The Border Force has started putting out podcasts to counter what Immigration Minister Peter Dutton describes as “a bit of a jihad” from Fairfax, and the “biased” questioning and subsequent “kangaroo court” of an ABC program.
The podcasts cover riveting topics — such as training sniffer dog puppies or regional maritime co-operation — but are more distinguished by not detailing with what lots of people want to know about: exactly how boats are being stopped and what’s going on in Nauru.
It’s difficult to imagine the community paying much genuine attention to these off-piste topics. The resultant immaterial podcast is like publishing Playboy without pictures: nobody is much interested. The releases serve to remind us more about what is not being said rather than what is. Attempting to change the subject is a clumsy communication strategy. Ignoring contentious issues while simulating transparency by issuing electronic irrelevancies is Dutton dressed as spam.
It is hard not to feel sorry for a department with broad ranging responsibilities and a communications staff of 82 people whose main job seems to be finding new ways to keep schtum for the minister.
At the core of this silly distraction tactic is the issue of quite how secret governments should be.
Clandestine behaviour by the apparatus of the state on the basis that the end justifies the means seems defensible with imminent life-endangering terror threats or wars, but should it be central to long-term programs to reduce irregular immigration and, if so, why?
There is a common view that rights and freedoms, including freedom of information are unlimited. This is not true.
Under international law, certain rights are “non-derogable”, meaning they always apply in all situations. These include things like the right to life, the prohibition of torture and ill treatment, the right to recognition as a person before the law, and the right to freedom from retroactive application of criminal laws.
Other rights, including freedom of information and association are not absolute and may be suspended or restricted by the state, most usually at times of grave national emergency.
Counterbalancing this, any such restriction must have a basis in national law, pursue a legitimate aim, allow for effective remedies, have guarantees against abuse, be non-discriminatory and, most relevantly, be necessary and proportionate to the aim.
In this case, the principle of proportionality seems simple: does a pragmatic increase in effective deterrence outweigh the need for regime transparency? Is success an excuse? What is the moral imperative underpinning this decision, and to which other programs ought it apply?
At the last election, by popular demand, both major parties promised to curb irregular immigration by sea, an objective that necessitates policies of overt cruelty.
If Government can deliver that result without the tactics causing moral anguish and community guilt thus substantial backlash from uncommitted voters, then it’s a political win. If those tactics are too contentious for soft and swinging voters to endorse at the next poll, then it’s a political loss.
In the absence of hard facts, it seems entirely plausible that the reason Border Force tactics to contain irregular migration are being kept secret is not to outfox people smugglers, but rather to contain outrage from Australians who might conclude that what is being done in their name is objectionable, inhumane and does not justify the outcome.
The truth of exactly what is happening to deter irregular marine migration is unknown to public and media, so that vacuum is being filled by suspicions of payoffs, intimidations and dodgy dealings. It’s a ministerial and departmental no-win; little wonder there’s desire to change the subject with podcast puff pieces.
In my view at least, transparency about what is being done by government takes priority. In all but the direst and information-sensitive emergencies, the end does not justify the means — that slope is way too slippery. Balancing these conflicting priorities ultimately presents a complex zugzwang for decision makers, perhaps driving a bid to stall by attempting to change the subject.
In the trade-off between stemming irregular immigration or freedom of information, I lean to the latter, and although it may well not be the majority opinion, I’m no orphan.
This stretch of “on-water matters” secrecy seems a tipping point in state power. We are a country of grown-ups, capable of balancing complex arguments and making rational decisions.
Obscuring genuine concerns with irrelevant podcasts to simulate openness compounds the insult of secrecy.
It is time to experiment with truth.
Actually, I reckon it’s pretty easy not to feel sorry for a Department that implements our policies towards asylum-seekers and refugees with such obvious relish and enthusiasm. Talk to any of the “legacy caseload” and you’ll hear extensive descriptions of the casual cruelty that has imbued itself from top to bottom in this organisation.
Dutton, Morrison and the Rudd/Gillard Governments could have stopped the boats by getting off their backsides, flying to Jakarta and having meaningful discussions with our neighbours in Indonesia. With the co-operation of our neighbours they could have stationed Immigration staff in Indonesia to process refugee applications and provided sufficient overseas aid to persuade “smugglers” to stop their evil trade. Instead we have horrendously expensive border protection and totally inhumane incarceration of the victims of our lack of marginally creative thinking.
What co-operation?Where is there any evidence that Indonesia would have accepted Australian immigration staff processing people in Indonesia?The Indonesian elite/police/military alliance,through their people smuggling networks were making millions from the Rudd/Gillard fiasco.One of the Presidents own bodyguards was convicted of being part of a network.You can never trust a massively corrupt Nation like Indonesia.The vast majority of the 50,000+ invaders passed through other Countries to get to Indonesia and were they in “fear of persecution”, once the got there,NO?
Invaders? Honest to god, you morons drive me insane. When were we ever invaded? Let me see. 1788, I bet the aborigines wish they could have kept out arseholes like you.
The aborigines failed,history is tough,just ask Boudica and all those that failed to repel invaders in history.As for “morons” and “arseholes” is that all you have to offer?
Because it would be helping UNHCR process refuges. The bottleneck is yuuuge, and they’d welcome help from Australia. That has been the obvious solution from the start, but it seems our politicians prefer torture.
It must be “torture” to have a roof over your head,receive medical treatment,receive schooling,have recreational facilities,be fed every day and be free of “persecution”, all at Australian taxpayer expense.I’m sure if you offered that “torture” to people, in other camps,they would gasp and say..”no,it’s much better here”.
But they never even tried, Nigel! They should have tried! That’s why there’s no evidence that it might have succeeded.
How do you know they didn’t try?Negotiations like these are not conducted in public.Indonesia is the problem,not the solution.
We could have also implemented the Malaysia idea, but that racist collection now called the government said no in order to keep it on the front page. Invaders bullshit. Not even and ANZ stadium full in 15 years. Now answer this for me: if they were going to lock you and your children up forever, because you wrote this comment, would at least try to get the kids out? If not what kind of man are you?
“Not even and ANZ stadium full in 15 years.” That’s because in 7-8 of those years John Howard stopped the boats.At labor/green levels,during 2012/13 the stadium would have been full in 3 years.Writing this comment does not equate to trying to enter Australia unauthorised.Silly analogy.There were 8000 children in detention during the labor/greens alliance,now there are none.Manus & Nauru are now open centres and people are free to come and go.
Calling asylum seekers “invaders” is the stupidest use of English I’ve heard since Tony Abbott was PM.
How about “unauthorised boat arrivals”? They’re the same to me.
You can never trust a massively corrupt nation like Australia, either.
Trying to compare Indonesia,along with just about every Country,in our region,with Australia is laughable.Their whole society,military,police,political,industrial components are riddled with it.Point out any military General or police Commissioner,in Australia, that has deep political influence,runs their own businesses ,whilst in service and in some cases run crime networks.The Thai police are described as “organised crime” by no less than the pathetic U.N.
The biggest difference being that our laws will deal with those found guilty of corruption,whilst in the other Countries the legal system is also corrupt.
The lie of the smugglers persists I see. There are not smugglers bringing people here, there never has been, it’s a lie the government under Howard invented to justify the rape, torture and abuse of refugees and the denial of their human rights.
The notion that openly arriving here and going straight to the authorities could be smuggling is as ridiculous as walking through an airport with heroin strapped outside clothes and a sign saying I am a heroin smuggler.
It’s a legal right to seek asylum, full stop.
I guess this was just imaginary and even Indonesia doesn’t believe that people smugglers are real?
“Sentencing People-Smuggling Offenders
in Indonesia” by Dr Antje Missbach
http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2065559/CILIS-Policy-Paper-12-Missbach_FINAL_Web.pdf
Yes, but what happens to the people after “processing”? That’s the hard part.
“It is time to experiment with truth.”? What a novel idea.
From the “advertising guru” that helped Howard win the “non-core promises”, GST and “Children Overboard” elections?
Yes indeed, with that background of torturing the truth we can only imagine the experiments Toby has in mind.
Pedantic is correct. The concentration camps on Manus and Nauru is stark evidence of politicians of both side not having the wit nor the gumption to pursue an alternative to the current secret, shameless and shithouse treatment of refugee seekers. In this excellent article Toby Ralph makes the remark “… border force tactics to contain irregular immigration”. This term is reminiscent of the erroneous and malignant spittle line “illegal entrants” and “illegal migrants” designed to bolster the notion that these people are nasty and selfish queue jumpers. The latest plan by the odious player of the pink oboe Dutton is beyond belief. If the current sadistic methods have stopped the boats why in the hell do they have to kick these poor sods in the nuts? The whole thing is an embarrassment and a repudiation of justice and humanity. Dutton is a NARSTY piece of shit.
Great work Minister Dutton,the vast majority of Australians have supported border control, since 2001 and continue to do so.There’s no need to take any notice of the “refugee” lobby. If only the people that were put into REAL concentration camps had enjoyed a roof over their head,3 decent meals a day,medical attention,recreational facilities,education,etc,etc instead of being worked to death,tortured,gassed,shot,burned or turned into lampshades and shrunken heads.Your “‘alternative” strategy would be? Of course the correct terminology is “unauthorised boat arrivals”.I’m not embarrassed by a policy that has prevented the type of disaster Europe now faces.
There is no such thing as irregular migration, for god’s sake does everyone have to talk such drivel and use such disgusting language about innocent human beings. We know that those trapped on Nauru and Manus are almost all actually refugees, they have rights, they did not migrate anywhere.
Indeed and our policies were part of what made them refugees. Sickening.