Two tidbits of information suggesting the worst aspects of the former government’s treatment of asylum-seekers is coming to an end. Firstly, the detention center on Nauru is closing, with the people detained there, such as a group of Sri Lankans, to be resettled in Australia. The second is that the high-security section of Villawood Detention Center is going to be either fixed or closed.
Why the qualification? While the practice of sending asylum-seekers to foreign countries for detention will end, the replacement isn’t exactly ideal either. Ones picked up outside Australia’s migration zone will now be taken to the new detention center on Christmas Island, which may technically be Australian territory but is a very, very long way from convenient scrutiny. The design of that facility also raises some concerns, to say the least.
All in all, steps towards improvement, but as has been noted before, the new government haven’t exactly demonstrated themselves to be a progressive’s dream on Laura Norder issues. It’ll be something to continue watching closely.
Just in case there are some who missed this priceless video tour of Christmas Island Detention Centre, it is worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUYGkVtqY-0
It was built with bi-partisan support and will cost bucketloads to maintain. Maybe we could just lease it to some delightful American security company, if we haven’t already or keep it as a constant reminder to local demonstrators.
Thanks for the video link, Joe2. I hadn’t seen that before.
And let’s not forget the mandatory detention policy was brought in by the federal Labor government in 1992.
Christmas Island is the logical conclusion of not being able to trust protesters and assorted extremists to obey the law, or the media to not provide a stage for illegal immigrants to play the fool on. If activists don’t like it, they only have themselves to blame.
Yep.
Unfortunately, I don’t think they will be - there isn’t a big civil liberties tradition in some parts of the ALP, and it often comes down to how influential the sympathetic lawyers are in gov’t - and I think McClelland is more in the NSW right pragmatist camp.
NSW Right. That explains everything. Hear tell people on Christmas Island aren’t that happy about the presence of the gaol on their emerald isle.
Craig Mc,
Christmas Island is the logical conclusion of the Howard policy of keeping voters in the dark and feeding them lies. Governments who are doing something morally wrong always fear scrutiny, whatever their political colour.At least we went someway to stopping them do even worse things and I’m proud of what we did here in Armidale to help fight the refugee policy. And it wasn’t just the far left, or the left, it was people right across the political spectrum. Decent Liberals were also appalled at what the Howard Government did. And its a very sad thing that Keating and Hawke laid the groundwork for it by setting up the detention camps in the first place.All the refugees I’ve met have been thoroughly decent people and they didn’t deserve to be treated like they were Untermenschen in the Third Reich.
Yes, it is appropriate to end the policy now, but only because the policy was wildly successful in stopping the boats coming in the first place. Let us not forget there has been bipartan support for mandatory detention since it was first introduced to Australia by er, er, er, the Keating ALP government, particularly its Socialist Left immigration minister, Gerry Hand.
These aren’t “tidbits”, Robert. Given the glacial pace of migration, and the awfulness of these facilities, they’re substantial achievements for just under two months in office. This is exactly the sort of thing you’ll look back upon fondly when the next Coalition Government makes its presence felt. While it’s true that politicians shouldn’t be cheered to the echo just for doing their jobs, it’s also true that credit should go where it’s due: well done the Rudd Government, and Minister Evans.
The problem with “the boats coming in the first place” was not that they gave John Greenfield the willies. The problem was that less deserving cases were regarded as more urgent by virtue of them having turned up here. Mind you, this assumes a level of efficiency and fairness in judgment by immigration assessors than probably existed, or than exists today even with the change of government (how many people in Kevin07 T-shirts have applied for jobs as immigration assessors? Have you, Robert? I haven’t).
You probably think this gives you some sort of excuse, don’t you John. The whole idea is to find a policy that rises above this.
Would you say that maintaining a policy introduced by Labor’s Socialist Left is a vindication of the Howard Government? Do you think Brendan Nelson should go to the next election promising to maintain policies introduced by Labor’s Socialist Left? Is the purpose of the Liberal Party to perpetuate the mistakes of Labor’s Socialist Left until they have utterly failed, or should it change policy to reflect liberal principle? Now you see why you should resist the urge to vindicate the Coalition on the basis of Labor equivalence.
Andrew
I think I made my support of the policy’s abandonment quite clear in the first sentence.
Fair points Andrew, but I remain concerned about the Christmas Island facility. If, hypothetically, a bunch of asylum seekers get were to get carted off there to rot for several years, it wouldn’t be much of a practical improvement over what the Tories were doing.
I’d prefer the legislative machinery that allows people to be dumped in detention centres forever to be modified. While such machinery exists, it’s only a couple Daily Telegraph front pages away from being used.
PB: the government had 85% approval rating on its handling of this issue, so to imagine that it was some hateful fringe responsible for the policy is demented. That anyone could imagine the electorate was kept in the dark from the “case against” beggars belief. How much more wall-to-wall advocacy journalism, noisy protests, conspiracy theorists and talking heads could there have been on the matter?
I imagine that opinions like PB’s, expressed as loudly and interminably as they were, added at least 10% to the government’s approval rating at the time.
The massive drop in boat arrivals, not to mention sinkings, since proves it was good policy, and Rudd knows better than to start them off again. He’s relaxing things here and there, but only because he has the luxury of a retreating problem. If it looked resurgent he’d clamp down every bit as hard as Howard did.
There’s a broader lesson for the Rudd Government here.To ensure when it passes legislation, especially in the social area. That is to frame legislation in such a way, if that’s possible, so when the Libs get back in, (which, sadly, eventually rhey will, regardless of the electorates’ foreknowledge of the massive damage they will do to the country)the Libs. can’t mutate that original Labor legislation into some kind of socially regressive, near-criminal monstrosity, as they did with detention centre, Workchoices, Social Welfare, HECS, etc. stc. The groundwork laid by the Hawke/Keating Government for Howard’s ultra conservative policies to some extent helped Howard totally avoid blame for some of his evil policies.In that sense they were equaly to blame. We should never forget that.
Any news on Rudd’s repeal of Howard’s excision of Australian territoriality on Australian territory?
This was the most egregious element of Howard’s treatment of undocumented arrivees because it undermined both the rule of law and Australian sovereignty.
Rudd could of course just cede, gift or sell both Christmas Island and Cocos. They are both so far away from the mainland and seem to be ridiculous relics of the colonial past.
I mean you would not want to fight Indonesia for them, would you? Pre-emptive withdrawl would get a few heads scratching.
Paul Burns
There’s a broader lesson for the Rudd Government here.To ensure when it passes legislation, especially in the social area.
What other types of legislation could a government possibly pass? Surely ALL legislation is “social?”
Christmas Island, Cocos Island and all other islands are populated by people who pay Australian taxes, are subject to Australian laws, and are entitled to Australian protection.
Thing is, SATP they have not been pullimg their weight for ages.
JG,
Some legislation is economic, some is to do with crime, some is to do with the arts. You know, a bit like dividing up the components of an answer to a history assignment.
“All in all, steps towards improvement, but as has been noted before, the new government haven’t exactly demonstrated themselves to be a progressive’s dream on Laura Norder issues. It’ll be something to continue watching closely.”
While I agree, Robert, mandatory detention (at least, the onshore version)is subject to well-known bipartisan support. So, no real surprises there.
The big test will be whether they follow ALP policy and end the practice of ‘rolling’ temporary protection when the next group of arrivals show up.
Fair point, Lefty E, but there’s a big difference to detention in a capital city with convenient access to lawyers, people who speak the same language, and so on, and being stuck on Christmas Island, which is thousands of kilometers from anywhere except Jakarta…
Well Joe2, by that yardstick (Australians who don’t pull their weight) there are quite a few Australians, and Australian localities, which are deserving of being stripped of their citizenship.
I was being a bit flippant steve but the point i am making is that a couple of islands with a combined population of less than 2000 that are so far away from Australia - Christmas Island is 500ks from Jakarta - are more of a large liability than anything. They are natural targets for the people smugglers have not much industry and we could easily bring those of the population who wished, to the mainland, before we disposed of said isles.
joe2,
Why not just hand it and the Keeling Islands back to the Clunies-Ross family and be done with it?
Why not just hand it and the Keeling Islands back to the Clunies-Ross family and be done with it?
That lot would not have enough money, now and have already been nailed, Andrew.
Some Saudi Arabian would be able to buy up those particular problem islands for tip money while we had enough cash to provide free dental care for the most needy for ten years or more.
joe2,
in there somewhere.
Evidently, I should have added a
Why is that Andrew Reynolds?
Any possibilty to sell/bargain off any bits of Australia that are hardly helpful should be considered in the spirit of fiscal rectitude. Apart from Tasmania.
Excising from the nation & selling off the Brisbane & Sydney metropolitan areas would give Australia one helluva boost.
I’m questioning the effectiveness of the policy in its day, John, whereas you take it as given and try and claim some vindication for Liberal policy from its origins in Labor policy, which I find odd.
If this is what they can do in two months, imagine what they could do in a whole year, Robert. Probably even modify the legislation and everything. Maybe even provide transition for people adjusting to the ware flife of the Australian suburbs.
SATP,
Personally I thing WA, the NT and Queensland should exercise their option to sell off the rest. Pity we will get so little for it unless we offer to continue subsidising it.
Andrew, any price no matter how small is probably a good exchange in return for getting rid of the tail end of the herd.
steve, where would all the subsidies come from? I drive on crappy roads in Sydney and see businesses that could really do with a nice fat government subsidy. If they were in the bush they’d be subsidised to billy-o because (wait for it) farmers are more productive than the rest of us.
The decisions about where to dig up magic dirt in the outlying areas, and the funding to do it, all come from Sydney and Melbourne (I notice you left Melbourne out, why?). There are plenty of countries which have the agricultural and mineral bounties we have, but because they don’t have cities like we do their people are even poorer than Australians, if you can imagine such a thing.
Banjo Paterson rhapsodised about the bush - but he lived and worked in Sydney. That’s not an irony, it’s the nub of a truth about what this country is and how it works. Cities and their suburbs are subsidising youse bushies.
Andrew, give an example of a business in the bush which is “subsidised to billy-o”
er…, Melbourne?.. why should I mention it, it features on the radar about as much as NZ or Tasmania.
Decisions are made in Sydney? By whom? The government is in Canberra. Sydney (& melbourne) are only doing as well as they are thanks to the existence of financial services handling the money from Qld & WA, a task which could be equally, or perhaps better, performed in Singapore.
Sydney (& Melbourne) are, and always have been, what is holding Australia back.