Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Ending the corrosive effects of Australia's current immigration policies

The death last week of Australian artist Judy Cassab ended a remarkable life (here, here). I first saw one of her paintings many years ago at a showing Chaney Coventry had in his motel room at Ruschcutters Bay. However, it's only in the last few years that I rediscovered her and became interested in her life. I gained considerable pleasure from her art and from discovering more about her.

In a post a week back, Saturday Morning Musings - The Turnbull Ascendancy?, I said in part:  

The first thing to note is that Mr Turnbull was a senior figure in the previous Abbott administration, jointly responsible with others for the decisions of that administration outside Mr Abbott's personal captain's picks.This includes those decisions that have eroded Australian's personal freedoms, that have given the Government an authoritarian flavour. This includes the evolving mess resulting from recent changes to the Migration Act. These provide, among other things, that any foreigners who serve a prison sentence greater than 12 months will automatically have their visas revoked, a change previously defended by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton because it targeted people who were detracting from Australian society, not adding to it
In the three years July 2011 to July 2014, 372 people had their residency revoked, itself a not insignificant figure. However, since the legislation changed in December 780 have had their residency revoked of which 151 have been deported. The rest are apparently held in immigration detention. On Christmas Island, refugees are being replaced by former residents awaiting deportation, including some very bad eggs indeed. 
A core problem with the legislation is that the twelve months is bringing within the scope of power people guilty of relatively minor offences who have spent most of their life in Australia. Apart from tearing families apart, this is a severe form of double jeopardy.

As I write, the Australian and indeed global media have been covering the latest disturbances at the immigration detention centre on Christmas Island, while the country has come under criticism at the UN Human Rights Council. Many Australians would and indeed have simply said piss-off in the face of criticism. Many Australians too, and with some justice, have pointed to the patchy and inconsistent record of the UN Council itself. However, the erosive and corrosive effect of the continuing troubles should not be underestimated.

The latest public opinion poll show a further slight strengthening in the Government's position, if with a slight decline in Mr Turnbull's personal popularity. At 56% approval, 24% disapproval, it's still very high, but it's also the first decline since he became PM.  Unless Mr Turnbull can find some way of at least humanising current policy, the drip-feed of negative stories flowing from current immigration policies will continue to eat away at the Government.

This is, I think, an objective judgement. It's not just the local effects, but also the damage done to Australia's international reputation and credibility. You have to ask just how long all this can continue. Perhaps the worst outcome that I can see is one in which current policy continues with majority Australian popular support. This would, I think, do considerable damage not just to our reputation, but to our own sense of fairness and justice. It would also play into the hands of those seeking to use fears about immigration as a weapon in attempts to create a populist right. Not a pleasant prospect.     .

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the worst outcome that I can see is one in which current policy continues with majority Australian popular support.

I watched "The Imitation Game" yesterday (recommend!) and who knows just what dramatic lies were told in the telling - but what struck me was the decision, early after the codebreaking, as to how to use the knowledge: the easy use was to step hard on every intercept, thereby saving many lives; the harder decision was to protect the knowledge gained - to try to so use the information as to win the war, while maybe losing specific battles. What a cold, hard moral choice that must have been.

So now we have indisputable proof that TA's much derided "stop the boats" actually worked (from http://www.law.uq.edu.au/migrantsmuggling-statistics):

Rudd-Gillard-Rudd in office December 2007- September 2013
'Illegal boat arrivals': calendar08-161, 09-2726, 10-6555, 11-4565, 12-17202, 13-20647

Abbott in office from September 2013
'Illegal boat arrivals': calendar14-160

- and the present policy remains supported by probably 2/3rds of the electorate.

So Jim, when you say that the "worst outcome" is one which continues "present policy with majority Australian popular support" I am wondering if this isn't one of those 'easy virtue' conundrums which Lorenzo bangs on about?

Believe me, this is not a criticism of your words, because I feel the same discomforts. But who and how do we help, and who decides and pays for it all? Or is it enough to express distaste, and then avert our gaze - because the specific policy 'worked'?

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

I think that I need to clarify things, kvd. There are two separate issues, what is done and exactly how it is done. Let us assume, for the moment, that the boats are stopped. Further, let us assume that as a consequence many lives were saved at sea. In other words, for the purposes of discussion, I am accepting the totality of the Government's position. So what was done was successful

Now we come to the question of how it was done. With any policy, there are costs. Those costs are magnified where, as I have suggested, the how becomes distorted. Here I said explicitly: "Unless Mr Turnbull can find some way of at least humanising current policy, the drip-feed of negative stories flowing from current immigration policies will continue to eat away at the Government."

What was I talking about? Now there are all sorts of elements to this. For example, the decision to revoke residency of those who may have been in Australia for much of their lives has nothing to do with boat people. The decision to send them to Christmas island effectively joins boat people, many of whom are genuine refugees. with a totally separate immigration issue. The present riot on Christmas Island is not, to my knowledge, connected with boat people but is an outcome of a different policy decision. Indeed, it seems to have added to the woes of boat people.

Now if you look at the treatment of individuals of all types, there is (I think) increasing evidence of inhumanity, of the blind application of rules. The cases of personal injustice build up. These as well as the consequent disturbances erode. The flow-on effects compound.

Those who attack current policy fall into two main groups. There are those vehemently opposed to current refugee policy attack regardless, do not always seem to recognise that refugee policy had morphed into changes to broader migration and citizenship policies. Then there are those who do not think current policy goes far enough.

In the middle are a diminishing number who actually want to debate the issues.

Mr Turnbull could change key aspects of the how without moving away from the Government's core position. I may want them to move away from that position, but that's a different issue.

Mr Dutton calls the rioters on Christmas Island criminals. Precisely,and I stand to be corrected, they are people who have been convicted of crimes and who have served their time. I also note in my original post that there were indeed bad eggs who had been sent to Christmas Island to join other immigration detainees of very different types. Minister Dutton's language conflates the whole thing, mixing everything together.

Current Australian Government policy (what, how, plus wrapping rhetoric)feeds into Australian paranoia. That is why I said "Perhaps the worst outcome that I can see is one in which current policy continues with majority Australian popular support. This would, I think, do considerable damage not just to our reputation, but to our own sense of fairness and justice. It would also play into the hands of those seeking to use fears about immigration as a weapon in attempts to create a populist right"

Anonymous said...

To put it simply, I think words are cheap. I think all the woe is me and railing against present policy provides casual comfort, but not much else. I think to suggest there is a 'better way' without chapter and verse is comforting to those who need comfort, but fairly close to hypocrisy - if not accompanied by specific alternatives.

Understand here, I am looking in a mirror at myself - as much as AC did when considering her response to communism.

Jim, you say "Mr Turnbull could change key aspects of the how without moving away from the Government's core position". He or his minders might say "So you agree with the outcome, but wish an alternative approach?

And just what is that...?"


kvd

2 tanners said...

Fortunately for me in view of kvd's challenge and unfortunately in view of Australia's political reality, I thoroughly disagree with the outcome. I want as many (health and police checked) economic migrants as possible to support me with their taxes and enter Australia with most of their wealth intact, much as the 'ten pound Poms' did in the 50s or 60s. Ironic that one of the most vitriolic anti-economic-migrant flag wavers in Parliament was an economic migrant himself.

Jim Belshaw said...

Interesting challenge, kvd. I suppose I should clarify one thing, first. I don't necessarily agree with the outcome. But we have a set of policies that are, to my mind, having a variety of adverse effects. I don't believe that this can continue.

I say a set of policies. As I said earlier, we are not just talking about issues associated with stop the boats, but also now issues associated with Australian residency and citizenship. We are also talking about the application of rigid rules. The Christmas Island riots appear to have nothing to do with stop the boats, everything to do with changed residency rules.

As an analyst, I see immigration as the Government's soft underbelly because the steady stream of adverse stories both sucks oxygen from other things and attacks the legitimacy of the Government. I also see the immigration debate in all its various manifestations having a corrosive effect on Australian society. I see it damaging Australia's international reputation. I accept that these are judgements that can be challenged. I have a reasonably good track record as an analyst, but it will be some time before we know whether or not I am right.

Humanising? Honestly not sure. On the surface, its partly a matter of rhetoric. But can substantive changes be made within the current policy architecture? I suspect there are several elements. I think that the current twelve month rule is too rigorous and will need to be changed. I don't think that its wise to send people being deported under this rule to a facility intended for another purpose. Place more weight on the positive things Australia is doing - do more positive things. There are actually some positive things happening, but they are submerged. Look at providing better support services including access to education. There are problems here for those already in the community. Logically, investment will make it easier to relocate people. Stop midnight raids. Be more transparent, reduce the quasi military element, stop treating is first and foremost as a policing problem.

It may be that none of these things are possible because they go against the intent of current policy, against previous rhetoric as well as the Government's natural authoritarian tendency. If so, the present mess will continue until the structure comes down under its own weight. The alternative is the internalisation, the entrenchment of attitudes, rules and procedures within the Australian system and culture.





Anonymous said...

Jim, my first and subsequent comments were directed specifically to the continuing discussion of 'illegal migration'. I tend to agree with you regarding the (quite separate issue, I think) revocation of citizenship. I also tend to agree with tanners' comments regarding the (again quite separate issue, I think) worth of economic migrants.

Perhaps we are talking past each other? And please note my 'challenge' as tanners put it was more to myself than directed to others.

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

I wasn't worried about the challenge kvd. We may well be talking past each other, that has been known to happen!, but it still helps clarify issues.

Jim Belshaw said...

In terms of the latest cases, from the NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543381

Jim Belshaw said...

A few observations here on recent discussions rather than on the post or posts.

Luck (and timing) is really important. There were some positives in the Abbott Government pipeline that Mr Turnbull was able to announce. Then there is low fruit cleaning up such as the Indonesian visit. And then Australia was able to get some kudos at the climate change discussions.

On the erosive effects, obviously part of the fall-out will be affected by Europe, something that I have only part analysed. I was also reminded of Australians capacity to ignore the adverse effects of current Australian law and order policies. Why, I was asked, should I expect this case to be any different?