tip off

What Brendan O’Connor must do with Immigration Dept

Cabinet has a new Immigration Minister after the recent reshuffle. Ex-DIAC executives John Menadue and Arja Keski-Nummi explain how Brendan O’Connor should handle the asylum seeker issue.

Brendan O'Connor

With a new immigration minister, we have an opportunity to reshape our public discussion on asylum seekers.

If there is one thing Brendan O’Connor might reflect on as he settles into his new job is that we have, for over 70 years, managed successfully the movement of people into Australia. It may sometimes have been chaotic and sometimes unplanned, but as a country we have done it pretty well and we are richer for it.

Regardless of how people have arrived they have gone on to live fruitful lives for themselves and their families. This includes the early boat arrivals of the late 1970s, the over 20,000 people who sought asylum in Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the close to 13,000 who arrived by boat from 1997 to 2007.

In this most unforgiving of portfolios, the new Minister needs to focus on three key issues.

The first is to put a human face to the story of asylum. People who come are not law breakers. They have committed no crimes. They have simply done what we would all do if our families were in danger — find safety as far away from the conflict as possible.

To change the narrative takes guts because the narrative for over 20 years has been to demonise boat arrivals. It has painted them as cunning and devious people looking for the main chance, and somehow subverting “our way of life”.  But these same people are resourceful and aspirational  — the sort of people who came as migrants and refugees and built a modern, wealthy nation state.

In his leadership, Malcolm Fraser knew in the late 1970s that we had to counter the fear and community angst that arose over Indochinese refugees. He overcame those fears through public information, education and town hall-style meetings. He addressed national fears with facts to refute the fiction.

The second matter O’Connor must look at is how to avoid people getting stuck in Kafkaesque processes. While it is hard to bring together the figures, it would appear based on news releases and other data that there are over 12,000 people currently in some type of process in Australia, Nauru or Manus Island. Some are living in the community on bridging visas, some with work rights, some without. Some can access health care. Many can’t. Others are in some type of detention. Some people’s cases are being examined, others are in limbo.

We need leadership that appeals to our better nature, together with sensible and equitable processes and a robust regional engagement strategy.”

As governments attempt to play with this process the inevitable consequences are delays: people becoming “lost” in the system, overwhelmed by complexities and, for some, avoidable tragedies. Every asylum seeker living in the community should be allowed to work.

If delaying processing or denying work rights is done to look tough it seldom works — where asylum seekers come from is harder than anything we can throw at them.

Making it more punitive for people also defeats one of the basic principles of good administration and something that practitioners in this area have known for a long time: the faster you decide a case, the more likely (if it is a no) for a person to leave Australia voluntarily. Conversely the longer it takes and the longer a person is in Australia the more likely it is that they will stay.

Roots are established in communities, children are born. It just becomes harder to remove a person who has lived and worked in the community for long periods of time. If the purpose of lowing down processing and a denial of work rights is to deter, then this is a fantasy. People smugglers know which buttons to push when they are marketing their services to overcome any impacts of domestic policy.

Finally, as we have said so often, this is not Australia’s “problem” to fix. It is an issue of international proportions and our diplomacy, aid and immigration programs are all part of the search for durable solutions. Our work in the region is essential and urgent, particularly with Indonesia and Malaysia to assist in developing a regional protection framework that provides new alternatives for displaced people that are safe and secure.

In the region, active participation with Malaysia and Indonesia must include full partnership with UNHCR. The new Minister should urgently build alternatives both in source countries like Pakistan and in regional countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

We need leadership that appeals to our better nature, together with sensible and equitable processes and a robust regional engagement strategy. Good luck.

*John Menadue is a former secretary of the Department of Immigration and Arja Keski-Nummi is a former first assistant secretary in the Department in charge of the Refugee, Humanitarian and International Division

6
  • 1
    Pamela
    Posted Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Regarding the “slowing down of process” as problem, emblematic of this is long term detention which continues. The latest stats show that 591 people have been detained for more than two years.
    These longterm detained people are almost all people who have been accepted as proven refugees.
    While around 58 refugees (including babies) have ASIO decisions awaiting review,the others are mostly refugees who have both positive refugee and security decisions and so legally should be released on Protection Visas as under the Constitution they are denied their freedom for “administrative detention”.
    This government has found new ways to imprison refugees. One method is to send their cases to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to see if they can be charged for “crimes” committed in detention. In this way people have waited up to 26 months to be charged. They then wait for the AFP to send them a notification and then wait for court. Some have been in detention now for over three years. Some of the crimes are as serious as “breaking a window”. A man is to be flown from Melbourne to Derby in WA to face court on this charge this month.
    Others have been flown around Australia and Christmas Island, only to have their charges dropped for lack of evidence and then returned to detention in Melbourne to sit and wait months for the Minister to sign their release.
    All this time the people are nominally POI- Persons of interest- but interestingly they are not told the reason for their continued detention nor given any official notification.

    Then there is the Character Assessment Team headed by the “Principle Assessor”- sounds like the FAT CONTROLLER and has as mush power. Then there is the Minister with consummate “non-compellable Non-reviewable” powers used by the recently departed Minister to leave hundreds of men rotting in detention.

    A new method to keep refugees locked up is “health”. It may surprise Australians to discover that people are being locked up in some of our most isolated detention prisons because they have TB. Treatment for 3/4 weeks usually renders the diesease non-infectious with a 12 months medication followup to cure the patient. At a time when “LEPER COLONIES” are a disgrace of the past, Australia is resurrecting detention as an appropriate place for TB patients to remain while they take their 12 months treatment. There are a number of people with cancer being treated while in detention. No one is too sick to be detained. Melbourne saw two men have their legs amputated and then returned to detention even though there was no way that effective rehabilitation and mobilisation could be achieved in this environment.

    Detention is like a virus- highly infectious and reasons can be found to hold people at will.
    ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION legal under the CONSTITUTION- how long before Australia is tried for its Arbitrary Indefinite Detention policy?

  • 2
    Vivushka
    Posted Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Hear! Hear! I am ashamed of Australia’s terrible record by both parties in demonising asylum seekers and placing them in the equivalent of concentration camps. Will we listen to those who have had first hand knowledge of the implementation of our government’s policies and are no longer gagged? We are behaving incredibly inhumanely.
    Wake up, Australia, and take a good, hard look at yourself!

  • 3
    Patriot
    Posted Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Blow them out of the water!

  • 4
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    wWhy is the arsehole patriot allowed to say we should murder innocent people.

  • 5
    CML
    Posted Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    @SM - Because last time I looked, we had freedom of speech in this country. I do not agree with Patriot’s views, but I will defend his right to express them.
    Some people may find your attitude to refugees is offensive. Does that mean they have the right to say you shouldn’t be heard? Of course not.
    Refugee advocates and detractors should try finding issues on which they can agree. The rhetoric of both sides is becoming extreme. And that doesn’t help anyone.

  • 6
    Roni
    Posted Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    If you extend humanity and compassion to *everyone* it’s not hard to see comments like Patriot’s as being a natural consequence of comments like Vivushka’s.

    Stories demanding responses of shame and horror make people feel bad. People who feel bad want to do something to feel better. If a real solution was proposed they’d probably support it. If no solution is offered, only more and more shame they can’t fix, people get angry. It’s only human.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...