Still in the same old boat

IMMIGRATION Minister Chris Evans announced this week that, under a new set of values to be legislated by the Rudd Government, "the current model of immigration detention is fundamentally overturned". There was almost universal praise for the announcement, which was hailed for being positive and more humane, effectively overturning mandatory detention and, in Evans's words, part of "tackling the worst excesses of the Howard (government's) immigration legacy".
Only Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison criticised the plan as promoting "a more relaxed attitude" to border security that would send the wrong message to potential refugees and people smugglers.
Indeed, the reforms were welcome and more humane. Refugee groups were hesitant to criticise the positive steps towards overturning immigration detention, and Evans's announcement was generally endorsed. Yet there should have been more criticism of the Labor Government for not going further and honouring all its election promises in word and spirit. What's more, Ellison's attack would have been more credibly applied to the Government's cant and political dissembling.
The simple fact is that the Evans proposals do not alter the basic building block of Australia's bipartisan immigration policy of the past 15 years: mandatory detention. It doesn't matter what you do to finesse the implementation; the character of any system will be determined by its basic philosophy.
What Evans has done - reversing the onus on detention, guaranteeing children will not be detained, expanding access to legal advice and improving physical conditions for detention - is worthy and he is to be congratulated.
But the Labor Government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Evans's announcement was full of rhetoric about how low the immigration system had sunk, the worst excesses of the Howard government, continued punishment, inhumanity and harsh systems.
"The Rudd Government will reform our immigration detention policies in a way that reflects the compassion and tolerance of the Australian community," Evans said.
"In the future the immigration system will be characterised by strong border security, firm deterrence of unauthorised arrivals, effective and robust immigration processes, and respect for the rule of law and the humanity of those seeking migration outcomes."
What Evans is proposing, though, is further refinement of the system of immigration detention based on mandatory detention. This includes the Howard government's detention centres, commercial management of detention centres, excision of Australian territory from the Immigration Act, detention while security and health checks are completed, continued detention if identification cannot be made, naval patrols, interdiction of boatpeople and the keeping in reserve of the Christmas Island detention centre in case of a surge of boatpeople arrivals.
And why is all this policy and paraphernalia being left in place? Because the Labor Government intends to continue to decide who comes into Australia and how. And why does it want to be like the Howard government on immigration detention? For the same reason the Howard government continued the Keating government's policy of mandatory detention and keeping people, including children, behind barbed wire: the integrity of the migration system.
Labor has an even greater incentive than the Coalition to preserve the integrity of the immigration system. The Rudd Government is expanding permanent and temporary immigration and attempting to do it without fanfare.
At the same time, it also has to satisfy its election commitments on the heartland Labor social justice issue of refugees and detention.
Hence Evans's declaration this week: "The challenge for Labor, having tackled the worst excesses of the Howard immigration legacy, is to introduce a new set of values to immigration detention, values that seek to emphasise a risk-based approach to detention and prompt resolution of cases rather than punishment. The best deterrent is to ensure that people who have no right to remain in Australia are removed expeditiously."
But, in his exposition of the rest of Labor's policy, he committed to "maintain mandatory detention and the excision of certain places from the migration zone", "extensive patrolling of our borders by defence, customs and other law enforcement agencies", and declared that "unauthorised arrivals will be processed at Christmas Island" and those who fail the refugee test will be removed expeditiously. All these are to be kept to "support the integrity of Australia's immigration program".
Evans is attempting to offer relief for detainees through an improved and faster assessment for security and health reasons, yet this has been the bugbear of governments for decades. Indeed, in 1993, Philip Ruddock attacked the immigration minister at the time, Gerry Hand, not over mandatory detention but over delays in processing.
While the onus will be on the department to say why someone should not be released into the community if they are not a risk, Evans concedes people will be held until they can be identified and given security clearance.
He also concedes that means people will be held for long periods, even if he hopes it is fewer people and for overall shorter periods. The minister's experience in how long such things can take demonstrates the difficulty of trying to expedite immigration cases. Four months ago he undertook a review of 72 of the longest serving cases in the detention centres. He found 31 could be released but that 24 should be deported.
As of yesterday, that all-important expeditious deportation had occurred in nine of the 24 cases. That means 15 illegal entrants slated for deportation are still here four months after a personal intervention by the minister when the detention system has a population of just 357, the lowest since March 1997.
Because refugees come in waves, sometimes years apart, anyone who thinks Labor has relaxed our border protection or has solved the issue of long-term detention during a time of high refugee arrivals is deluded.
The Rudd Government's principles on unauthorised arrivals and maintaining the integrity of the general immigration program are little different from the Howard government's principles, which were little different from the Keating government's, and for the same reason.
Before the election, Kevin Rudd declared he'd turn back the boats and keep mandatory detention. This week's policy hasn't changed any of that.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24108105-7583,00.html