Has the tide turned on how we treat asylum seekers? Not quite

Extract from ABC The Drum

Opinion

By Barrie Cassidy

Posted about an hour ago

Photo: Is the community to be more sympathetic and compassionate towards those forced from their homes? (AFP: JM Lopez)

On the face of it the events in Syria and Australia's response to it suggest we're undergoing a transformation in the way we respond to asylum seekers. But while we did well this week, we're far from global leaders, writes Barrie Cassidy.

Is Australia undergoing a transformation in the way we respond to the extraordinary movement of refugees around the world?
Have events in Syria - and the awful image of the drowned toddler - caused not just the Government and the media, but the community more generally to be more sympathetic and compassionate towards those forced from their homes?
On the face of it, that seems to be the case.
The candlelight vigils earlier this week; the outpouring of concern for the displaced Syrians; the fact that the Prime Minister, after a hesitant start, trumped the Opposition by embracing 12,000 Syrian refugees; the treatment of the story in the tabloids; all that suggests a significant shift in the public mood.
But not so fast.
Yesterday in Port Moresby, Tony Abbott insisted there was "a world of difference" between the Syrians and "people who have done a deal with people smugglers to go beyond the country of first asylum".
He went on:

...and we will never do anything that encourages the evil trade of people smuggling, and all of those who have come to Australia by boat are here as a result of people smuggling and this is the self-same trade which resulted in the deaths of more than 1000 people at sea in the waters to our north and has currently resulted in the deaths of perhaps many, many more thousands in the Mediterranean.

And to underline the point, former minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, told the ABC's AM program that in its response to Syria, the Government hadn't changed its border protection policy.
He said:

What we've decided to do is to respond to a genuine refugee and humanitarian crisis in the Middle East ... we'll be helping those who are in that zone ... those who have come here courtesy of people smugglers, there is a process in place for those individuals and those processes will be followed.

That is the Government's view, unequivocally. But will it resonate in quite the same way from now on? Can Tony Abbott in the future exploit the national security issue with the same effectiveness as he has in the past?
Maybe now, the distinction between the Syrian refugees and the rest will be harder to define. Those - in parts of the media - who wish to demonise asylum seekers, might not be listened to in quite the same way. And maybe, just maybe, even those who want tough action taken against those who arrive by boat, might nevertheless think again about the conditions asylum seekers are forced to endure on Manus Island and Nauru.
Significant events can change attitudes. The Border Force fiasco in Melbourne, for example, has created concerns in the minds of some about an uniformed paramilitary type organisation having responsibility for essentially immigration issues.
But whatever the wash-up, the Prime Minister will benefit from the decisions taken this week. It was, as he said, the right thing to do. It captured the community spirit. He would, of course, be given more credit if his initial instincts weren't so astray.
He not only mused about absorbing the Syrian numbers into the existing intake, but spoke quite openly about the "crisis" in Europe, and the comparison with Australia, where "we stopped the boats".
It remains, however, that this time Tony Abbott listened to those in the party who are not of the hard right. He gave a voice to those who are closer to the critical centre.
Without question, the Government this week landed in the right place.
What a pity though that along the way the public had to be so mislead about the reality of Australia's contribution to the worldwide refugee crisis.
As recently as Thursday morning Scott Morrison repeated what others have said so often: that Australia is "the single biggest resettler of refugees per capita in the world".
Rubbish. We don't even come close.
Australia has 35,000 refugees. By far the greatest burden falls on the developing countries near to the crisis zones. Turkey, for example, according to the UNHCR, has close to 1.6 million refugees; Pakistan has 1.5 million. A quarter of Lebanon's population are refugees.
Had Morrison said that per capita - under the UNHCR's refugee program - Australia is the most generous in the world, he would have been accurate.
Australia - per capita - does take more refugees than any other country under that program. In fact, since Australia signed up in 1977, Australia has been top three, along with the United States and Canada. But that's because those three countries account for 90 per cent of global re-settlements under that specific scheme. Those three countries are in effect, the only serious signatories. If it's a competition, then Australia is excelling in a very small field.
And more to the point, the UNHCR program accounts for less than 1 per cent of the movement of refugees around the globe. That is such a small share that comparisons - against overall movement - is virtually meaningless.
Yet the Government clings to that figure as a measure of Australia's role as a global citizen. We did well this week. But we are not world leaders.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.