that australia should dramatically increase its refugee intake · 2016-04-11 · that australia...

That Australia should dramatically increase its

refugee intake

B Grade Round 2

AFFIRMATIVE

Affirmative Model

How many is a ‘dramatic’ increase?

Current intake is 25,740

According to Wikipedia, this is how we stack-up against the rest of the world (and what we would need to increase our intake to):

• Australia: 1 per 685 (35,582 total, pop. 24,370,000)

• World Average: 1 per 484 (50,351)

• Luxemburg: 1 per 414 (58,865)

• Belgium: 1 per 346 (70,433)

• Germany: 1 per 328* (74,299)

• Canada: 1 per 224 (108,795)

• Norway: 1 per 103 (236,602)

• Sweden: 1 per 65* (374,923)

Affirmative Model

• Remember: it needs to be “dramatic”.

• Realistically, we would need to increase our intake to above the world average.

• If you set the number too small, then you won’t see any real benefits and your arguments will be awarded little weight.

• If you make the number too high, you will run into potentially strong counter-arguments based around practicality.

Affirmative Arguments

1. We have a moral duty to accept refugees.

2. Australia has the ability to accept more refugees.

3. Accepting refugees brings economic benefits to Australia.

4. Accepting refugees bring social benefits to Australia.

ARGUMENT: Australia has a moral duty to accept more refugees

• This is the largest displacement of people since WW2.

• There is a current and pressing global need for countries to accept refugees.

• As a member of the international community, Australia has an obligation to increase its refugee intake dramatically in order to help address this crisis.

• Our current share of world refugees is well below the global average. We are not fulfilling our obligations and a dramatic increase is needed.

• 480,000 resettlement places will be needed for Syrian refugees by 2018 (1 in 10 Syrian refugees will need resettlement). So far only 179,000 places have been offered by countries. (UNHCR)

• Currently there aren’t enough resettlement places. In 2015, only 12% of those refugees in need of resettlement were resettled. (UNHCR)


• Currently our treatment of refugees is an international embarrassment and we are seen as not fulfilling our obligations as a country and as part of a global community.

• A dramatic increase in refugee numbers would demonstrate to the world that we are serious about our obligations and are willing to take a leading role in the international community.


COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Moral Duty

• Australia has a duty to try and PROTECT refugees.

• This can be done in other, perhaps more efficient and effective, ways – not just resettlement.

• This isn’t about what makes us feel good. This isn’t about providing the best possible life for a few people. This is about trying to help AS MANY people as possible (utilitarian approach).

• If anything, resettlement can serve as a DISTRACTION from larger-scale efforts to alleviate suffering and WASTES much-needed resources.

ARGUMENT: Australia has the ability to accept more refugees

• Australia is a wealthy, politically stable developed nation.

• Other western nationals (such as Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, UK, Canada, Sweden) accept many more refugees per native.

• Canada was able to screen, select and prepare over 26,000 refugees in just 4 months. If Canada can, we can. (UNHCR)

• The cost is manageable: helping an additional 12,000 Syrians has been budgeted at $700million over 4 years. While substantial, this type of expenditure is possible and worthwhile.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Ability

• Yes, Australia has the means to accept more, but is this the best use of finite resources?

• Remember: most international (UN) agencies trying to deal with the crisis are near bankruptcy. This is the largest forced movement of people since WW2. Conventional ‘there’s always enough money’ arguments don’t hold when billions of dollars have been spent, and another $3billion is URGENTLY needed to fend-off starvation.

• Yes, we have the resources to make a difference. We need to make the BIGGEST difference possible. For every 1 refugee we resettle, we can provide for at least 12 overseas if we instead support regional efforts.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Ability

• The cost is substantial. Doubling Australia’s refugee intake will cost $2,134,920,000 over current expenditure.

• By comparison, $44million is enough to supply food, shelter and healthcare to 240,000 refugees in overseas camps for the next 6 months.

• See the proposed counter-model in the negative slides for more information.

ARGUMENT: Economic Benefits

• Accepting refugees helps to address Australia’s problems of an aging population.

• Refugees are the youngest group of immigrants to Australia. At an average age of 21.8 years, they were about six years younger than the average of all immigrants and 15 years younger than the Australian population as a whole.

• This means they spend their entire working lives in Australia, giving greater potential for long-term contributions to the workforce.

• This is one of the reasons why Germany is accepting so many: a young population is needed to stimulate an economy.


• Refugees also demonstrate greater levels of resilience and entrepreneurship than other immigrant groups, meaning they are more likely to start businesses.

• Second-generation descendants of refugees have higher rates or education and engagement in the workforce that native-born Australians, so long-term it brings the potential for many positive benefits.


• Many former refugees have made hugely important contributions to Australian society:• Frank Lowly (Hungarian refugee, 1952) who came with

little English, no money and poor education, became the biggest shopping-centre owner in the world, worth $7billion last year, with $40billion is Australian and New Zealand assets and another $20billion internationally

• Other hugely successful entrepreneurs who came to Australia as refugees include Harry Triguboff (founded Meriton), Richard Pratt (founded Visy packaging), Victor Smorgon (Smorgon Steel), Peter Ables (TNT), Russel Kogan (Kogan Technlologies, now worth $400million) and Huy Truong (founded Wishlist).

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Economic

• According to Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013 ‘Characteristics of Recent Migrants’ report:• Refugees have an 81% non-employment rate• After 10 years, still a 64% non-employment rate

• Arguments regarding economic benefits are outdated. They rely upon a society that:• Requires large pools of low or unskilled labour for

manufacturing, factory and construction projects.• Has large amounts of land/housing available or able to be

constructed at low cost.

• Neither of these conditions exists any more in Australia. We are losing our manufacturing sector and are transitioning to a more highly-skilled service-based economy. While we have a lot of land, land prices and construction costs in urban areas are not excessively high.

ARGUMENT: Social Benefits

• Australia has always benefitted from waves of immigration and refugees in particular.

• We gain as a society when we accept people of different backgrounds, who can bring new perspectives, experiences and outlooks on the world.

• In a multicultural society and a globalised world, this plurality of views is essential.

• Many former refugees have made hugely important contributions to Australian society:• Sir Gustav Nossal (famous scientist) fled Austria after

WW2.• Karl Kruszelnicki (Dr Karl, famous science broadcaster and

media personality) fled Poland. • Anh Do (comedian and television presenter) fled Vietnam.

ARGUMENT: Social Benefits

• Australia would have lost some of its greatest scientific and creative minds if it hadn’t accepted refugees.

• There are millions of people who are full of potential, but will have that potential squandered if they are left to suffer in refugee camps, or worse.

• This isn’t just about unlocking an individual’s potential: if we accept them into our society, then we gain as well.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Social

• If we want social benefits, then we need a well-supported, integrated refugee population.

• This requires extensive education and social support services that are very difficult to supply if we dramatically increase our refugee population. We can’t magically make new social workers, EAL/ESL teachers, etc. appear out of thin air or at no cost.

• In the past we have seen benefits from accepting refugees, but by accepting numbers that were less than what we are accepting today.


• We have seen overseas the negative effects of what happens when support and aid to integrate is not offered (France in particular is struggling with these issues).

• We accept that there are social benefits, but we can gain these social benefits under the status quo.

• The only thing that dramatically expanding numbers does is potentially sacrifice any benefits as mass numbers of refugees are accepted, not supported, fail to integrate and then run into issues of dislocation, isolation and poverty.


Regarding Social and Economic Success Stories:

• If I could give $60,000-$100,000 to a person hand have them turn into billionaire Frank Lowly or Gustav Nossal, I would.

• If I have to give $60,000-$100,000 to 800,000 people in the hope that one of them MIGHT become a billionaire, then this suddenly doesn’t sound like a good bargain.

• We all know these feel-good anecdotes where a person form a disadvantaged background bucks the trend and becomes a great success. What the affirmative team has failed to explain is how being a REFUGEE is any sort of guarantor of success.

• We would argue that, if you take a similar cross-section of the Australian population, you would see similar results.

• This is not really relevant to this debate because all it illustrates is that a person – not a refugee – can achieve great things. Without some sort of causal link, or some sort of sustained, consistent trend, this cannot be used as evidence to support increasing our refugee intake.

Rubbish Argument (Aff): Building houses etc. for them will help our economy

• Refugees are amongst the poorest and least-employed groups in our society. While we need to provide housing (and will probably need to build quite a bit), they are NOT the ones who will pay for it!

• Where does the money come from? From the Australian public via taxes.

• Yes, it creates work for some builders, but this money was likely to be spent on other infrastructure or in health/education/etc. anyway. You haven’t created any new jobs – you’ve just taken jobs from one area in the economy and SHIFTED them somewhere else.

• There is no net gain.

Rubbish Argument (Neg): Refugees could be criminals/terrorists

• It simply doesn’t happen.

• We have extremely thorough background checks and tightly regulated borders.

• All asylum seekers are checked by ASIO before being accepted.

• Anyone found to have committed a crime is denied asylum.

• Asylum seekers are 45 times LESS likely than an ordinary Australian citizen to be charged with a crime. (source: Amnesty International)

Rubbish Argument (Neg): They will take our jobs

• The total immigration intake each year is over 190,000 people. Australia has an aging population. It is unlikely that even a very substantial increase in refugee numbers would unbalance these larger trends.

• Refugees often lack skills and education. The jobs they take (if allowed to work at all) are low-skilled and often unwanted by other Australians.

• In many cases, refugees are denied the right to work anyway.

• Case Study: Burmese refugees were resettled in Nhill, Victoria. The main employer in the region (‘Luv-A-Duc’ food processing) needed workers for an expansion, but kept having to delay plans because there weren’t enough workers. Refugees were given jobs others didn’t want, allowing the expansion to take place and bringing flow-on benefits of an estimated $41.5million to the region. (Source: ABC News)

Rubbish Argument (Neg): It costs too much to help refugees

• We are a wealthy developed nation. We can afford to spend some of our money on helping the most needy people in the world.

• We could easily redirect funds. We currently spend 5 times more than the UN’s entire South-East Asian refugee program on offshore detention in Nauru and Manus Island (approx. $1 billion/year). If we wanted to make a real difference, we have the money to do it.

that australia should dramatically increase its refugee intake · 2016-04-11 · that australia...

Documents