mandatory detention
19 Aug 2008
The Terrifying Debate
When the Government changed our detention policy it didn't want too many people to notice, writes Andrew Bartlett
Responses to the Federal Government’s recent reform
of Australia’s immigration detention policy have once again shown that
debate over immigration issues in Australia is drenched in symbolism,
political posturing and ideology, obscuring the human reality beneath.
On the one hand, it is hard to imagine how it could be contentious for a government to state that we should not
lock up people for long periods when they have not been charged with
any offence, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. But as soon
as you mention asylum seekers or refugees - let alone bring up loaded
and misleading terms like "illegal immigrants" - at that point simple,
humane common sense seems to go straight out the window.
Ezequiel Trumper quite rightly expressed amazement and dismay
that a decision by the Government to reassert such a basic aspect of
the rule of law was done with so little fanfare. He was also angry that
there was so little condemnation of the policies that were being
discarded, and no "moral censure of the perpetrators of these
horrendous human rights violations".
Yet in announcing what should turn out to be a historic realignment
in national immigration policy and law, the Labor Government has been
as keen as anyone else to keep it low-key. Despite (or because of) the
political significance of the issue, the announcement was made by
Minister Chris Evans, not by the Prime Minister - even though the issue
is ideally suited to Kevin Rudd’s pre-election characterisation of John
Howard’s "Brutopia", and is also perfectly in tune with Mr Rudd’s own praise of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his notion of the Christian duty to support "the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed".
Despite some standard criticism by Chris Evans of the previous
government’s policy, he also made it very clear - in line with Labor’s
official policy - that "mandatory detention" was being retained.
Indeed, Evans emphasised that number one of the Government’s "seven key
immigration values" is that "Mandatory detention is an essential
component of strong border control".
Labor has junked the old form of mandatory detention, but at the
same time has been keen to retain the label, and also to keep linking
it to other phrases such as "border control". In fact, the arrival of
asylum seekers by boat has nothing to do with effective control of our
borders, nor do any of the other tough terms deployed in this debate
have any real value except to play on security fears in the community.
The people who might threaten our security are those who try to sneak
in undetected or use false pretences to avoid scrutiny of their
intentions. By contrast, asylum seekers deliberately seek to be
detected, and then undergo more rigorous assessment, including police
and security checks, than any of the literally millions of other people
who enter Australia every year.
To some extent, one could say the Government’s relatively quiet
reform is just another example of politicians trying to use language
that will appeal to both sides of an issue. But the underlying politics
and community attitudes regarding immigration and refugee issues should
not be underplayed.
Labor’s cautious approach on this, and the generally low-key
political responses so far, are not just due to the psychological and
political scars from 2001’s Tampa election. We cannot ignore the fact
that significant antagonism towards asylum seekers, refugees and
migrants still exists in the wider community. While Ezequiel Trumper
lamented how little coverage such a potentially momentous policy shift
received in the newspapers, it was certainly sufficient to generate
some heated comment on anti-migrant blogs around the world. There was
also plenty of vitriol among the many reader comments left on
mainstream media sites such as this one at The Courier-Mail.
This can’t just be dismissed as a venomous online fringe. Not long
after Chris Evans’s announcement regarding immigration detention, a survey
found over 60 per cent of respondents believed Australia’s past policy
towards asylum seekers was either "about right" or "not tough enough".
Only 24 per cent thought it was "too tough".
Andrew Norton pointed to
a number of other polls, including the 2007 Australian Election Survey,
which also suggest that the level of public sympathy for refugees is
not as strong as human rights campaigners might like to think.
It is fair enough to say that governments shouldn’t pander to such
attitudes, and certainly the tactic from the Howard era of deliberately
inflaming community antagonism towards refugees and migrants for
political gain must continue to be condemned.
But in shifting away from such past policies, it is asking a lot of any
government to expect them to tackle such antagonistic attitudes head on
- particularly if there is not a strong movement at community level
also seeking to shift such attitudes.
Major party politicians will only go so far in adopting measures which
fly directly in the face of general public opinion. The more solid the
public support for basic human rights to be equally available for
migrants, the further governments will go in acting on this.
Politicians do sometimes do the right thing just because it is the
right thing to do. But contrary to popular opinion, politicians are
human beings, and like anyone else, they are more likely to do the
right thing if there is a reward rather than a punishment in doing so.
The task of a human rights and migrants’ rights movement is to try to
make it politically rewarding to do the right thing.
Articles that did appear in the mainstream media attacking Chris
Evans’ announcement recycled the same old baseless smears about
security and terrorism risks from "softer" detention policies. The
smear term "illegal immigrant" continues to be used regularly in the
mainstream media, despite many efforts over a long period to educate
editors and journalists about its inaccuracy.
Ross Fitzgerald, a regular writer for The Australian, is one example
of the continuing effort to use baseless innuendo about terrorism
threats and the Howard-era propaganda line that a "softer" policy might
"send a message to people smugglers that Australia is open for business
again". Fitzgerald even came up with a term which would do The Hollowmen
proud, talking of "potential illegals" and the possible dangers of
allowing them to live in the community (ie they might be terrorists who
will disappear if we don’t keep them locked up). "Potential illegal" is
the sort of term beloved of the spin doctor - basically meaningless and
misleading, but perfect for playing on public fears and implying
wrong-doing even when there clearly is none.
It is hard to think of another policy which has been such a clear
vote winner as Howard’s detention "deterrent", despite it failing on
virtually every measure normally used to assess the adequacy of a
policy. It’s not often mentioned, but it’s definitely worth remembering
that in simple policy terms, mandatory detention was a very expensive
failure which did not achieve its stated goal of reducing the number of
boat arrivals.
Boat arrivals didn’t drop until a decade after mandatory detention was
brought in, partly as a consequence of the Government adopting the
Hanson policy of using the military to push the boats back, along with
changing trends in global refugee movements and evolving cooperation
with UNHCR, Indonesia and other nations in our region.
Mandatory detention cost billions of taxpayer dollars, caused major
harm to many innocent children and adults, seriously undermined
fundamental components of the rule of law underpinning our democracy,
and caused serious degradation in standards of public administration
But the main goal of the mandatory detention policy was always a
political one, not a policy one. It was not so much about reducing the
number of asylum seekers, but rather about appearing "tough" on them
once they’d arrived (although I have never figured out how it can
possibly be tough to pick on some of world’s most powerless people).
The excesses of the Howard era, culminating in the shredding of the
rule of law following the Tampa rescue, the pre-meditated brutality of
detention policy and Temporary Protection Visas (also laudably scrapped
by Minister Evans), galvanised the refugee rights movement in
Australia, which played a huge role in stemming and slowly turning the
tide of public opinion on this issue. But we should not kid ourselves
that the task is anywhere near done, or that it only relates to refugees.
The statements of people in government and other positions of
leadership and influence are crucial in shaping public understanding
and attitudes. Those of us who believe that refugees and migrants
should have the same rights and respect as the rest of the community
have a crucial role over the next few years, a role which will include
encouraging government to adopt a more realistic rhetoric, to help
build a clear majority in favour of a more just attitude. Only then can
we be confident of a permanent shift in that direction in government
policy and migration law.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
The biggest change over the last century is that we don’t engage in debate and discussion as a national sport.
People want a baby formula opinion presented on a plate to them , preferably 30 seconds in size.
I was puzzled over who these terrorists were , rationally they were militarily aggressive nations like the US , Britain and Israel , however I am coming to the conclusion we are creating a new archetype for all our fears regarding a rapidly changing world , technology , the diminishing of traditional resources such as oil and water, the changing climate patterns. These have all been externalised and anthromorphised as terrorists. With this archetype in place it is then easy to grab political benefit by marginalizing a small group as being representative of that archetype.
My dismay at the lack of humanity and intellect displayed by Australians is profound.
A solution I still see as valid is parliamentary reform , so that we have diverse opinions within government , as opposed to the monolithic approach at present , we may then re-invent ourselves as a democracy.
While demonising asylum seekers has pandered to the fear of others, the front door was quietly opened to allow many more migrants in on business visas.
We weren’t swamped by the persecuted but we did get a fair share of wealthy property developers and others who had a sizable bank account through whatever shonky means they achieved it.
Both major parties are addicted to growth in population, regardless of its consequences for the non business elites.
It’s all very well to mouth the words ‘human rights’ when it comes to taking in the refugees of the world, but, there needs to be a limit to the number and who is admitted.
Why would we want out country filled with people from Islamic countries especially with them espousing their fundamentalist views of Western Society and Christianity and any other belief that isn’t Islam plus their refusal to integrate into OUR society. We do not want or need civil wars in our country and this will be our future if we allow our country to be flooded with them.
Then after you deliver millions their ‘human rights’ to our country explain how you are gong to feed and water them….forget about housing them as we can’t house the people living here already.
Then as you have relieved overcrowded countries of their excess population, who is going to take in the next wave or generation of people from the same countries when they do nothing about controlling their breeding.
If we have been responsible enough to control our breeding to enhance our way of life and to try and preserve our fragile country why should we be obliged to overload it with irresponsible overbreeders.
As far as detention for health reasons go, tuberculosis is a genuine threat that is endemic to many countries just North of Australia. Should we just let infected people roam about spreading the disease or send them back or keep them in detention until they have completed the lengthy treatment, because you can just bet that the treatment course wouldn’t be completed if the infected were allowed free access.
All hard words….but realistic.
I agree that a lot of asylum seekers do land on these shores with a lot of problems, both social and economic.
BUT JulesTASAU, your comment is so rude, presumptious, racist and bigoted that I can’t dignify it with anything more than vitriol.
I think what you’re really worried about is that these people might just work for lower wages than you and work harder than you and make a life for themselves that might surpass yours and end up making more of your Australia than it could have been with only close-minded people like you living here.
anti
Do everyone a favour and look up the meaning of racist.
Then do some research into the reasons why countries that had open-arm migration policies for muslims are now retreating to formulate new legislation to keep them out.
If Australia doesn’t stop them now it will not be 50 or 8- years before we have our own civil wars.
“discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion”
“a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others”
There’s two definitions, and anti’s summation seems to fit the description based on your remarks on both scores. Perhaps some soul searching on your part might be warranted.
cheers, Derek
These are Australian values according to the Dept of Immigration:
“What are the Australian values?
Australian values include:
* respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual
* equality of men and women
* freedom of religion
* commitment to the rule of law
* support for Parliamentary democracy
* a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play, compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
* equal opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
Although these values may be expressed differently by different people, their meaning stays the same. The values may not be unique to Australia, but they have broad community agreement and underpin Australian society and culture.”
Islam fails on most of these.
Islam does not respect the freedom and dignity of the individual
Islam holds that men and women are unequal. A woman’s witness is worth only half that of a man.
Islam does not agree with freedom of religion- Apostates can be killed- Non-muslims are inferior and called infidels and dhimmis.
Islamists are not committed to the rule of Australian law- in fact they are committed to their own law- sharia.
Parliamentary democracy is anathema to Islamists as they see it as degenerate.
Egalitarianism extends only to Muslims of their own brand of Islam. Sunni Muslims for example hold that Shia Muslims are not true Muslims and vice versa.
Equal opportunity does not exist in Islamic societies.