Executive Summary

This submission examines the motivations for asylum and onward movements. It explores ways to strengthen the protection space in countries of displacement as well as measures to encourage orderly departure from source countries. We also examine the ambiguities related to questions of smuggling networks and consider some options on how best to negate those networks.

Governments alone cannot “solve the problem” – it is multidimensional. It requires input, support and action from regional governments, non-government organisations and experts in civil society as well as international agencies.

What we have mapped out are some of the key elements for developing such an approach and it builds on the recommendations outlined in the Centre for Policy Development’s report A New Approach. Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia in 2011. [See http://cpd.org.au/category/refugee-policy]

We make a set of linked recommendations that could, if taken as a whole, start the process of building a sound plan of action

These address:

Visa and settlement options covering options for orderly departures programs as well as considering the use of other visa options in particular circumstances as well as increasing the resettlement intake;

Regional cooperation and international burden sharing – addressing the complexities of building strong regional cooperation models but starting with increased registration activities by UNHCR to assist in stabilising populations as well as supporting countries in the region in hosting displaced populations and building more effective protection systems.

Strengthening the dialogue – diplomacy is a key to good arrangements. But we also need to work with civil society and NGOs in the region as they are vital in the success of support arrangements to displaced people. We believe developing a civil society/government partnership on these matters is critical as is the development of a Track 2 dialogue to sit alongside the Bali Process. Good models for such engagement exist in the ASEAN and ASEAN Regional Forum frameworks.

Enhancing research and evaluation. Good, responsive public policy relies on a sound understanding of the many dimensions of humanitarian displacement. We recommend the establishment of a research and evaluation program that will guide and support the development of new policy responses.

Section 1: Introduction – the Context of Asylum and Displacement

Erika Feller the Assistant High Commissioner for International Protection at the UNHCR said recently of the debate in Australia. “This is not really an Australian problem alone and it's not going to be resolved through an Australia solution alone…. it's actually a regional and in fact a global one.”[1]

There are no easy answers or quick fixes on how to deal with asylum issues or to address the condition of people displaced from their home countries. The policy levers available to government to take unilateral action are limited. The best we can hope for is to ease the anguish of people who are displaced by providing humane and compassionate responses. For any policy approach there are consequences and it is making these difficult and finely balanced judgment calls that public policy makers must contend with. For instance the question of increased resettlement – will it become a magnet for further arrivals or will it assist with strengthening the protection capacity in the region. We do not know; but what we must decide is which fork will we take and if we find that it has “unintended consequences” what can we do to address these. These conundrums are at the heart of this policy discourse.

Human displacement is as old as civilisation and the term asylum denoting “a safe place” reminds us all of our common humanity. Roman law had a concept of asylum “ius asylae” that recognised the right to seek asylum and to not be expelled until a decision on asylum had been made. Although the historical context in which the Roman law was applied and in which the Refugee Convention of 1951 was developed are quite different, nevertheless they reflect a common tradition that reminds us that asylum is an enduring feature of the human condition.

As has been noted throughout the public discourse on this matter the number of people who seek asylum in Australia by whatever means is small when considered globally. The latest reporting from UNHCR on global asylum trends shows that there are some 441 260 asylum seekers in the 44 industrialised countries, [2] and of this number Australia had 11 500 or 2.6 per cent of all applications. This compares with the some 42.5 million people who are currently forcibly displaced worldwide[3]. What it highlights is that industrialised countries bear only a small burden of the total number of people displaced.

The artificial distinction between air and sea arrivals in the Australian public discourse also masks a profound unfamiliarity with what our obligations are in considering the protection claims of a person who arrives in Australia. Irrespective of the way a person arrives in Australia we are obliged, under our convention obligations, to consider if a person, within the meaning of the Refugee Convention, is owed protection by Australia. This is law.

Displacement and onwards movement occur, not because of destination country asylum policy, but overwhelmingly because of the situation in countries of origin and in countries of asylum (whether first or later). Our public discourse is so polarised that little attention is given to the conditions in the countries of origin or in the countries of first asylum when examining how to address displacement.

The most recent annual report from Minority Rights International Peoples Under Threat 2012[4] highlights again instability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, Pakistan and Iran among other places, as increasing the potential for people to flee due to ethnic and religious persecution as well as threat of mass killing. This report, while not forecasting displacement, has proved to be remarkably accurate as an early indicator of countries from where there is the potential for increased asylum movements.

Little research has been undertaken on the motivations for departure or onward movement. Where such research has been undertaken it is largely disregarded. A public discourse that ignores the evidence and is based on a one-dimensional approach is destined ultimately to fail.

In this debate it is time that we move beyond the one liner and deal with the uncertainties that are inherent in confronting this issue

Bali Ministers have long stressed the need to address displacement in all its forms from source to transit and receiving countries and have stressed that it cannot be seen as one country’s problem alone.

At the last Bali Ministerial conference it was acknowledged that displacement has both a humanitarian dimension and a criminal element. The way people smugglers prey on the vulnerabilities of displaced people and the superficially persuasive techniques they use to deceive asylum seekers into believing they have the answer to their predicaments demands that this issue be addressed at many different levels by governments.

Section 2: Policy Recommendations

Our recommendations are grouped into four strategic themes:

Visa and resettlement options and policy parameters – enhancing and where necessary creating new visa options. These for instance include the creation of an Orderly Departure Program and increasing the offshore refugee resettlement program. For example, during the height of the CPA resettlement years we averaged an annual intake of over 20,000 per annum. If we adjusted for our population increase since then the intake today would be about 34,000. It could also examine the scope for extending the seasonal pacific workers program to countries such as Sri Lanka. We also examine how we can further enhance all three durable solutions of resettlement, return and local integration.

Regional cooperation and burden sharing – we examine the complexities of building a regional protection system and the elements that need to be considered in constructing a framework that helps in supporting displaced populations in countries of first asylum and transit rather than options to take perilous sea journeys. We look at the conditions that would assist in stabilising movements such as creating a legal status for asylum seekers, establishing a government/civil society partnership in the delivery and design of services to asylum seekers in the region as well as registration and processing of people in countries of transit. We also consider the vulnerabilities of crew and measures that could assist in disrupting the recruitment of crew in Indonesia.

Strengthening dialogue – at the heart of good policy is communication and dialogue. As we have noted there are no simple choices in this policy area and there are consequences for whatever approaches are taken. Building an inclusive framework that brings in all the players has a better chance of incorporating into the policy framework consideration of the risks and opportunities in any of the approaches taken. It has a better chance of actually delivering real protections for displaced people as mutual suspicion of each other is replaced with confidence and trust amongst the various players. We propose the creation of a Track 2 dialogue approach that brings together experts from governments, international organisations and civil society to start this difficult journey.

Enhancing research and evaluation – A consistent theme in the literature has been the paucity of research that would support a better understanding of the causes for and motivations of displacement. There is a wealth of information held in disparate locations that could be better used and targeted for considering policy approaches – we need to harness this information and better use the data. We recommend a funded research and evaluation program be established that would reinforce the development of a sound evidence base for the development of policy regarding refugee and asylum policies in Australia and the region. It would build on work that has been commissioned under the Bali Process as well as the work of UNHCR in the region. It has the potential to deepen the understanding of how choices are made and allow for the exploration of innovative and new policy ideas to address the ‘fears and anxieties’ that push people into flight and to use people smugglers and other facilitators.

Specific recommendations against these themes are at the conclusion of this submission (pages 18-19).

Section 3 Issues

(i) Mapping the Asylum Pathway

Safety, or lack of it, determines how and why most people move. This applies equally in the decision to depart a person’s home country as to secondary movements.

The reasons are complicated. For some a single event can be the catalyst for departure or onward movement. For others it can be the accumulation of unrelenting small-scale harassment and denial of basic livelihoods that act as the trigger.

Little research has been undertaken in countries of first asylum on the intention of refugees. The Norwegian NGO Fafo undertook one relevant piece of research on this matter in Jordan on Iraqi refugees.[5] One of the key findings from this research was that most Iraqis aspirations were to return home once the conditions were right.

Today, over 80 per cent of displaced people live in neighbouring countries in their region, very few move on. While there has been little analysis of the intentions of people in countries of first asylum and in transit, some of the causes and motivations are outlined in the Centre for Policy Development’s report A New Approach. Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia in 2011[6] . [See www.cpd.org.au]. The fact that very few people continue an onward movement indicates that for many displaced people moving on is not the first choice or a realistic option.

Australia’s maritime asylum seekers are predominantly from, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iran with smaller but shifting numbers mainly from Burma and Iraq. It is evident from past movements that where people come from can fluctuate markedly and often depend on the push factors as well as conditions in countries of asylum. [7]

Many of the countries of first asylum are themselves politically unstable and the lack of basic security in countries along the route to Australia underscore why so many continue to move on.

For example, in recent months political instability and concerns about the security situation in Afghanistan have been escalating. Close to 400 Afghans are displaced each day in Afghanistan and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA)[8] has raised concerns about the potential of a slowly evolving humanitarian crisis as international funding to Afghanistan decreases and as foreign forces begin to withdraw. The ethnicity of most maritime arrivals from Afghanistan (Hazaras, Tajiks) also indicates that the people departing have the most to fear from a resurgent Taliban as the foreign presence declines.

Displacement in Pakistan and Iran, once places of relative safety for Afghans have become precarious. The Peoples Under Threat report for 2012 has for the first time in several years brought Pakistan into the top ten countries of concern. It is therefore not surprising that in recent months we have started to see more Pakistani nationals appearing in asylum movements to Europe and into this region.[9] The protection space for refugees in Pakistan has correspondingly diminished and in itself has become a reason to keep moving. In Iran the authorities continue to restrict the movement and access to livelihoods of refugees. These precarious situations and particularly the threat of expulsion contribute to the onward and secondary displacement of people. It is also in these types of circumstances that smuggling networks can find an entrée to prey on the vulnerabilities of already vulnerable people.

The situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka remains precarious, despite the end of the civil war. The most recent reporting from Sri Lanka has not been optimistic and as Sri Lankan Tamils perceive that there is a limited place for them in the political or economic life of the country this factor alone can become a push factor.

The traditional travel routes to Australia for maritime arrivals largely depend on where the travel originates. For people from the Middle East it can typically commence with a short journey by dhow from across the Persian Gulf to the UAE and then on to Malaysia and Indonesia. People displaced in Pakistan might travel from Pakistan to the Middle East or direct to Malaysia and then on to Indonesia. For the mostly Tamils from Sri Lanka the journey is a direct flight from Sri Lanka to Australia and for others it could be a circuitous route through India to Malaysia and then Indonesia. [10]