The Forum > Article Comments > Where to for immigration detention? > Comments
Where to for immigration detention? : Comments
By Anna Saulwick, published 7/8/2008After many years, mandatory detention, a policy that offered only despair to those who sought our help has been overturned.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Anna's throwaway line that the policy shift "tries to come to terms with a humane solution to a political problem. Or a political solution to a human problem" is worthy of more discussion than a mere play on words. You could argue that it doesn't really matter why a policy shift is introduced - the important thing is that things will be much better than they were.
For my part, I hope the motivation is a humanitarian one and not a political one because if it's the first it represents a real shift in the way politicians view people. The Howard/Ruddock/Andrews view was cynical and immoral - people were demonised and ill-treated because that won more votes than it lost. They didn't give a stuff about the documented harm that was done to asylum seekers, including and especially children.
I agree with Anna that "the scheme outlined by the Minister is far from perfect". For example, the legal fiction excising Australian territory from the migration zone is unjustifiable and should have been scrapped. Unauthorised arrivals have been shown to have a higher chance of being genuine refugees than those who arrive with a valid visa. Yet those who flee without valid documents will continue to be worst treated.
The reforms are welcome but do not yet go far enough to allow us as a nation to hold our heads up with a fully restored international reputation.