So, What's Actually Changed?

Refugee policy was headed for a shakeup with the change of government in 2007. Five months in to the Labor Government, what has and hasn't changed?
David Sparkes
23 April 2008

"This is the heart of us. It is the heart of who we are as Australians. The way we treat the most vulnerable people determines who we can be. But we're not out of the woods and so far we don't have a government who looks like it will lead us out of the woods."

Pamela Curr speaks passionately. She is the policy coordinator at the Asylum Refugee Centre and is involved intimately with the people she considers amongst "the most vulnerable people".

Five months ago, refugee advocates like Pamela dared to dream. For the previous decade they had seen themselves as locked in battle. John Howard's Government had devoted a large chunk of its social rhetoric to the issue of border protection. To suggest that the Coalition's hard-line on asylum seekers was unpopular would be only half-true. To say it contributed to the downfall of an immovable political force would be speculation. But for thousands of Australians who campaigned against the Coalition Government's refugee policies, the election result on the 24 November 2007 must have felt like a victory.

Mr Howard's tenure came to a spectacular end and Kevin Rudd was moving in to the Lodge. Just whether "Kevin 07" really was the answer to the prayers of refugee campaigners was unclear. At the very least, he certainly seemed humanitarian. The Labor Party's election campaign had focused its "have-a-heart" mentality on industrial relations and other issues that would have an impact on the domestic, middle-class front. On immigration reform, Labor's platform was hardly revolutionary, but it did chip away at the outer shell of Mr Howard's ideology.

The morning after the election, the battle might have seemed over. But five months into the Labor Government, what has changed in Australia's refugee policy? What has not changed? It's hard to keep track.

Pamela says, "I'm opening letters and e-mails, particularly from RAR groups (Rural Australians for Refugees) and others saying, 'Look, this is it! It's over, isn't it? It's finished. We can move on to other things.' The fact is it's really not over by a long shot."There is a tendency when a Labor government gets into power for the community to breathe a sigh of relief. But, unfortunately when you've had, as we've had, an extremely right-wing government, we are not going to get a left-wing government following it. And we haven't."

When assessing the extent of change under the Labor government, it is worth taking a look at the list of what they actually promised during the election campaign; The promise to abolish the Pacific Solution was the spit and polish on Labor's humanitarian credentials. They also promised to abolish Temporary Protection Visas. They indicated that they would investigate the possibility of work-rights for asylum seekers living in the community. They said they would return detention centres to public ownership and operation. They said they would reverse the Coalition's decision to excise 4,600 Australian islands from the migration zone.

Beyond all these promises, there was an expectation among many that a Rudd government would bring about a change in philosophy. Anna Samson, from the Refugee Council of Australia, says, "Generally, and I think this is what a lot of people were clinging to, a more compassionate approach to the question of refugee protection (is what Labor promised)."

But this promise of a more "humanitarian" approach was coupled with an unequivocal promise to continue the hardline on border protection. On the eve of the election, senior Labor figures reaffirmed that they would turn back asylum seekers in seaworthy boats and send others to Christmas Island for processing. Labor Deputy Leader, Julia Gillard said, "We are tough on border security. You have to be. We've always said that if people arrive unauthorised, they will have to be detained for health, security and identity checks."

The election was run and won. So, from that moment on, what has actually happened?

Within three months of taking office, Labor came good on its promise to scrap the Pacific Solution, closing the detention centres on Manus Island (in Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. David Manne is co-ordinator of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre and worked with some of the asylum seekers being processed on Nauru. While David welcomes the closure of the Nauru detention centre, he also questions whether the Pacific Solution is completely buried.

"The problem remains," he says. "The Pacific Solution itself - it's crucial to understand that it formed a fundamental foundation of the whole architecture (of the Howard Government's refugee policy). It was front and centre of that architecture. It has ended but unfortunately the house has not completely been demolished because we now have what I would call the Indian Ocean solution."

"That is, many of the most problematic and objectionable aspects of the Pacific Solution have in effect been imported back in to our own territory (in the Indian Ocean)."

Also part of the Pacific Solution was the decision by the Howard Government in 2003 to excise 4,600 islands from Australia's immigration zone. The islands remained Australian territory but the decision meant that asylum seekers who reached those islands (including Christmas Island) were considered to be "offshore" and their claims for asylum were not dealt with under Australian law. Labor pledged to return the islands to the migration zone, with the exception of Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and Cocos Islands. The pledge was reiterated at a Labor conference in 2007 when the then immigration spokesperson, Tony Burke, said, "We would return them (the 4,600 islands) to the migration zone."

But by early 2008 refugee advocates were beginning to doubt whether the changes would actually take place. On 22 April this year, David Manne said that, as far as he is aware, it is now stated Labor policy not to reverse that Coalition policy.

"We still have this peculiar policy and law in our country that parts of our territory will be dehumanised." He said, "That is, they will be places where human rights will apply a little bit or not at all depending on the political discretion of the day.

"There are places (within Australian territory) where people don't have access to Australian law for the purposes of pursuing what is a fundamentally legal question. That is, 'Do you meet the definition of a refugee?'"

On the question of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs), the government recently fulfilled its promise to abolish them, having been in power for six months. The tardiness in coming through on this promise drew heavy criticism from frustrated refugee advocates. In April, David Manne said, "We're now how many months (into the Labor government)? Five months? And every day for a TPV holder is another day of damage for people in that situation. It's like a second wave of suffering by the policy, and nothing has happened yet."

Well, it did happen eventually, and for that the minister is receiving some credit from his critics.

On work-rights for asylum seekers living in the community, no policy change has come about yet, but it has to be said that the Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans, does appear genuinely committed making reforms that will allow some work-rights for asylum seekers. At a senate estimates committee on 19 March 2008 he said:

"I think the current system is indefensible. We do need to have a situation that is much more coherent and caring than one which does plan for people to be destitute out in the community without the capacity to work and earn a living or be in receipt of benefits. The solution to this issue is very much, I think, focused around people's work-rights and access to benefits. I am very focused on trying to fix this issue. It is something that I regard as a priority and hope to have resolved, at least in part, fairly quickly."

If the minister does achieve such reform, it would represent a concrete change from his predecessor.

Another fundamental shift from the previous government is that Senator Evans has committed himself to clearing the list of long-term detainees. In March he vowed to "personally examine" the cases of 61 long-term detainees and have their cases resolved by the end of April. It is unclear whether that deadline has been met.

On the election promise to return detention centres to public ownership and operation, Senator Evans has been slow to act. At a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing held on February 19, 2008, the minister offered this by way of explanation for the continuing involvement of private contractors:

"The tenders for the renewing of the contract had been underway under the previous government and they are fairly well advanced. Currently I am considering how we handle that matter; whether we continue with the renewal of the contract or not, given the stage of negotiations and the costs already incurred."

Once again, watch this space.

But what about things the Labor Government pledged not to change? Mandatory detention, making asylum seekers pay back the costs of their own incarceration, boat-interception and repulsion and offshore detention centres have all been seamlessly carried over from one government to the next. Which brings us back to the question - how much has refugee policy changed under the Labor Government?
"There is a sense, even among those who are very well informed and care, that post-Howard, things will probably be all right." says David Manne. "That maybe they are even all right now. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Reform has really been limited and largely restricted to bureaucratic processes rather than policy."

Anna Samson, who deals with senior figures in the Department of Immigration, is slightly more optimistic; "It's important to highlight the change in attitude within the department and within the minister's office. I have to say that (since the change of government) there has been a distinct change both in the demeanour and the approach of people in the Department of Immigration.

"This isn't to say that the kinds of reforms or the issues that surround overall cultural change at the department have been resolved. And it's very difficult for that to occur so long as the legislation and the policies that are put in place don't actually allow for that change to occur."
Pamela Curr says that while she believes there has been some "progress", fundamental similarities remain between the previous and current governments. "We've (still) got Christmas Island, and that is a big worry. The worry is that if we get a big boat, we'll be back to business as usual," she says, alluding to the famous Tampa incident in 2001.

If anything, Labor has shown renewed enthusiasm for Christmas Island as a detention facility. A brand new detention centre is being built there at an estimated cost of $500 million. And the Labor Government's enthusiasm for mandatory detention is not limited by the boundaries of Australian territory.

"We're building detention centres in Indonesia." Pamela says. "Makassar (Quarantine Prison in South Sulawesi) was built by the Australians. There is another one (in Indonesia). We've so far not been able to locate where it is, but we know from documents online that it is there."
The verdict from those intimately involved in this debate is clear; some change has occurred, but at the moment you have to squint your eyes to tell the difference.

The Labor Government is attempting a political balancing act. On one hand it wants to appear more "humanitarian" than its predecessor. On the other hand it desperately wants to avoid subjecting itself to mainstream fears about a perceived flood of refugees, the same fears that cost it an election in 2001. Perhaps the scars from that election defeat still run deep and continue to affect Labor policy. If you want to know where the government's refugee policy is headed, you'll have to watch this space.

David Sparkes is a journalism student at Deakin University