Synopsis: Political analysts feel that the Australian government has neglected asylums seekers by sending them to Papua New Guinea, Asylum seekers must get sick of feeling like they’re being passed around! The move by the Australian government to send illegal refugees or people seeking asylum from Australia to Papua New Guinea is one that I cannot support as a journalist and wish to reach out to the people. We need to speak in one voice and save the asylum seekers from this unkind treatment. Our government insists that these people be sent to PNG for assessment and resettlement to reduce the number of refugees in Australia. This move comes in a time when the number of boat arrivals moving to Australia is increasing. Australia has over 46 refugee camps with some facing high criticism from the UN for lacking proper resources to handle the high number of refuges. Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd and the Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill announced the policy in Brisbane on July 19.
The process will take twelve months and will involve all the maritime refugees arriving in Australia. They will be sent to Manus Island where they will be assed.After the assessment legitimate refugees will be sent to New Guinea while the rest will be deported back to their countries. The move is has been considered to have a broader picture than just a solution to the asylum crisis in Australia. Those on the humanitarian field have raised their opinion to this new, move with many claiming that they were not consulted. The move is expected to increase more ties between the two countries. The move may also be against the hospitality of the Australian Government which is indicated in the international treaties signed by the government with other nations. Political analysts feel the move has double directed vector of solving problem, which contains meeting of political goals of an Australian government and tendency for the welfare of refuges. It is viewed as a move by Rudd to retain his elective post.
The Australian government is acting contrary to the freedom of choice of the persons who consciously seeks refuge, in Australia. (1) Thus, it becomes more significance of vector of political orientation of taken decision. If in any case they needed to be in Papua, they would have gone to seek for asylum there and not in Australia. Terms of agreement between the two nations have not been made public and this continues to raise queries on the motive of the move. The people of Papua New Guinea were not consulted and yet they are expected to show hospitality to the asylum seekers. The government of New Guinea is likely to face many challenges in the implementation of this policy. Papua New Guinea is very rich in natural resources, but the terrain and the high cost of infrastructure development hamper their use. However, mining of copper ore, gold and oil produces almost two-thirds of foreign exchange earnings. GDP per capita in Papua New Guinea in 2009 was about 2.4 million dollars (178th place in the world). (2) It is ironical for the Australian government, which has advanced economically to think of New Guinea, a country that is yet to achieve an economic stability could host asylum seekers.
“Political analysts feel the move is more political rather than addressing the welfare of refugees”
Asylum seekers and the Papua New Guinea are not ready for such a chess castling. The only benefits from this move will be to the Australian government. The move is just a short-term solution for hosting refuges, because the problem itself is not solved. It does not offer a lasting solution to the handling of asylum seekers in Australia. New Guinea is a developing country and the fears of that it won’t cope with influx of refuges that require appropriate handling. At the same time, according to “Newsweek” magazine (2) the country ranked 4th in the list of "Top of the world". It is a composite index consists of the following ratings: education - 13th place, health - 3rd place, quality of life - 6th place, the dynamism of the economy - 6th place, the political situation - 9th. According to the World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum), a ranking of global competitiveness (list of the most competitive countries in the world) for the 2010-2011 year, Australia is ranked 16. However it is likely to benefit for the development programs by the Australian government.
According to the weak economical situation in Papua New Guinea at least the key areas such as schools and hospitals have to be improved to take care of refuges; however the agreement is not yet confirmed. The country must be ready to handle the pressure brought about by entry of people from different cultures. Unless the move is analyzed and major stakeholders involved in implementing the policy, move might just be avoided the issue of temporarily transferring it to the to Papua New Guinea; the freedom of refugees is also at stake. Everybody who has the knowledge in the handling of humanitarian crisis will admit that this is not the right move; it is time that all stakeholders showed their support for the asylums seekers and stop this move by the government. If Asylum seekers wanted to be in Papua New Guinea, they would not have bothered to board boats and move to Australia, some of them might even be from New Guinea,they Australian government has ignored the hospitality that it always claim to have in the international and local media.
References
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/barrister-details-high-court-challenge-to-png-asylum-policy/4900630
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html
