Robert Manne, who for 40 years has been and remains a resolute voice for refugees, has recently reflected on the appalling dead-end of policy seen on Manus Island and Nauru. His argument for a realistic policy that would rescue people from this hell deserves serious consideration.
He believes that the present policy reflects an abiding Australian passion for cultural control. Initially directed at keeping out non-Europeans, it has been more recently directed against people who came by boat to seek protection. Control was built on deterrence, initially by mandatory detention, then by denying refugees permanent residence, instituting off shore processing, intercepting boats, and detention on Nauru and Manus Island. These measures have been supported by a majority of Australians.
In order to persuade policy makers to adopt a better policy, Manne argues, it is necessary to understand both the 'Canberra mind' which finds the present regime necessary and the opposition to it. The received political wisdom is based in the experience of influxes of refugees and of the measures taken to curb them. From 1996 to 2001 the Howard government introduced mandatory detention and temporary protection visas and in 2001 offshore processing and interdiction of boats. This proved effective.
But after the Rudd government stopped interdiction and halted off-shore processing, the boats again multiplied, with many people dying at sea. It introduced mandatory detention on Manus Island, after which the Coalition government reinstated interdiction and harsh deterrent measures. Boat arrivals stopped. For Canberra, the policy stopped the boats and saved lives.
Manne recounts that after some self-searching he broke from the opposition in arguing that refugee advocacy must accept the political reality that governments decide refugee policy and that no conceivable government will abandon interdiction or the possibility of offshore processing.
To change policy demands accepting that interdiction and offshore processing will continue, while persuading governments that keeping people on Manus Island and Nauru is not necessary for keeping the boats stopped. That would allow the initial transfer to Australia of those who are ill, acceptance of the offer by New Zealand to accept others, and over time the transfer of those remaining on Manus Island and Nauru.
Manne concludes by asking why these realistic proposals have not been endorsed by opponents of the government policy. His reflections raise two questions. Is his delineation of the history and current state of play of Australian treatment of people who seek protection accurate? And should those supporting refugees