… Maybe Kevin08 is one of those tricky housemates who tries to keep a low profile while attempting to snatch the big prize by doing nefarious work out of the gaze of the cameras.
I probably can’t stretch the Big Brother analogy too far, but one of the big concerns I had about the election of the Rudd government was that the momentum for campaigning around a whole range of vital issues would stall. That’s partly I think because elections provide a convenient end point - if you were horrified by what Howard was doing on refugees (for instance), the most immediate and pressing issue was to vote him out of the House. But it would be a fatal error to assume that’s the ball game.
Margaret Simons has a story in Crikey today reporting on the deep concerns the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has about the exercise of Senator Chris Evans’ ministerial discretion on asylum seeker claims since the election. 42 claims have been processed, and 41 rejected, a 97.6% rejection rate which is the highest it’s been since 2001 (the year of the Tampa.) According to Pamela Curr of the ASRC, one of the claims rejected has been that of a woman who escaped captivity while her “owners” were in Australia on holiday - she was being held against her will as a sex slave. She was originally from Africa, and had been trafficked to the Middle East.
This may not be the intent of the Government. As Simons relates, Evans doesn’t believe ministerial discretion is an appropriate policy measure, and that decisions should be made at arms length from the political level. But in practice that means the power has been flicked to Immigration bureaucrats, who are the same mob who so enthusiastically embraced Ruddockism. What to do? Absent the political angle, the media isn’t interested in running these stories (and props to Simons for writing about it), and campaigning organisations like GetUp! aren’t mobilising people about it.
I knew that the culture of the Immigration Department would not be changed overnight. After all Vanstone sort of tried but she could not manage it.
The difference here I guess is that the Howard government used the rethoric of ‘invasion’ with Tampa, children overboard, Haneef etc. to gain electoral support by creating xenophobia, and hopefully the Rudd government won’t descend to those levels.
But certainly the Immigration bureucracy needs changing. It may be so ‘corrupted’ by the Ruddock era that the only answer may be a complete restructure or breaking up.
Yes, I think the evil intent isn’t there, and in fact what Evans is saying about depoliticising the decision making process makes sense. But I’d like to see a much more determined effort to actually shift the culture in Immigration. You may be right, Guido, it might be time to strip away some of its functions and start from scratch. Labor was certainly critical enough of it in opposition (including Rudd when he was foreign affairs shadow). But in the absence of public campaigning, is it too easy for them just to sit on their hands?
I fear there’s an element of Sir Humphrey like swamping the Minister going on in the Rudd government. Inexperienced staffers wouldn’t be a help either.
These recent decisions aren’t Immigration department ones though. The minister himself is directly rejecting the applications. There’s little hope for reform if the person at the top shows no leadership in the direction they should be heading.
I think the suggestion from Simons is that he’s rejecting them on advice. But that’s still bloody problematic because it’s his responsibility, no matter what advice he’s been getting. If he’s taken a decision on principle to act on advice, it raises the question of the principles those giving the advice are acting on!
My main justification for preferring Labor over Howard (apart from the fact that Howard was/is intrinsically evil) is that there is a difference. Seems I was very wrong when it comes to refugees.
The Immigration Department needs to be cleaned out root and branch.Won’t happen though, will it?
If I’m not mistaken, the only difference in refugee policy between Labor and Coalition was dismantling the Pacific Solution. They were still jumping at shadows from the Tampa. Still, there’s room for change and they should be onto it.
I think the difference for a group like GetUp! is that it isn’t the party they hate doing this, but the folks they helped get elected.
And Rudd won’t be using the “dog whistle”, because it won’t work in this area for his peeps.
Thank you for this post Kim. It is still early days, in terms of changing the culture of the immigration dept. But nothing is going to change unless they start to look at it and do things differently, not just keep quiet with business as usual. Cos this is a big issue and a lot of people had hopes pinned on Labor addressing the wrongs of the Howard govt in this area.
The Howard government was doing what the population wanted.
A change of government was never going to happen while the people of western Sydney believed there was a chance the ALP would open the gates of the detention centres.
Returning to pre-Howard days will assist in changing the government back to one which is of a Howard style.
Though currently it seems we are continueing with a Howard style government.
“Immigration bureaucrats, who are the same mob who so enthusiastically embraced Ruddockism”
I don’t know where you got this idea from. The department was pretty much bullied into politicisation. I know stacks of people who work for Immigration - not one of whom ‘enthusiastically embraced Ruddockism’.
Has nobody considered the fact that this sort of knee-jerk tendency to demonise public servants as ‘bureaucrats’ (even the word had come to imply malignant cold-heartedness) might be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
I second Jobby’s statement. My experience with DIMIA staff is that they hung well back in the britchings.
Uh, thanks, but I don’t really understand what you mean. What is ‘hanging back in the britchings’?
Jobby, I respect your opinions and that of your friends. But anecdotal evidence in this regard doesn’t really cut the mustard - I’ve met a few Dimiacs myself, and they were quite the opposite to what you describe.
But proper reviews of DIMIA have shown that the organisational culture is sick, and those reviews aren’t inclined to hyperbole.
Steve, I just love your insights about Sydney, coming as they do from all the way up in Bumfuck, Queensland (didn’t you think Workchoices was popular and Howard would never get voted out, too? backed a bum steer there, mate).
Western Sydney would be stoked if refugee policy changed, given that most of the population there were refugees or immigrants themselves at one time you daffy bugger.
patrickg @ 13,
you have excelled yourself!
Yes, organisational culture was (is) sick. There’s no avoiding the fact that there are deep problems within the department.
By and large I agree with Kim’s article.
My point was that thoughtless statements such as “Immigration bureaucrats, who are the same mob who so enthusiastically embraced Ruddockism” does absolutely nothing to address the need for reform within the department and actually hinders intelligent analysis. All it does it create convenient scapegoat: “well it must be the fault of evil bureaucrats”: immigrants good, bureaucrats bad.
With due respect, you do understand that there ‘organisational culture’ and ‘the political opinions of departmental staff’ are not the same thing, right? The personal opinions of the staff doesn’t even come into it.
I think they can in fact be the same thing Jobby, in that they can inform and influence each other.
I totally agree with you about the bureaucrats thing though, lol. Having been there myself, you don’t get a lot of love, from anyone!
Cheers patrickg
Inform and influence to a degree I suppose, but it’s a lot more based on the ways in which power is used (or avoided) than brute expressions of political sympathy: How things are done, rather than why they are done.
Check out the wikipedia entry for organisational culture, it’s a pretty good precis.
Reading through it, and comparting with anecdotal evidence, I’d say it will be a loooong time until the organisational culture in the department has altered. It might be sped up by the fact that the damage done to the department has seen good staff leave in droves - almost anyone who can leave the department has - and a lot of those left behind aren’t necessarily the best people for the job.
It doesnt look like a good stat, I admit, but frankly, lets all calm down, because we need to know a bit more about the applicants involved.
For starters a s417 visa is effectively a non-convention protection visa. i.e. you only apply for it if you’ve failed to satisfy the Convention test for refugee status, for either a TPV or PPV. You have to establish that you are at substantial risk of human rights abuse, or substantial discrimination, but not for a convention reason (ie state persecution). Or you’re just at the end of the legal road, and have no other options. To even apply for a s417 you must have failed at both DIMIA AND the RRT.
Now, my own view is that we need a visa for that non-convention category, which isn’t sponsored entrants only as the current one is. Take it out of the Minister’s hands. But suffice to say, focussing on that narrow category of applicants wont necessarily tell you much about the new government’s stance on refugee and asylum issues.
Also I note Simons also asks “when will TPVs be abolished”. Well, yeah, ok - but the ALP never promised to do that. At any point. Ever. What they promised was a one-off two year maximum period of TP, follow by PP. When do we see that is the question.
Keep it real folks. As a refugee advocate, I have long considered one of the main challenges dealing with well-meaning but often ill-informed activist hyperbole.
I might add: this could actually be a good sign of a departure from the Howard era. Remember that Ruddock et al were nakedly threatening RRT tribunal members with the SACK if they didn’t tow the line. So much for an independent merits review!
I dont know this for sure, but it would not surprise me at all if Ruddock/ Andrews therefore ended up with many more meritorious 417 applicants than Evans has. Owing to their own bullying of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The real question may not really be about Evans and his discretion: but rather, how long do we keep people locked up who don’t satisfy humanitarian criteria? that itself is an important human rights question. At present, I believe it can be up to 5 or 6 years - which is clearly unacceptable.
LE - forgive my impertinence, but that should be “toe the line”, no?
Hmmm, good question FBD. You’ve now cast doubt into my mind. I would think tow….. and yet?
“I would think tow”
Computer says no.
Toe it is then.
Mind you, I can think how to “tow” a line - but precisely how do I “toe” it?
English. Pfft.
toe - with reference to a line drawn in the dirt, or by a piece of chalk while standing in line, as a form of pinishment, I think. I’m unsure if its origin is military or as a form of 19c English/American punishment in a penitentiary. Simmilar but oposite to crossing the line - that is going against societal norms (yuk!) or behaving unacceptably, e4g. sniffing chairs.
Well, gentlemen, I’m glad we’ve been able to tackle these important matters of state together.
I only hope Chris Evans get to read the post, and sees the error of his line-toeing ways
@ Jobby, “Hanging back in the Britchings” is a draught horse term. Probably only used these days by those who have used draught horses, or have extensive exposure to the vocabulary of those who do.
It translates loosely as “not pulling one’s weight” (whilst appearing to). That is, in my experience DIMIA staff, when enacting policy of the previous government, were inwardly reluctant.
This is of course was often over ridden by the natural glee of a bureaucrat when they have the opportunity to deny someone a convenience or to make someone’s life difficult.
PatrickG, bigotry sure won’t be dead while ever bumfucks like you draw breath. Makes me glad to live in GreenAcres Queensland. One helluve lot better than the toilet which Sydney is. Any time you want an impossible project, go to Sydney & attempt to find a normal Aussie. They don’t exist.
On top of that, for all the use Sydney is to Australia, it can be cut off & gifted to Norfolf Island, or Vanuata or somewhere. Sure will make the rest of us better off without haveing to pay for that grimy shithole.
“Any time you want an impossible project, go to Sydney & attempt to find a normal Aussie. They don’t exist.”
That’s right, normal Aussies don’t exist. Given that is the case, you probably won’t find one in Sydney.
Fisticuffs, Fighting with the fists, usually meaning bare knuckle fighting … A man unable to come to ‘scratch’ or ‘toe the line’ was counted out of time.
Rhanks for that patrickm. Thes pieces of trivia are immensely important.