The One Percent Solution

The UN’s refugee agency UNHCR has reported that the number of displaced people is now at its highest level ever, some 65 million, surpassing even post-World War II numbers. This is just under 1% of the world’s population of 7.4 billion people. Around 1.3 million are in dire need.

This is a devastating problem that threatens our global wellbeing both in the short and long terms.

If a solution is not found to help these people, the consequences for all of us include increased terrorism, human trafficking, global economic stagnation and mass human tragedy.

The solution involves changing the mind set about the nature of the problem.

‘The 1% Solution’
Sixty-five million is a very large number, but if every country agreed to take the equivalent of 1% of their own population as refugees and house them, the problem would be solved.

Once the displaced persons are housed, there will be a dramatic reduction in people in refugee camps, as all will have been settled bar those very few rejected by recipient countries, and the inevitable new refugees who are generated from time to time by the global situation.

The UNHCR could be the potential broker for this.

The money saved by closing down permanent refugee camps can be used for peacekeeping and development aid, to minimise the creation of new refugees.

What would this mean for Australia? 
For Australia, 1% would mean housing 240,000 people, all to be paid full social welfare entitlements until they earn their own income. This is far less than the 818,863 immigrants Australia welcomed and housed in 2013 on a variety of temporary and permanent long stay visas.

After an initial burden on the national budget, experience shows us that as soon as immigrants and refugees become part of our society and take on work, the national budget will receive a significant net benefit. Australia’s economy will be stimulated, to the benefit of all.

Of course, there would be no need for spending on Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island, thus saving more than $1.5 billion a year.

The current refugee centres in Australia could be used to process incoming refugees.

All displaced persons would be initially required to be regionally domiciled to help local economies outside the major cities, to achieve the maximum economic benefit. More permanent residency visas could be made dependent on a period of residence with employment in one of the nominated regions. 

The States would be asked to bid to take numbers of people. The economic benefit to a State’s economy would be worth more than $20,000 times the number of people housed in the State, based on an average $20,000 per person welfare payment p.a. from the federal government. The individuals receiving the financial support would spend it all, directly benefiting local businesses and communities.

Because of the very low welfare payments there would be little or no capacity to save.

As an example take Tasmania, which already has a stagnant economy, and is heavily dependent on finance from the Commonwealth. A successful bid for 10,000 people would deliver a $200 million cash injection to its economy. For 20,000 people, $400 million, and so on.

Challenges for resettlement

There will be a range of challenges to make the 1% solution a success. These include provision of housing, education and health services, and jobs. However, increased revenues to local business providing services to the refugees will help the local Australians, providing more jobs, particularly in regional centres currently suffering high levels of unemployment.

Getting other nations on board
Probably the biggest problem with the 1% solution will be in getting enough nations to agree.

Most of the very populous countries may refuse to take on the equivalent of 1% of their very large populations, either because of traditional cultural xenophobia, for example Japan, China, India; recently exacerbated xenophobia, for example the USA, UK and Australia; or inability to fund the process, for example countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan and Mexico.

The scheme would initially work best with small to medium population, highly progressive countries like the Scandinavians and Canada – and Australia Leadership is required.

If Australia takes a lead, we will show the economic benefits of doing so (pumping money into local economies, providing revenues for small businesses, stimulating the overall national economy – not to mention getting rid of camps on Nauru and Manus Island).

Once a country, Australia, takes the first step, and shows the economic benefits, others will follow. It may be we need to get several countries to agree to this – perhaps negotiating initially with Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Germany – so that there can be a group announcement.

There is a precedent. After the Second World War, nations came together to help resettle the millions of people displaced by the conflict. The program was successful and drove Australia’s post-war economic boom.

Another benefit is the putting out of business of people smugglers - there will be no more people to smuggle.

The figure of 65 million displaced people will in time reduce, as once hot spots cool down, many people will return to their homelands. As the UNHCR has reported, of this huge number, less than 1.5 million are in dire circumstances. Therefore it can be seen that the need for settling 1% to a large population country such as the USA – equivalent to 3 million people – may well be reduced to a manageable number.

And arguably the move of supporting 1% per capita of displaced persons will reduce some of the pressures currently driving international tensions and conflicts, thus in the longer term leading to decreases in defence spending.

Even if few countries take up this challenge, if Australia takes the lead we will stimulate our economy, help the many people already needing better jobs, and close down centres at Nauru and Manus Island, which I suspect would suit even those who see them as preferable to deaths at sea.