Of all the hare-brained ideas that governments come up with, the deal with the US to take refugees from Manus Island and Nauru must surely take the prize. And just when I thought Malcolm Turnbull was coming good. First, as if we did not have enough trouble, the deal means that there is now a new and enticing temptation to potential refugees to get to Australia. They will all think, and rightly so, that if they can come here by boat and are prepared to wait for a few years, they will inevitably get to the US. The sugar is back on the table. If I were stuck in some third world hell-hole run by tyrants, religious maniacs, or tin pot princes with no more claim to their thrones than Lawrence of Arabia, I would be faced with an easy choice. Either I stay there and suffer, under the lash of a despot, with no chance of a decent life for myself and my children, or I take the risk of getting on a boat to Australia, knowing that if or when I arrive, Australia will provide me with all the necessities of life, absolutely free, and, with any luck, a free flight to the US. True, I would probably have to wait on Manus or Nauru for a few years until the Australian government gives in to pressure yet again and does another deal, if not with the US, then with Canada or Sweden and sends me on my way. But if the choice is between five more years under Assad or five years on Nauru, I would take the latter and run the risk; yes, even with an unscrupulous people smuggler. Suffering for a few years is a small price to pay to get to Nirvana. Anyway, I could use the time constructively by making complaints with the Human Rights Commission at the public expense about my treatment.

Secondly, the argument that this is a one-off deal that will never be repeated is pathetic. It is just another version of the worn-out excuse that governments always use when faced with a crisis: this will never happen again. But it always does happen again, and the second time is usually worse than the first. And so it will be on this issue. In any event, this deal is not the first one. We have already told the Americans we will take refugees stranded in Costa Rica, sending a clear signal to the world that if you can get to Costa Rica, you could get to Australia. Now we have reinforced the weakness of Australia by sending a second signal that if you can make it to Australia, you will be in the running for what many refugees must want: the ultimate prize of entry into the US.

Thirdly, the government presumably thinks that the deal will make the Left and the handwringers happy and think nice things about the government for solving the refugee problem. It will not. Already, the Labor Party and the refugee lobby are praising the deal and the Age calls it a ‘victory’, ‘wonderful’ and ‘the beginning of the end’. Which it is. For them. But the thing about issues like refugees, climate change, same sex marriage and aboriginals is that their advocates are never satisfied and will always want more. So the deal will merely open a new front; the Greens and Amnesty have already opened hostilities; the latest demand is for 50, 000 refugees a year. The next demand will be that the deal should not be limited to whatever number is agreed with the US, but should be open to all comers on Manus and Nauru. Then it will be that the deal should cover those who have been found not to be refugees. Then, that it should also cover those with families in Australia- and their families. Then, that we should abandon the policies on turn backs and temporary protection visas. Then it will be that there should be compensation and a national apology, for which a campaign has already begun. So the deal will not take the problem away; it will merely start new ones.

Next, the option of coming to Australia by plane instead of boat will be given a new lease of life. If illegal migrants can win such a prize after coming by boat, why not aim for a better and safer means of winning the same prize by coming by air? And the deal has all the hallmarks of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, which the refugee advocates will milk for all it is worth and which will generate even more political problems for the government. How many of the 1,800 candidates will be taken? It will never be enough. How long will it take to implement? It will never be fast enough. As single men on Manus and Nauru will not get a look-in after priority for women and children, shouldn’t they also be allowed to go to the US? And those who have been brought here for medical treatment? The longer these unanswered questions remain, and they will remain unanswered for years, the more scope there will be to keep the issue running and heap more abuse on the government. Finally, we are foolishly involving the UNHCR in the mechanics of this deal; we will get no praise for this and it will be received in practice for exactly what it is: a reward for a body that specialises in abusing us while they take our money.

Inevitably, whatever its final terms, and even if President Trump goes along with it, many people on Manus and Nauru will be left behind and we will be given no thanks for helping those who make it to the US. How can our leaders have been so naive?

The post Brown study appeared first on The Spectator.