Refugees Must Not Be Judged as a Cost Item in a Balance Sheet

The debate over Australia’s humanitarian intake has taken a concerning turn, with some arguing that refugees should be viewed as a cost item on the nation’s balance sheet. This reduction of human lives to fiscal calculations is morally repugnant and fundamentally misguided.

In 2001, the world witnessed a pivotal moment when the MV Tampa arrived in Australian waters, carrying over 150 asylum seekers. The image of Australian soldiers helping them to safety remains etched in our collective memory. Yet, instead of embracing these individuals as part of our community, we turned away from providing permanent residency and exported their potential to New Zealand, where they thrived.

Former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer recently argued that Australia has no obligation to settle refugees permanently because of their predicted negative lifetime fiscal contribution. This reasoning is based on a narrow economic view and overlooks the fundamental principles of human rights and nation-building. By prioritizing short-term costs over long-term benefits, we risk sacrificing our values as a nation.

Humanitarian resettlement has always been a cornerstone of Australia’s identity. We were one of the founding members of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and our commitment to protecting those fleeing persecution has been unwavering. However, in recent times, this stance has been undermined by a utilitarian approach that views refugees as mere fiscal liabilities.

Refugees are not idle; they work, start businesses, and contribute to their communities just like any other migrant group. They inject fresh talent and energy into our society rather than draining resources. The idea that we should prioritize those who will ultimately return a fiscal dividend is misguided, akin to saying only those who generate significant economic returns deserve protection.

This approach ignores the basic human rights principles that underpin our international obligations. By dehumanizing refugees and reducing them to mere numbers, we risk creating a society where people are valued based on their perceived economic utility rather than their inherent worth as individuals.

Australia’s decision-makers would do well to remember the words of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser: “The issue is not whether or when Australia will receive its fair share of refugees. The issue is how we respond to those who have been displaced and are fleeing persecution.” We must reclaim our nation’s proud tradition of welcoming those in need and recognize that our strength as a society lies not in our balance sheet but in the resilience and diversity of our people.

As we continue this debate, it’s essential to look beyond fiscal arguments and reassert our commitment to human rights and humanitarianism. The future of Australia is at stake, and it’s imperative that we make choices that reflect our values as a nation. By doing so, we will not only uphold our international obligations but also invest in the very fabric of our society – its character, strength, and potential for growth.