Mingoola, Dutton and immigration

My main post today, From Africa's Great Lakes to Mingoola's Field of Dreams, is a follow up post to a rather inspirational story from the ABC Australian Story program on the resettlement of refugees from Central Africa in the small Northern New England settlement of Mingoola.

The program came out on the Monday. The following Thursday, Andrew Bolt in combination with Immigration Minister Dutton took the immigration debate in another direction.

Thursday afternoon, the Melbourne Herald Sun carried a promo for  Mr Bolt's TV program that night. Under the heading " On my shows tonight - refugee crime and the great media meltdown", the paper stated:

On The Bolt Report on Sky at 7pm - The amazing Sudanese crime rate. Our refugee program puts us in danger yet again. My guests: Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Rowan Dean, Graham Richardson and Bruce Hawker. And a round of the greatest media meltdowns of the week.

In the interview that night, Minister Dutton began by talking about Sudanese refugees, but then segued into refugees more generally. The transcript does not seem to be up on his website, so I quote the Channel Nine report:

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton says Islamic youth radicalisation and Middle Eastern crime gangs are the price Australia has paid for "flawed" policies by Malcolm Fraser in the 1970s. 

Mr Dutton was speaking after the federal government announced an inquiry into the settlement of migrants and links between young people and ethnic crime groups.

He said many Australians citizens who had joined foreign terrorist organisations were the children or grandchildren admitted to this country by the former Liberal prime minister. 

"The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in the 1970s and we’re seeing that today, " he told Sky News. 

"We need to be honest in having that discussion. There was a mistake made. "

Earlier he was asked whether young Sudanese men were behind a crime wave in Melbourne. Mr Dutton said it was an "open question" what proportion of the Sudanese community was involved.

Back in October 2007, Mr Andrews, Tamworth and Sudanese Refugees, I found myself in the unusual position of defending then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over his remarks on Sudanese refugees against attacks that he had been racist. As in this case, the trigger for Mr Andrew's remarks had been the Melbourne shock-jocks. Sadly, the official links have all vanished, but enough remains to show the argument. In both this and the previous Tamworth case (the Tamworth stories are linked in the later post) a key concern was the way the main stream media misreported, attaching the racism tag in a way that (among other things) misreported while damaging Australia's international reputation. In both cases, an underlying theme was Australia's failure to provide sufficient resources to support refugee resettlement programs.

The world has changed. Xenophobia, dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries,.has always existed in Australia, as in most countries. I have argued and would still argue that Australia has been better at managing it that most countries. However, Mr Dutton and others appear to be playing to xenophobia, using it to score immediate political point.

The Australian Prime Minister argues that strong border policies are important (among other reasons) because they provide the base for Australian acceptance of migration. I think that there is some truth in that. I sometimes wonder, and this would not be a popular view, whether or not the White Australia policy was in fact a necessary precondition for the emergence of modern pluralist Australia. However, by playing too fear, Minister Dutton is undercutting the very consensus on which modern Australia has been based, one that the PM seems to accept.

Both left and right argue, if sometimes for different reasons, that Australia should stop accepting migrants. They may phrase it in different ways, but the effect is much the same, the progressive emergence of a new anti-migration consensus.

By all means, let's have a conversation as Minister Dutton suggests, but let's make it a real conversation, a dialogue. I happen to support immigration, although I don't think cramming people into a small number of metros is particularly sensible. For those opposed to immigration, do you want to stop all immigration or just reduce it? If opposed to all immigration, would you allow some measure of family reunion? If you would allow some measure of immigration, how much and on what basis?

The refugee intake is a small part of the total migration program. Would you stop all refugees or allow some in? If so, what level and what criteria would you use to accept refugees? There are more options here than people realise. For example, at present the refugee intake is centrally controlled and delivered. What would happen if it became community and family based within broad criteria? Refugees would be accepted, but on the basis that somebody - group or community - took responsibility for their support. The role of the state would then diminish from control to supporting individual, group or community endeavour.

On existing programs, it is nine years since I wrote that post on Mr Andrews and the Sudanese refugees. Clearly, some problems still exist. What are they? What can we learn? What might we do about it?

In all this, I think that we have to be prepared to call people out, to make them explain. Minister Dutton should not be allowed to simply assert that Mr Fraser made mistakes and that we are paying a price now and that this somehow justifies current actions. There is probably little point in defending Mr Fraser and his policies. Better that Mr Dutton should be required to explain his position. What does he mean by mistake? How serious is the problem? What would he have done instead? How many children or grandchildren? Are the proportions different from other groups? What has been the cost to the community?

One may disagree with his answers, but if forced to respond then his thinking will be exposed to the clear light of public scrutiny. In a conversation, it is necessary to let the other side answer, to use questions to clarify their views. We may not like the clarification, but we will know and can then respond.

Meantime, it is still nice to have a Mingoola to inspire.

Mingoola Follow Up

A brief note on follow up reaction to the Mingoola story.

On Wednesday 30 November 2016, Matt Bedford (Armidale Express) reported on a visit to Armidale by Emmanuel Musoni for discussions with local refugee advocates about the possible placement of some of the 200 refugee families now seeking country placements as a consequence of Mingoola.

The following day in an opinion piece in the Express (Australian Story episode on Mingoola refugees strikes a chord), Donna Ward reported that Deputy PM and member for New England Barnaby Joyce had been inundated with calls from all over Australia seeking to replicate the model in other small, rural towns. "Seeing what the refugees have brought to the Mingoola community," Donna wrote, "the arrival of African families is something we (Northern Tablelands) would welcome with open arms."

Just under a week later on Tuesday 6 December, Tawar Razaghi reported on AbC New England North West that more regional refugee resettlements were likely, backed by Deputy Prime Minister. She reported:

The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) plans to roll out a similar program in the next 12 months, with Armidale, in northern New South Wales, flagged as an ideal town to host it. 

The voluntary program is being developed by the NFF along with the Migration Council. 

The Federation's Sarah McKinnon said the Northern Tablelands city had been identified for a number of reasons. 

"Areas where there's a lot of rural and regional opportunity and there's good infrastructures and services there," Ms McKinnon said. 

"In many of these towns there are already established refugee populations. 

"They're the kind of towns that we're looking to begin the pilot because we want to give it the best chance of success." 

Other towns considered by the NFF to successfully implement the pilot model are Wagga Wagga in New South Wales and Toowoomba in Queensland.

Mr Abbott and the Malaysia solution revisited

Sometimes in public policy there are no good solutions, only least bad ones. If you reject the least bad one on the grounds that it's not right, you end with a worst result.

Back in May 2011, I wrote this:

"My first quick reaction to the PM's Malaysian proposal, Gillard's refugee deal, was positive as one step in a possible broader solution. That reaction is not shared by many of my blogging colleagues. 

Given this, I thought that I would set out the principles/issues that underlay my reaction simply and without supporting argument:

1. The Howard Government's refugee policies were part of a pattern of behaviour that, at the end, swung me against that Government. The refugee policy may have stopped the boats, but it came at a high human cost and was (as I saw it) part of a progressive dehumanisation of Government.
2. The initial policies of the new Labor Government may or may not have been sensible, but they were a reaction to Howard Government policies. However, Labor then became trapped in the political get tough rhetoric. Just as Mr Howard's policies ignored key regional dynamics, so East Timor regional processing got thrown in without thought.
3. The Howard policy was simple. Make things tough at this end and we stop the boats. Mr Abbott's single minded rhetoric on the issue has been effective only because of apparent failures in Labor policy, as well as Labor's failure to articulate a clear alternative approach.
4. Both the Howard and, to a degree, the Rudd-Gillard approach were crafted for domestic consumption and really didn't take into account broader issues.
5. The refugee problem is complex. Further, the problems that countries like Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia face are large compared to ours in terms of numbers and resources.

Turning now to the specifics that guided my instinctive reaction:

1. There is no such thing as perfection.
2. For a number of reasons including politics and humanity, we have to stop the boats. We have two choices: we can go the Abbott/Howard route or an alternative. None of those attacking the Gillard proposal have really put forward an alternative. If the current opinion polls continue, Mr Abbott may well win the next election.
3. The Government is, I think, reaching towards a regional framework that will provide a more sensible approach. That can only be underpinned in the end if we take more refugees.

I am well aware of issues associated with Malaysia's treatment of refugees. I am old enough, among other things, to remember the treatment of Vietnamese boat people. That (the issues), it seems to me, is a matter to be dealt with in negotiation."

Mr  Abbott's highly qualified  admission that the Opposition should perhaps have supported the proposal is interesting, including the admission that a more bipartisan approach might have reduced some of the poison now infecting Australian politics. Mr Morrison's response that he did as he was told on the matter by Mr Abbott ("I acted in accordance with my leader's instructions," ) is also interesting.

It is, of course, very difficult to know what might have happened if another course had been followed. I doubt that it would have been worse. The poisoned chalice that is "Stop the Boats" keeps dripping, with the Greens doing their best to hold it to the Government's lips saying just another sip.

In some previous posts I have tried to explore ways of humanising current policy within the frame set by the Government's policy parameters. I don't think I was very successful.

What I can be sure of is that the current approach will lead to continuing problems. Sort Manus and Nauru remains. In the end, I am left with the depressing feeling that Nauru might become the Australian equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. Not a nice prospect. We will probably sort it out. The only question is the final cost.

Postscript

These numbers seem reasonably accurate - a Manus cost of $2 billion. Later we will get all the numbers - Nauru, Manus, navy etc - and be able to make an objective judgement as to value.

A brief note on Australia’s refugee policy

This post responds to discussion around two previous posts in particular, Response to the Syrian refugee crisis - Australia v Canada and Saturday Morning Musings - Australia's refugee mess. In that discussion, I was challenged to propose explicit policy changes to refugee policy that would not result in a resumption of the 23,000 annual arrivals (of boat people) recorded just before Mr Abbott's policy. I said that I though that that was not difficult and sketched some changes that I thought might be made. It was just a sketch and was challenged. This post extends the argument.

Statement of Problem

The Government has been successful in stopping the boats but this has come with costs.

Our international reputation has been damaged. We may or may not have breached UN conventions and our treaty obligations, but at the very least we have lost moral authority. I for one find it discomforting when Australia is quoted as a role model by European parties of the far right. We have also done some damage to our relations with our neighbours and especially Indonesia.

The policy and the rhetoric around the policy has fed into domestic division within Australia, encouraging the rise of groups with more extreme views.

The policy has cost and continues to cost large sums of money at a time of budget constraint. There has been a running sore of complaints and apparent cases of mistreatment and injustice, not aided by a lack of transparency. 

From a simple risk management perspective, the current refugee policy is structured in such a way that there are certain to be a stream of further cases of apparent injustice and unfairness, while the camps know frequently called Australia’s gulags will have to be maintained for the indefinite future. In all, we have an expensive mess.

I accept that these are judgements that can be challenged. However, on risk management grounds alone, consideration needs to be given to changes that may reduce risk.

Practically, the room for movement is limited. The Government is locked in, while there is apparent bipartisan support for tough policies. Refugee advocates outside the tent may campaign, but in the short term at least their efforts will have little effect. I say in the short term because Australian history suggests that that those advocating policies that come later to be seen as inhumane suffer tarnish as a consequence.

Proposed Changes

The changes that I am about to propose will satisfy few. They are set within a context of current policy. The Government will not like them, nor will refugee advocates who will see them as cosmetic. However, they are the best that I can come up with.

The first step is a reshaping of the rhetoric to shift the focus from stop the boats to refugees and Australia’s humanitarian role in this regard. Tough border protection remains, but it becomes a secondary element, part of a package. To be credible, this shift in language will probably need to be associated with an increase in the overall refugee quota. We are just so tarnished now.

The second step is the removal of the present restriction on those in the camps being offered settlement in Australia. This may or may not have made sense at the time stop the boats was introduced, but it’s starting to have some very perverse effects.

A case in point is the inability of the Australian Government to accept a New Zealand resettlement offer because those resettled might then be able to come to Australia at some point in the future and thus breach the rule. Instead, we are being forced into silly and expensive options such as Cambodia as a way of trying to resettle those classified as refugees.

Relaxing the Australian settlement rule does not mean providing preference to those who came by boat as actually happened before. Rather, it means treating someone on Manus in the same way as a refugee in Malaysia or one in a Syrian refugee camp, applying the same criteria within the overall refugee quota.

The third step is the introduction of greater transparency in the whole process, including the camps themselves. I am not talking about greater transparency for Border Force, although that may well be desirable. My focus is on the camps and the refugee process.

The absence of transparency breeds suspicion and aids injustice. My feeling is that the process requires an independent monitoring body. The Government’s problem is that few actually believe it any more. I am not talking here about the refugee partisans, just the ordinary citizen like myself with an interest in the matter. There have been so many inconsistencies, so many concealments, that I just don’t trust the Government any more.

The fourth and final step in my proposals is a shift in focus from policing to people assistance. I struggle a little to define this properly. I keep seeing anecdotal evidence that suggests that instead of really assisting people to resettle, we are actually making it harder. Putting it as crudely as I can, we take people who are already traumatised, subject them to further trauma, give them limited assistance and then expect them to settle into Australia or another country. That just builds in future costs. 

Saturday Morning Musings - Australia's refugee mess

In a comment on Wednesday’s post, Response to the Syrian refugee crisis - Australia v Canada, 2 tanners wondered in a meta comment "do we find all this too difficult to talk about?" He was referring specifically to discussion on this blog.

In response, I wrote: 

“You may well be right in your meta comment, 2t. We do find this too painful to talk about. I think that you are also right in concluding that the combination of rhetoric with policy explains Australia’s poor performance in meeting its own targets as compared to Canada. It is impossible to imagine Australian PM Turnbull driving admission and welcoming refugees in the way the Canadian PM did.   Few would argue, I think, that Australia should have open boarders. The question then becomes where you draw the line. Australia has open boarders for economic migrants so long as they meet set criteria, closed boarders for refugees. 

 I think that the Government has long given up on arguing a nuanced line over refugee policy and indeed migration in general. The left is deeply riven by the conflicting desires to limit population while still admitting refugees. The Opposition is effectively locked into the Government’s policy. The end result is a moral coarsening of public policy”.

As I write, protests continue over the treatment of baby Asha. It is easier to galvanise (or to attempt to galvanise) public opinion over specific cases than to argue on general principles. The Australian Government has locked itself into policy positions whose inexorable logic drives it in directions that, in the end, damage the country.

The Government is involved in discussions with third countries to take people in the camps on Manus or Nauru. Meantime, it cannot accept offers of resettlement from New Zealand because those people might then be able to enter Australia.

It’s all so unnecessary, but now so inevitable. In the end, the Government will have to do what it can to clear the camps. This will come at a price that already includes human suffering, considerable expenditure and some moral tarnishing. In the end, it is likely that some people will have to be resettled in Australia.

In framing the discussion in such simple black and white terms as stop the boats, this and previous governments have placed the country in an impossible position. The argument that you must stop the boats to stop people drowning is potentially defensible, but only if it forms part of a broader approach based on clear principles that take international circumstances, national interest and values into account.

Values including especially humanity are important. The corrosive impact of current policies lies in the absence of values. We all need things to be proud of. There appear to be no elements in current refugee policy that meet the pride criteria. Indeed, it appears that we cannot deliver even on the commitments that we do enter into. In all, it’s a mess. 

Details of the Malaysia-Australia refugee deal

The Australian and Malaysian Governments have now released details of the arrangements between the two countries on refugees.

Rather than commenting, I thought that the most useful thing that I could do for those who are interested is to provide links to the source documents:

• Formal agreement
• Operational guidelines to support transfers and resettlement
• Australian Government press release
• Joint Press Conference, Kuala Lumpur