe that the government do not mind throwing away billions of dolalrs to see people suffer if it means keeping up the idea of xenophobia and putting forward the ideal that Australia is so strong and can not be invaded by anyone. But really asylum seekers are not an invasion- they are a plea for help. We need to look at this from a humanitarian persepctive rather than a political one. After all, what is more important than a human life?