2011/09/20

If that is where you are going I wouldn't start from here.

I can't figure out if that saying is from ancient mystic or an Irish joke but it sums up for me where we are with the debate around asylum seekers in this country.


I doubt that anyone in their right mind would accept an offer to take on the job of Immigration Minister tomorrow. The only possible exception might be the current shadow minister, but only because it would mean his side would be warming the seats of treasury benches.


It looks more than likely onshore processing of asylum seekers will be 'forced' upon us by recent High Court decisions and because both sides are more intent on playing politics with the 'non-issue' than working in the better intersts of the nation and our once proud tradition of being a warm hearted and welcoming nation.


This has become a highly emotional and complex issue mostly because of political football, opportunism and the unfortunate fact that fear is easier to sell than common sense policy.


What would I do if I were to be offered the job of Immigration Minister?
The obvious answer is 'Thanks, but no thanks, I don't have a death wish'. However, as I have been self selected, I would start from here:


First thing I would be doing is to separate the whole asylum seeker/refugee issue from border protection. This has nothing to do with border protection. Anyone who thinks that Australia will be invaded by hordes of people in ricketty old wooden fishing vessels is either stuck in some cold war time warp or in the thrall of some cheap spy thriller novel. Get serious folks, when one of those countries to our north decide to invade they will use sturdier craft and they will be in a solid mix of sea and aircraft.


We can still decide who comes to our country and how they get here within some limitations and we will be better at it if we do it with an open heart rather than living in fear of being invaded by red and/or yellow hordes (or any other colour for that matter).


This in the short term is going to be a tough sell but one that has to be done.


Tied in with this we need to explain that this 'problem' is not a big one. Heaps has been written on this. More people are saying it out loud. Anyone with doubts about selling this could take a lesson in history from the late Peter Andren MP by reading this Inside Story article Opposing John Howard on asylum seekers, and winning by Peter Browne. Andren won his rural seat of Calare with an increased majority at the so called 'Tampa Election'


While dealing with those two challenges we also need to change the focus and understanding on the so called People Smugglers. There is no doubt that there are criminal elements involved in the movement of people seeking asylum and there is much debate about whether they are smugglers or providing a much needed service. I don't intend to debate it here and now. What we need to focus on is the real crime of people smuggling. There are people being smuggled into this country for illegal purposes and the victims of these criminals are subject to slave like conditions as prostitutes and in other positions of servitude. This is the people smuggling trade that needs to be smashed and have its' business model broken. You can get loads of info at the Australian Institute of Criminology website including this report: Organised crime and migrant smuggling : Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

Having started from here, where do I go now?
There is a lot more to be done and I would need lot's of advice but here are some of the things I would review early in the piece.

Family Reunion and it's effect on boat arrivals
Without searching for specific evidence lately I have reasonable grounds for believing that one of the major causes for the increase in the numbers of women and children arriving by boat was directly related to the Howard governments clamp down and reductions in the family reunion component of our immigration programme. This needs to be corrected.

Do we need to deter asylum seekers travelling here by boat?
This is a tough one. I don't think there are very many people who are happy when the hear about people losing their lives at sea while attempting the voyage here and from that point of view we should do everything in our power to minimise the number travelling here that way. We also have to accept the fact that no matter what deterences that are put in place some will still attempt to get here that way.

Think about deterances in your own life. If you drive a vehicle how often have you travelled over the speed limit? If you drive over the limit do you slow down as you approach a speed camera and then pick up speed again once out of sight of the camera? I have spoken with people involved in the area and seen data that shows that even as close as 200 metres before a speed camera there are a number of speeding vehicles and more than the number caught by the camera.

It looks as though we may not get to find out but the Malaysia people swap may have acted as a deterant and an effect on boat arrivals in the short term but I suspect it would not have stopped the flow completely. Certainly not in the medium term.

What sort of numbers can we handle?
Personally I am ambivalent about the numbers though it does seem we may need to increase our intake. If we do increase it will need to be handled with care but if we have done our 'sales job' on border protection etc. properly it will be less of a challenge.

Medium and long term solutions
There is now doubt we need to work within in the region to change the dynamics of the problem of displaced persons and the Bali Process is important and we must continue to support it and work with other participants to improve the situation.

Taking off my pretend ministers hat and being me again I must say I have had problems with with the government's proposals around the Malaysia Solution. After listening to Erika Feller, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection on Radio National's Sunday Profile I have changed some of my thinking. It is well worth listening to. If you would rather read it you will find the transcript here.
Finding reasonable discussion or reporting on the issue is not easy but I am encouraged that one of our finest journalists George Megalogenis is set to write a piece on the topic and has opened his blog for discussion on the topic. There is some pretty good commentary there.

The big question is: Would you take on the job?

11 comments:

  1. D Mick Weir
    (Part 1 in case there is a limit to the length of a comment)

    You are a brave man to continue forging on with regard to this subject. Well done in keeping it to a sane evaluation and including most of the relevant talking points. One of the shortcomings in the public debate is that not all aspects are addressed especially if inclusion of a particular aspect undermines or weakens an ideological position. Particularly galling is the exclusion or dismissal of the rate of drownings which we have seen recently described as being as high as four percent.
    I also get more than a little peeved when commentators berate Labor for being inhumane in wanting to institute the Malaysia deal but then later acknowledge that a regional solution would be to the benefit of all concerned.

    More specifically, on your article I would have to disagree about border protection not playing a valid part in the current debate. I understand that you are pushing back at claims of 'armadas' and 'invasions' but there is also a very real concern about quarantine violations and in my rural neck of the words this is a hot button topic. Knowing what boats are landing where is vital as part of our quarantine restrictions and must be considered as being part of border security. We are as careful as we can be about what arrives by air and through our shipping ports and it is necessary to extend that to irregular arrivals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2

    There is also the question of perceptions and I note that you do speak to that but the world is no longer what it was. In Frazer's day a fishing boat famously chugged into Darwin Harbour to be greeted by a couple of blokes in a tinnie who waved them through with a warm welcome. This could not happen in a post-September 11th world. Those on board that boat from Vietnam could very easily be depicted as refugees fleeing from a conflict zone where we had been on the same side as the asylum seekers and to the best of my knowledge no inference was ever made at that time that the boats might be full of North Vietnamese communists seeking revenge on Australia for its part in the war.

    However, now there is a perception that we can no longer tell friend from foe - a misplaced perception perhaps but never-the-less a potent one. As you say, and I would agree, a hostile force would surely find some other safer way of getting here but it is important in an island nation that there be maintained a sense that the government and military are doing everything within their power to keep our coastline secure. An impossible task with the amount of coastline that we have but still we spend billions every year doing our best against illegal fisherman exploiting our resources and (worse) circumventing quarantine by pulling up on our remote beaches; minimising the importation of drugs and other illegal cargoes through unofficial landings; and trying to stop outgoing black market items like wildlife from being loaded on remote stretches of coastline. So, we need border security and we need a perception that our borders are secure (even if in reality they are not) and that perception of safety will never be maintained whilst there are an unreasonable number of boats deemed as being Illegal Entry Vehicles displayed on our television screens on a weekly basis. In this aspect of the debate, I think the public's reaction would be pretty much the same if the Vehicles were fishing boats looking to replenish their water supply or foodstuffs by accessing remote beaches and they received the same amount of press coverage.

    I'm running out of time (and stamina) but suffice to say there is much merit in the rest of your musings but I haven't shifted from my support of the deal with Malaysia especially now that we know that it is not some bright idea dreamt up by a politician but is the considered view of experts in the field who are part of the relevant department. Crucially, the UNHCR have not condemned it, rather they have offered qualified support.


    Off topic: I tried to find out about emoticons for your site as a blog-warming present but everything that I have read and tried implies that the ball is in your court as blogmaster. Oh well, happy picking!

    ReplyDelete
  3. NormanK,
    thanks I will have to read your comments again (and sleep on them)

    I tried something on emoticons that didn't work and it is on the to do list

    After I saved last night I thought at length about the quarrintine aspects of 'border control' and understand the fears around it. I need to do a bit more thinking/reading but I feel sure it can be separated. Somewhere I saw something about how the boats are routinely burnt now maybe some footage of that could be (force?) fed to the meeja.

    As we have often agreed this is complex and where I am trying to head is to simplify some of it. Deal with border security as one 'box', asylum seekers as another. Long road from here but worth the journey.

    As I said over @ TPS on the sunday I heard the Sunday Profile piece with Erika Feller it caused a shift in my thinking and it is still shifting.

    As to how it is being handled this week it is a bit like that old coin toss trick Heads I Win, Tails you Lose problem is, it seems to me, TA is the one tossing the coin.

    Cool just tested italics, have to use < i > etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. btw NK that rose you have here is cool bet Lyn would really love it :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi DM Weir

    Congratulations on your very own blog.

    Now I know why you have been very quiet, you have done a lot of work in a short time.

    I love the layout, you just need a bit more colour, maybe a picture or something, do you think. Also an email alert option, and I see you have the sharing on twitter, facebook option, that is very good for readers.

    I am going to tweet your article now.

    Cheers DMW from Lyn :):):)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Lyn
    thanks for visiting my cubby house

    It will be interesting to see the results of your tweet. I need to learn this twitter thing.

    Edumification is a woonderful part of life :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. DMW,

    Would I take the job - not a chance.

    The reason is the discussion has become so vitriolic that any logic and sense hasn't a hope of comprehension any time in the near future.

    It all goes back to Howard's Tampa election and the continual reinforcement since that somehow refugees that arrive here via a "leaky boat" are somehow worse or less "worthy" than people who illegally overstay their visas who "traditionally" arrive by 747 (or should that be 777/A380?). For those that have forgotten, the overstayers action IS illegal - a point nicely made tonight by Clarke & Dawe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Mick Weir, If this is your idea of a 'pedantic quibble' I'll be happy to come along and pick nits with you as you scratch your head over issues of the day.

    Well done. Great launch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Welcome patriciawa and 2353
    family stuff tied me up last night and that darned other life has grabbed hold of me and is demanding total attention for the next few days - grrrr.

    NK, cheers the hacking bit is what I 'blew' twice already, will check that page thanks.

    Hoping to squeeze in some real life here and there and will type to you all later.

    ReplyDelete
  10. hi there
    is this what you really think?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Someone Who Does Care26 September, 2011 15:06

    Interesting position you have.

    I will agree to disagree for now :p

    ReplyDelete

Smiley shortcuts are shown below. Hat Tip NK :)
Smilies don't seem to show as smilies in preview.
You can use html tags in comments. Enclose with < & >