IA02: The Australian-Cambodia refugee deal benefits all but Australia

The recent plans by the Australian Government to settle asylum seekers in Cambodia in return for a large aid package has been decried by many as an inhumane and ineffective solution by the Government. The proposal has been met with criticism from human rights organisations worldwide and civil society groups from both Australia and Cambodia.

Under the memorandum of agreement between both countries refugees that are processed in detention centres in Australia will be offered a voluntary resettlement package in Cambodia, subject to approval by Cambodian authorities. The plan is set to cost Australian taxpayers over $40 million in additional foreign aid payments to Cambodia.

The memorandum of agreement has rightly been condemned as a refusal by the Australian Government’s to accept their responsibilities to protect refugees under the United Nations Refugee Convention. The cost has also drawn criticism from Australian taxpayers and opposition groups who claim that the agreement will cost more money than it would to settle those refugees in Australia. Regardless of opinions on whether the Australian government has shirked its obligations under the Refugee Convention or the cost effectiveness of the policy, one of the loudest and most cynical criticisms of the agreement is that it is inhumane to send refugees to Cambodia.

Such arguments are based on the belief that Cambodia is not an appropriate location to settle refugees because the Cambodian government does not have the resources to provide for refugees. Under the Refugee Convention, states which have ratified the convention are obliged to provide asylum to refugees, which are defined as those who are persecuted on political or religious grounds. The purpose of asylum is for refugees to be free of persecution, rather than the guarantee of welfare benefits and public health. For those fleeing the threat of torture or death, the opportunity to settle in a country where they can live their lives without fear is paramount.

The suggestion that the settlement of refugees will be a burden to Cambodia, one of the poorest countries in South-East Asia is an insult to the ability and ambition of those refugees.

Studies have shown that migrants provide numerous benefits to their host countries, by providing labour, investment, skills, and by contributing to innovation. The weight of evidence suggests that immigration has a positive effect on economic development, which is especially apparent in countries such as the United States of America and Australia which are famously built on immigrants, and have demonstrated high growth following inflows of migrants. Even for developing countries such as Kenya, Uganda and Malawi, Indian immigrants have created numerous opportunities for residents of those countries and themselves and have helped them to develop socially and economically.

Despite Cambodia providing less social welfare to refugees than Australia and other OECD countries, refugees are likely to find that Cambodia offers greater opportunities to thrive economically.

Australia’s heavy regulatory environment creates high barriers to entry for refugees hoping to create small businesses; and the protectionism within the labour market prevents even highly trained professionals from carrying out their regular occupations without clearing the bureaucratic hurdles which are set by industry groups. The burdensome regulations faced in Australia often leave skilled migrants working in lower paid, manual labour jobs for which many are overqualified.

Cambodia on the other hand has limited regulations around labour, enterprise and investment, which creates abundant opportunities for refugees to contribute to the economic growth of Cambodia. Cambodia has already seen an influx of foreign immigrants since the 1990s, and rather than prevent native born Cambodians from achieving economic success, that migration has helped increase Cambodia’s GDP and elevate millions of Cambodians from poverty.

The memorandum of agreement should go even further and provide refugees the opportunity to settle directly in Cambodia, rather than undergo the journey to Australia, wait in detention and finally be offered a voluntary resettlement package. Such a policy by the Cambodian government (working with refugee agencies and other governments) would undercut the people smuggling industry which thrives through transporting asylum seekers to Australia by boat, which is both illegal and highly dangerous. Instead of spending months and even years in detention in Australia, asylum seekers could avoid the trauma and costs by applying directly to travel to Cambodia to resettle. The cost of travelling to Australia illegally to seek asylum is estimated at up to $10,000 per person, which is money which could be invested into the Cambodian economy, and could guarantee refugees a good standard of living.

The Australian Government’s policy is an expensive, arrogant, and short-sighted solution to dealing with refugees who arrive in Australia by boat. The agreement fails in many respects, but not necessarily in the way that many human rights activists suggest. For refugees who are expediently settled in Cambodia, and for the Cambodian economy as a whole, this deal is a winner. Australia has lost a great opportunity by turning away refugees who can provide so much to its society and economy, but at the same time has inadvertently created even brighter opportunities to some of the world’s most needy.

Gabrielle Ward is the Research Director at the Professional Research Institute for Management and Economics (PRIME).

* IA02 = Issue Analysis 02 - This article is the second Issue Analysis (IA) published by PRIME. The IA series is for short analysis of news, policy, and current events, and will generally be published as newspaper opinion, in a newsletter, online media, or on the PRIME blog.

###

#refugees #asylumseekers