Today a small group of Liberal backbenchers will take to the Coalition party room a plan contained within two private members Bills to substantially change mandatory detention, but calls for a radical re-think need to be resisted.
It is easy to understand why some politicians would share the concerns of segments of the community who are uncomfortable with mandatory detention.
As Prime Minister John Howard himself concedes, children in detention is a difficult issue.
The first Bill essentially would see most of those in detention released immediately while their applications are processed, and result in refugees on temporary protection visas getting permanent residency, as would asylum seekers who can not be removed from Australia three years after the final determination of their applications for protection.
The second Bill, according to my understanding, would change mandatory detention by requiring future asylum seekers who don't have a visa to be detained only on specified grounds, such as to verify identity and to protect public safety.
The Government initially would be only able to detain people for up to 90 days and would be required to go back to court every 90 days to get a further extension. In addition, all refugees would be given permanent residency status immediately.
The proponents of the Bills argue that the changes would not undermine border security and would be more compassionate. This is debatable.
The Bills would weaken border security by removing deterrence.
At first blush, the proposals amount to effectively gutting mandatory detention, which would exist in name only.
While there is no question that applications need to be processed as quickly as possible, such a system would greatly reward legal stalling tactics and unco-operative behaviour.
While the changes may be more compassionate in the short term, if the changes were to once again encourage people to place their lives in the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers then they are neither compassionate nor humane.
There are two additional things of which proponents of the Bills need to be conscious.
First, while there are many noisy interest groups that would like to see a virtual open door policy, a strong mandatory detention regime enjoys broad public support. This matters in a democracy.
Second, a strong border protection regime is important to maintaining public confidence in Australia's immigration program.
But in order to maintain confidence in the current program, it is essential that it is the Australian Government which determines the size, composition and timing of our migration intake. This requires mandatory detention.
To be in favour of mandatory detention is certainly not to be anti-immigration or even racist, as some interest groups would have us believe.
While it is difficult to comment on some of the cases that have appeared in the media recently without knowing all facts, what is clear is that it is totally unacceptable for an Australian resident to be deported from this country.
No one in the Government from the Prime Minister to Immigration Minister Senator Amanda Vanstone disputes this.
Although the results of the Palmer inquiry yet are to be delivered, on the face of it, there already appears to be a case for a greater flexibility and safeguards within the system to protect those who are unable to protect themselves adequately; something already flagged by Vanstone.
But arguing for more safeguards and greater flexibility within the system for the vulnerable is a far cry from the effective dismantling of mandatory detention which is what some are arguing for.
In spite of its faults, the current border protection regime has proved remarkably effective in terms of stemming the tide of unauthorised arrivals on our shores.
One might even argue that the current system may be a victim of its own success, with some believing that the policy is no longer necessary.
That would be a mistake.
Australia's border protection policy, which is centred on mandatory detention, has been in the news for all the wrong reasons of late but it needs fine tuning, not an extreme makeover.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment