Chris Bowen From: The Australian
September 16, 2011 12:00AM
WE'VE heard the mantra so many times: John Howard stopped the boats. Well, in September 2001, in response to the Tampa affair, the Howard government introduced its Nauru solution and about 1800 asylum-seekers arrived on boats in the first 100 days following that announcement.
In a radio interview nine days before the Tampa incident, Howard said: "We won't turn people back on the sea, we can't behave in that manner." But with the boats continuing to arrive after Nauru, that's exactly what he did.
The failures and ineffectiveness of Nauru and temporary protection visas have long been a topic of debate. But it is one of the least talked about elements of Howard's and now Tony Abbott's policy that is perhaps the most flawed and hypocritical: the policy of turning back boats on the high seas.
While the turn back the boats policy was reckless and dangerous for all those involved, it did have a deterrent effect. Combined with key international events - such as the large-scale return of asylum-seekers to Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban and the decrease in Sri Lankan arrivals with the hiatus in the conflict - the policy did discourage boat journeys. But the execution is where it falls over.
Under the Howard government, Australia's border protection agencies turned back the boats on several occasions, with the last time in 2003 before the practice was quietly set aside.
This is still Coalition policy. It is still Abbott's policy to take control of a boat on the high seas, and turn it back to Indonesia no matter who is on board, no matter how many women or children. Is it any wonder we question the crocodile tears from the opposition about protections in Malaysia, when they would turn children away with no protection, no access to schooling or healthcare and no one to process their asylum claims?
There are three key reasons why the Opposition's turn back the boats policy is just not feasible. The first is that Indonesia has made it abundantly clear that it will not be party to such action and indeed that it would affect relations and co-operation between our two countries. Only last week, Agung Sabar Santoso of Indonesia's National Police, who has responsibility for that country's anti-people smuggling taskforce, was quoted as saying: "It will certainly affect relations if [Australia] turns boats away," and "We don't want them to die at sea. You can imagine that there are children and women as well."
This is certainly not an isolated view. In March 2010 the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said, "simply pushing back boats to where they have come from would be a backward step".
However, Indonesia's co-operation is just one key obstacle to turning back the boats. The second is the welfare of asylum-seekers. Unfortunately, we have seen incidents in the past of overloaded boats being sabotaged by desperate people faced with forced turn-back. All advice points to this again being a real threat if the policy was reintroduced. Even the fear of a tow back has led to serious incidents.
As the Northern Territory coroner found in 2010, a boat was set on fire due to fears the passengers would be turned back. Five people were killed and dozens were injured.
"It was apparently these fears that sparked a plan to burn the vessel to prevent its return to Indonesia. A fire would also necessitate rescue of the passengers by the [Australian Defence Force] and their transfer to an Australian vessel," coroner Greg Cavanagh said in his report.
The final point about the opposition's irresponsible turning back the boats policy is that it endangers the wellbeing not only of asylum-seekers, but of Australian Navy and Customs personnel. It requires the high-risk boarding of what are generally decrepit and overloaded vessels on unpredictable waters.
Senior officials under the Howard government have made no secret of disdain for towing back boats. Retired Australian Army brigadier Gary Bornholt recently said on ABC television, the turn around policy "puts all of our own people directly into harm's way". He also said: "What we're creating is a potential high-risk situation where it's in the interests of the people on the boat to sink the boat."
The evidence is overwhelming that turning back the boats is a crude policy that is neither safe nor viable. Yet this is where the elegance of the Malaysia transfer arrangement shines through: turning people back in a safe and orderly way, and providing a massive deterrent for people considering that dangerous boat journey to Australia.
The best advice and intelligence we have - which the government has shared with Abbott - clearly shows that people-smugglers now know that if asylum-seekers are sent to Nauru and are found to be refugees, they will be resettled in Australia. That is not an effective deterrent.
What that advice also shows though, is that sending people back to where they started the boat journey does work. The best disincentive is for people considering that journey to know that it is all for nought, that they will be out of pocket and that they will be risking their lives, only to wind up back where they started, which is overwhelmingly Malaysia.
The deal negotiated with Malaysia provides a genuinely effective plan to remove the product people-smugglers are selling - a ticket to Australia - by virtually turning back boats, but in a safe and orderly fashion.
It is why we are determined to introduce legislation to put beyond doubt and enable the transfer of irregular maritime arrivals to third countries under the Migration Act.
The message it sends is that if you take the boat journey to Australia then you'll be returned by plane to Malaysia, and be processed in the mix of more than 90,000 others.
But it also delivers significant humanitarian outcomes in the region - an increase in our refugee intake of 4000 people, people who have waited a long time for resettlement, poor people who couldn't in their wildest dreams afford to pay a people-smuggler.
Chris Bowen is Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
