Sarah Stephen
The weekend after the January 29-31 ALP national conference, I attended the Rural Australians for Refugees national conference, one of the biggest gatherings of refugees' rights activists in the last few years. As the outcome of the Labor conference was discussed, a number of speakers argued that the final ALP policy heralded an end to bipartisan refugee policy.
A Just Australia director Howard Glenn welcomed the change, and argued Labor's new approach to temporary protection visas was a real step forward. Lawyer and Jesuit priest Frank Brennan told the conference that there was now a real policy difference on the issue of temporary visas, and he called on participants to "focus on the differences in policies between the parties".
Within the refugee-rights movement, there is an eagerness to believe that the ALP has been responsive to its demands and that we have a real choice between the major parties in the coming federal election.
No bipartisan refugee policy?
Much of the policy adopted on January 31 differs little from ALP policy in the 2001 election, such as the call for a coastguard; harsh penalties for people smugglers — including life sentences; and the maintenance of mandatory detention, but under government management.
Other elements were developed in 2002 as concessions to the growing refugee-rights movement: open hostel-style supervised accommodation for those with prima facie claims who are not a health, security or absconding risk; and the removal of children from detention centres.
The new initiatives are in response to public concern about the secrecy of detention, lack of accountability for the treatment of asylum seekers, and the damaging effects of lengthy detention.
They include:
- Providing access to detention centres for the media and independent medical professionals;
- Creating an independent inspector-general of detention to monitor detention conditions and to deal with complaints;
- Determining 90% of claims within 90 days and independently reviewing the others, with a goal of processing all claims within twelve months;
- Processing claims quickly through a new Refugee Determination Tribunal, with rights to appeal to federal magistrates.
The policy calls for an end to the deeply unpopular Pacific solution, but argues for the continued excision of Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Ashmore Reef from Australia's migration zone, including plans to provide a processing and detention facility on Christmas Island.
A key policy focus was changes to temporary protection visas, no doubt in response to a growing community campaign which has highlighted the profound suffering of TPV-holding refugees living in limbo in the community
The changes adopted include:
- To maintain a temporary protection visa system for unauthorised arrivals with a one-off TPV period of two years, after which, if ongoing protection is still required, permanent protection would be provided;
- To review all refugees currently on TPVs and offer permanent protection where required;
- Allow refugees who no longer require protection to be granted permanent residency if they pass a "rigorous public interest test", indicating that they are making economic, social, community and family contributions beneficial to the Australian community, particularly within rural or regional Australia;
- Enable TPV holders to access English language training and employment assistance, in addition to existing services.
"At the last election we were skinned on this issue politically", ALP immigration spokesperson Stephen Smith told the Labor conference. "We said to ourselves, it's clear we need a better policy framework".
While there are some changes, in particular for refugees on TPVs, the core of Labor's policy — which it still shares with the Coalition — remains the same: the argument that an "orderly" refugee program is required to "protect our borders", a firm commitment to mandatory detention and to the concept that refugees should be offered temporary, not permanent, protection.
Smith explained to conference delegates that Labor's mandatory detention would be different: "We want mandatory detention maintained in a humane way, not in a punitive way".
But the physical and mental impact of mandatory detention makes it by definition, inhumane. That is why one in two Australians want to end the system.
Labor has always had differences with the government on the detail of its refugee policy. These differences are much safer than substantial ones. As far back as 2002, Simon Crean ran hard on Labor's support for children out of detention. It was popular, because it's the most abhorrent element of the detention policy, but removal of children doesn't challenge mandatory detention as a whole.
In a February 2 media release, former ALP MP Kris Hanna pointed out: "There is a glaring contradiction in Labor's policy — if the camps are unsuitable places for children, how is it they are suitable for the parents who have fled persecution with their families?"
Celebrate?
It is great that Labor has been forced to relate to the widespread community support for refugees living in the community on TPVs, and the public outrage at the cruel and unnecessary suffering imposed by these visas. But Labor has come up with a proposal that's inadequate because it doesn't challenge the basic presumption inherent in temporary visas.
When Pauline Hanson first proposed it in 1998, and then immigration minister Philip Ruddock implemented it in 1999, the idea of a temporary protection for refugees was based on the notion that the "right" of Australia to decide who came here and how long they stayed overrode any right of refugees to rebuild their shattered lives, which they cannot do without the stability of permanent residency.
Many Iraqi refugees have been in Australia for four years, but their visa reassessments have been frozen until conditions in Iraq are more "certain" — that is, until the government can justify sending them back.
The three-year time limit is somewhat arbitrary. After all, if it's okay to uproot people and send them back after three years, why not extend that right to whenever it is safe, even if this is 20 or 30 years later?
Labor argues that if someone is identified as a refugee when they arrive in Australia, it is acceptable to force them to wait two years, and face a reassessment, before they can be granted permanent residence. Smith argues that people fleeing particular situations only require temporary protection. He is wrong. Refugees need the stability of permanent residence. They should choose if and when they want to return, rather than having it dictated to them by the government.
Smith tries to cover his party's support for a policy, which was dreamt up by a far-right racist politician, by claiming that it is endorsed by the UN Refugee Convention. The convention is, unfortunately, ambiguous about temporary protection, but all humanitarian organisations worldwide recognise that refugees should be granted permanent protection.
There are many people who are saying "Be positive, at least it's something". But because the changes do not reflect what the refugee-rights movement is calling for, we cannot afford to go silent. Labor for Refugees members were soundly defeated by the ALP leadership in their efforts to make changes to their party's policy.
The movement has already started to make Labor feel uncomfortable about some aspects of its policy, but the party has demonstrated that it isn't willing to give any ground without a serious fight. This should propel us into action to mobilise public opinion further in our favour, and in so doing put even more pressure on Labor — and all political parties — to develop a humane refugee policy.
The campaign within the ALP, being carried out by Labor for Refugees, will gain strength from a renewal in the activity of movement outside. Our challenge as a movement is to develop a groundswell of public opposition that makes it politically untenable for Labor to continue to maintain its current refugee policy.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, February 25, 2004.
Visit the