Don’t be fooled by headlines proclaiming Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is increasing Australia’s refugee intake. He is instead confirming that the Abbott government’s cut in Australia’s humanitarian visa intake will be made permanent.
Turnbull, in New York to participate in a global talkfest about refugees — in particular Syrian refugees — has made much of increasing our refugee intake. Or, more accurately, committing that it wouldn’t be cut in the future. This is what he said in his media release overnight:
“[The government will] maintain our Humanitarian Program at the increased level of 18,750 places from 2018-19 onwards. This is in addition to the 12,000 places we have committed for refugees from Syria and Iraq.”
Sounds good, right? Except all he’s said is that the government is going to keep the 18,750 level beyond 2018-19. That year is significant because when Tony Abbott agreed to accept several thousand Syrian refugees just days before his ouster last year, it was intended to be in addition to the existing 13,750 intake — but it would only be temporary. The idea was — although Abbott never explicitly said this — that since we’d done our bit in resettling 12,000 Syrians (appropriately selected to avoid Sunni Muslim men), our intake would return to its “normal” level after 2019.
So at best, all Turnbull is doing in keeping the temporary increase that Abbott announced.
Let’s go back slightly further, to 2014. That year, Abbott (backed of course by his cabinet, of which Turnbull was a part) cut our refugee intake to 13,750, from 20,000 — a cut of nearly one-third. Labor had increased our humanitarian intake when it was in government from 13,750 to 20,000 — in line with the argument of the Houston-Aristotle-L’Estrange report that we should reduce the incentives for asylum seekers to come by boat and increase the incentives for refugees to come here through formal resettlement processes.
Labor’s decision would have begun fixing a long-term blot on our humanitarian record — even though we’ve taken in more refugees per head than nearly any other Western country, it was laughable that a country as large and as rich as Australia should take in less than a suburban footy ground each year in refugees.
Abbott and then-immigration minister Scott Morrison’s decision to cut the intake back to 13,750 was disgraceful and grubby — and totally unnecessary given the success of their boat turnback policy. It was an act of wanton callousness directed at punishing the very people they purported to cherish — refugees prepared to come to Australia via formal processes rather than trying to come here by boat.
Turnbull’s “decision” doesn’t even reverse this shameful moment for Australia. The level Turnbull is parading as “[playing] a leading role in global efforts to assist refugees” leaves the level below 20,000. If he were serious, this would be a first step toward a long-term increase in resettlement — growing toward 25,000 at least. As it is, it’s the political equivalent of offering a discount on an artificially inflated price — if the government were a corporation and tried that sort of stuff, it’d be off to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
When I heard the news journalists reporting this yesterday I thought “isn’t even one of them going to mention this is just restoring some of Abbott’s cuts to the refugee intake and is still below the figure they started with (20,000)”. How can they neglect to put yesterday’s announcement into some historical context? Thank you Bernard for doing this.
Let’s face it – when a Labor PM fails to meet expectations, they face a MSM drumbeat of leadership speculation which eventually overpowers any policy program it attempts to implement. In contrast, Turnbull’s gross failure to meet expectations is met with forgiveness, excuses and a generous “let’s give him a chance” attitude.
The superannuation debacle we saw last week would have torn a Labor government apart. Instead, Turnbull is seen as having a great week simply because his backflips and broken election promises managed to keep his own backbench onside.
It is clear that although Turnbull’s public sheen has largely worn through, it is still very much intact as far as most media commentators are concerned.
Agree 100%
Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s world class chicken little.
Pure bastardry is different from the usual, common-or-garden nastiness because its exponents enjoy doing it, as distinct from a hard choice out of necessity. But to be utterly evil requires religion as a leaven – hence the Abbottrocity & his ugly good-bothering enablers.
…as well as the god-bothering ones.
Why is it that it is left up to the resource poor Crikey to express what is so obvious? One would have thought The Guardian with its illustrious history would have called it as it is, not simply repeat the Lib press release.
The other issue here is that we are not fulfilling our promise to the Syrian catastrophe, so why should we believe Turnbull when this offer is made. It is also notable the offer is giving into the demands that One Nation is making.
So much for Turnbull liberalism.
Well done yet again Crikey you put the major media outlets to shame, and I haven’t read one thing where you blame lack of resources for not applying the most basic of scrutiny and professionalism to issues of importance.
Thanks Paul! We try. Never a subscription dollar wasted here.
Positive reinforcement by Turnbull , our intake per capita is more than sufficient.
It is not. It’s pathetic, ludicrous and mean. Jordan is coping with 1 refugee per 4 Jordanians, so is Lebanon, Turkey it’s 1 per 80, Nauru is 1 in 9 of people who have never wanted to be there.
We are whining about 1263, a condition that exists when every year 1 in 4 of our population are tourists and our intake of migrants is 10 times higher without a whinge.
Marilyn …Don’t you know that Australia is a small overcrowded, under-resourced and economically challenged country? CLP politicians are frightened of the right wing of the party and the western Sydney voters. George Christensen is the most powerful politician in the country and he has Malcolm Chicken Little’s measure. That is, as some would say his political cowardice.