Federal

Nov 22, 2012

Deterrence goal locks us onto a path of cruelty

The government has no alternatives in its treatment of asylum seekers other than deterrence. It will stick to his guns no matter the public outcry over camp conditions.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

That the government's revamped Pacific Solution always risked being both less effective and more brutal than the Malaysian policy overturned by an unusual combination of the High Court, refugee advocates, the Greens and the Coalition was apparent from the moment the Houston panel presented its report. So far, that's exactly how it's panned out. The government doesn't, however, have a political problem arising from the cruelty of its Nauru and Manus Island facilities, whatever the constant criticism from the Left (especially the meaningless, irrelevant and inaccurate claim that we are not meeting our treaty obligations) or on social media. As an issue of importance to voters, asylum seekers has actually diminished in the last five months, Essential Media found this week. Indeed, there may be many voters who are only too happy to hear that asylum seekers are suffering from poor conditions on Nauru. Moreover, whatever the government might say, it is in its interests for the media to detail how bad things are there, in the hope that a deterrent message reaches would be asylum seekers via relatives and communities in Australia. Complaining that conditions on Nauru are cruel misses the point: they are supposed to be cruel, sufficiently cruel that they will deter people from trying to come here by boat. Whether that holds once an asylum seeker takes their own life, as may well be the case the longer they remain in a state of uncertainty on Nauru, is something we hopefully never learn. But the government's admission yesterday that it had, in effect, been overwhelmed by people smugglers and would be resurrecting a form of Temporary Protection Visa for those people it wasn't able to (yet) fit onto Nauru or Manus Island resets the political problem. We now have virtual offshore processing. Whatever the deterrent effects, dumping asylum seekers on Nauru and in PNG had the political value of exporting the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. That's no longer the case. Nonetheless, the government could not have done anything else. It is locked into the policy. It has no alternatives: its own, preferred Malaysian Solution, which would have been both more effective and less inhumane, has been wrecked (the Greens should dwell on that as they whip themselves into a frenzy over the current policy); the Coalition's policy is no different, except for the weird fantasy of turning back the boats, which Tony Abbott can't even bring himself to broach with the Indonesian president, and the only plan coming from the Left (and some on the libertarian Right) is to essentially throw open Australia's borders via a processing centre in Indonesia. The only successful part of the government's policy has been returning hundreds of illegal immigrants from Sri Lanka, who despite a campaign by some to portray them as victims of a brutal victor in the civil war in that country, have no claims to asylum. Locked into the objective of deterrence, the government has in a way handed policy to people smugglers. The more boats they try to send, the more the government will have to do to make life inhospitable for those who arrive. It is a path that has already taken this government beyond the boundaries pushed by the Howard government, and it may take them to places still less comfortable as time goes on. There is no realistic choice.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

75 comments

Leave a comment

75 thoughts on “Deterrence goal locks us onto a path of cruelty

  1. Christopher Nagle

    One of the irritating features of current discourse is the inability to tell the difference between cruelty/abuse and toughness. We have in effect delegitimized any sort of robust and assertive use of power that causes ‘suffering’, or even discomfort. In fact, in the consumer society generally, we have become so comfort driven, any sort of discomfort has become ‘suffering’.

    Military tent life in the wet season is taxing and uncomfortable. But to call it ‘cruel’ is either sloppy use of the language or indicating a very low tolerance for adversity.

    May I point out that large slabs of the world’s population live in very basic accommodation in quite severe heat with no air conditioning…..gasp!

  2. Achmed

    ‘Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of sh*t by the clean end

  3. iggy648

    “Daddy says it’s alright to use the bad word, so I’m gonna! Nyah nyah!” While I expect this from our resident xenophobes, what on earth could be the value in Tony Abbott resorting to demonising asylum seekers? Is he starting to soften up us plebs for something even worse to come?

  4. Achmed

    Labor have now gone so far to the right oon asylum seekers Abbott will have to start moving left

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...