Rights depend on which side of the line you are on
I got a call from a colleague the other day who told me that a client of his arriving at Sydney airport had seen "about 200" returning overseas students being taken aside at the immigration desk for questioning about their visa status. My informant admitted it was probably an exaggeration, but from my own experience I can confirm that the practice of cancelling the visas of returning students before they are immigration cleared into the country is on the increase. In fact, I can quote verbatim from the transcript of an actual interview between a student and an immigration officer last November: "Immigration has started to interview people on arrival now OK. The people that are in your situation". And what situation was that? The student's college had cancelled his enrolment due to a fee dispute. They had done that in August, and notified Immigration on the computer system that DIAC shares with the Department of Education. Not being enrolled is of course a breach of student visa conditions, but despite the record being placed on the system in August no action was taken by Immigration at the time. The student went overseas in October and flew back several weeks later. On arrival he was taken aside in immigration clearance and, after a brief interview and ten minute opportunity to prepare a reply, his visa was cancelled.
Apparently the computer system is now capable of picking up visa numbers when people check in overseas and "flagging" anyone with a potential breach to the airport authorities who can then take them out of the arrivals line and cancel their visa on the spot.
Well, sure, he had breached a condition of the visa. But he had breached it in August, and Immigration had done nothing about it until his return from overseas in November. What difference does that make? Just this: when a student visa is cancelled in Australia the holder has the opportunity to apply for merits review in the Migration Review Tribunal, unless the cancellation occurs before the student gets across the line at the airport. If the visa is cancelled in immigration clearance, there is no appeal. Unless there is some legal irregularity which the student can get a Court to pick up on, they are on the next flight out.
According to the Tribunal's annual report for 2009-10, 41% of appeals against student visa cancellations were successful in that year. Taking away the right to appeal by cancelling the visa before the student gets across the clearance line, in effect, significantly disadvantages the student by comparison with someone whose visa is cancelled after clearance.
It is no surprise that the rate of successful appeals in these cases is so high. Anyone reading the published decisions would be appalled at the level of incompetency, negligence and plain dishonesty on the part of some education providers. Yet it seems that Immigration's main concern is to save time and expense by punishing the weakest element, the students who have been the victims of this appalling mess right from the start.
16 February 2011
05 January 2011
Catching up
It's been a few months since my last post. I will make it my New Year's resolution to be more attentive to keeping up the blog during 2011.
As far as the media was concerned, the only immigration related issue worth mentioning in the second half of 2010 was "the boats". I will follow their lead in this first post for the new year.
Certainly the horrible events of the morning of 15 December at Christmas Island confirm the urgency of the need for a solution to this problem. The actual number of people who have died in Australian waters or en route to this country is unknown. The Christmas Island disaster showed that even the last few metres of this journey can be deadly. With the deaths of so many adults and children in mind, no one can seriously claim that the only issue is how we treat asylum seekers once they make it onto the beach.
For the politicians a good way to avoid having to come up with an answer is to divert attention onto the "people smugglers". No epithet is too lurid, no hyperbole too extreme, no mandatory sentence too draconian.
When pressed for a real solution, the Liberals fall back on deterrence. The Howard government stopped the boats, they say, by two measures: temporary protection visas (TPVs) and the "Pacific Solution". Sending all boat arrivals for processing in Nauru of course could never be as effective a second time around, both due to the fact that most asylum seekers sent there eventually made it to Australia or New Zealand and the impact of the High Court decision in December about processing ruses (see below). As for TPVs, besides the misery and injustice of not allowing recognised refugees to bring their families here or even visit them overseas in flagrant breach of Australia's obligations under international law, there is a strong case that the policy was a direct cause of the deaths of many of those family members who had no alternative but to risk their lives on the high seas: see http://sievx.com/articles/challenging/2006/20060206SueHoffman.html.
Deterrence will always work if the punishment is sufficiently graphic. Deliberately sinking any asylum seeker boat that entered Australian water and leaving its passengers to drown would pretty quickly end the flow, for example. The nefarious people smugglers on board could be summarily hanged drawn and quartered on the decks of the naval interceptors for good measure.
The deterrence approach is based on the assumption that the only problem is the boats. If you can stop them coming, the problem is solved. The asylum seekers themselves, if we can keep them away from our shores, then become someone else's problem.
Labor explicitly rejected both TPVs and Nauru in its campaign for the 2007 election, and is now stuck with those laudable policies like it or not. Gillard's brainstorm idea of a regional processing centre in East Timor has still not made it off the drawing board however.
In the end, the key to the succes of any regional processing centre, wherever located, will lie in the meaning of the word "processing". If the outcome of a genuine assessment based on international law is that an asylum seeker is a genuine refugee, what happens next? If the end result of the processing is not immediate resettlement in Australia for anyone recognised as a genuine refugee, the boats will remain the only option.
And any assessment would have to be genuine, or at least in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the High Court has ruled in the case known as M61. The practice of denying boat arrivals the right to make a formal application for a visa, followed by a "non-compellable" Ministerial decision to grant a visa after an informal assessment and appeal, was held by the Court not to be a loophole that allowed for denial of natural justice in the assessment process. The fact that the Australian government was in charge of the procedure from start to finish, as it would be in any offshore processing arrangement, meant that the principles of Australian law were applicable.
Meanwhile, the asylum seekers who do make it here have to be "housed" (ie, locked up). Building new detention facilities almost seems to be propping up the construction sector single-handedly. Cries of "not in my backyard" are being heard all through the land. It is tempting to label these objections as racist, xenophobic, etc. But when you think about it, the reasoning behind them is not hard to follow. For nearly 20 years Australian governments from both sides have insisted that asylum seekers must be locked up. It has been done for so long now that a generation of Australians has grown up with it. Normally in a free country people are locked up in order to protect society from them, because they are dangerous. So asylum seekers must be dangerous, in which case we don't want them in our neighbourhood.
When mandatory detention was introduced in 1992, the responsible Minister Gerry Hand (ALP) gave the following explanation in the second reading speech: "I believe it is crucial that all persons who come to Australia without prior authorisation not be released into the community. Their release would undermine the Government's strategy for determining their refugee status or entry claims. Indeed, I believe it is vital to Australia that this be prevented as far as possible. The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community."
Then as now, the majority of asylum seekers arrived in Australia with visas and were allowed to remain in the community while their claims were assessed, so the reasoning behind the first justification is hard to follow. As for sending that clear signal, after nearly two decades it must be admitted that it is not getting through. It must be time to rethink the whole idea.
It's been a few months since my last post. I will make it my New Year's resolution to be more attentive to keeping up the blog during 2011.
As far as the media was concerned, the only immigration related issue worth mentioning in the second half of 2010 was "the boats". I will follow their lead in this first post for the new year.
Certainly the horrible events of the morning of 15 December at Christmas Island confirm the urgency of the need for a solution to this problem. The actual number of people who have died in Australian waters or en route to this country is unknown. The Christmas Island disaster showed that even the last few metres of this journey can be deadly. With the deaths of so many adults and children in mind, no one can seriously claim that the only issue is how we treat asylum seekers once they make it onto the beach.
For the politicians a good way to avoid having to come up with an answer is to divert attention onto the "people smugglers". No epithet is too lurid, no hyperbole too extreme, no mandatory sentence too draconian.
When pressed for a real solution, the Liberals fall back on deterrence. The Howard government stopped the boats, they say, by two measures: temporary protection visas (TPVs) and the "Pacific Solution". Sending all boat arrivals for processing in Nauru of course could never be as effective a second time around, both due to the fact that most asylum seekers sent there eventually made it to Australia or New Zealand and the impact of the High Court decision in December about processing ruses (see below). As for TPVs, besides the misery and injustice of not allowing recognised refugees to bring their families here or even visit them overseas in flagrant breach of Australia's obligations under international law, there is a strong case that the policy was a direct cause of the deaths of many of those family members who had no alternative but to risk their lives on the high seas: see http://sievx.com/articles/challenging/2006/20060206SueHoffman.html.
Deterrence will always work if the punishment is sufficiently graphic. Deliberately sinking any asylum seeker boat that entered Australian water and leaving its passengers to drown would pretty quickly end the flow, for example. The nefarious people smugglers on board could be summarily hanged drawn and quartered on the decks of the naval interceptors for good measure.
The deterrence approach is based on the assumption that the only problem is the boats. If you can stop them coming, the problem is solved. The asylum seekers themselves, if we can keep them away from our shores, then become someone else's problem.
Labor explicitly rejected both TPVs and Nauru in its campaign for the 2007 election, and is now stuck with those laudable policies like it or not. Gillard's brainstorm idea of a regional processing centre in East Timor has still not made it off the drawing board however.
In the end, the key to the succes of any regional processing centre, wherever located, will lie in the meaning of the word "processing". If the outcome of a genuine assessment based on international law is that an asylum seeker is a genuine refugee, what happens next? If the end result of the processing is not immediate resettlement in Australia for anyone recognised as a genuine refugee, the boats will remain the only option.
And any assessment would have to be genuine, or at least in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the High Court has ruled in the case known as M61. The practice of denying boat arrivals the right to make a formal application for a visa, followed by a "non-compellable" Ministerial decision to grant a visa after an informal assessment and appeal, was held by the Court not to be a loophole that allowed for denial of natural justice in the assessment process. The fact that the Australian government was in charge of the procedure from start to finish, as it would be in any offshore processing arrangement, meant that the principles of Australian law were applicable.
Meanwhile, the asylum seekers who do make it here have to be "housed" (ie, locked up). Building new detention facilities almost seems to be propping up the construction sector single-handedly. Cries of "not in my backyard" are being heard all through the land. It is tempting to label these objections as racist, xenophobic, etc. But when you think about it, the reasoning behind them is not hard to follow. For nearly 20 years Australian governments from both sides have insisted that asylum seekers must be locked up. It has been done for so long now that a generation of Australians has grown up with it. Normally in a free country people are locked up in order to protect society from them, because they are dangerous. So asylum seekers must be dangerous, in which case we don't want them in our neighbourhood.
When mandatory detention was introduced in 1992, the responsible Minister Gerry Hand (ALP) gave the following explanation in the second reading speech: "I believe it is crucial that all persons who come to Australia without prior authorisation not be released into the community. Their release would undermine the Government's strategy for determining their refugee status or entry claims. Indeed, I believe it is vital to Australia that this be prevented as far as possible. The Government is determined that a clear signal be sent that migration to Australia may not be achieved by simply arriving in this country and expecting to be allowed into the community."
Then as now, the majority of asylum seekers arrived in Australia with visas and were allowed to remain in the community while their claims were assessed, so the reasoning behind the first justification is hard to follow. As for sending that clear signal, after nearly two decades it must be admitted that it is not getting through. It must be time to rethink the whole idea.
22 August 2010
What was that all about?
The election is over. Labor has clearly lost. The Coalition has clearly not won. What does that say about the policy issues debated during the campaign?
Sorry, what policy issues? Immigration? Labor says: not so many, stop the boats, send them to East Timor. Liberal says: not so many, stop the boats, send them to Nauru.
Foreign policy? Tragically, on election day we heard of two more Australian soldiers killed in Aghanistan, plus two more injured (and a couple more the next day). So who won the foreign policy debate? Er, what debate? The only mention of anything going on outside Australia was, as above, East Timor vs Nauru.
Some might suggest there is an underlying connection between what is happening in Afghanistan and the flow of refugees. Too complicated for "real" Julia and "honest" Tony.
An old saying goes that, in a democracy, a country gets the government it deserves. What did we do to deserve this?
The election is over. Labor has clearly lost. The Coalition has clearly not won. What does that say about the policy issues debated during the campaign?
Sorry, what policy issues? Immigration? Labor says: not so many, stop the boats, send them to East Timor. Liberal says: not so many, stop the boats, send them to Nauru.
Foreign policy? Tragically, on election day we heard of two more Australian soldiers killed in Aghanistan, plus two more injured (and a couple more the next day). So who won the foreign policy debate? Er, what debate? The only mention of anything going on outside Australia was, as above, East Timor vs Nauru.
Some might suggest there is an underlying connection between what is happening in Afghanistan and the flow of refugees. Too complicated for "real" Julia and "honest" Tony.
An old saying goes that, in a democracy, a country gets the government it deserves. What did we do to deserve this?
12 August 2010
Fewer people, more helicopters
I've been watching Dick Smith's diatribe against immigration on the ABC. Like the majestic equality of the law, which Anatole France identified as punishing rich and poor alike for sleeping under bridges, we have a majestic equality of freedom of speech in this country, allowing rich and poor alike to make their own one hour TV programs to put their views.
Mr Smith, who lives in a mansion and flies a private helicopter, is perfectly entitled to worry about the impact of humans on the planet. It bothers me too. But it also bothers me to hear reasoning such as the following (I think I am quoting correctly): "We are currently about 22 million sharing the wealth of this country. If we grow to 44 million, we will all be half as wealthy."
That means that in about 1963, when our population was around 11 million, we must have been twice as wealthy as we are now.
Issues like global warming, wealth distribution, water usage, education expenditure, soil degradation, urban sprawl, etc. are in fact far too important to be turned over to this sort of simplistic argument.
I've been watching Dick Smith's diatribe against immigration on the ABC. Like the majestic equality of the law, which Anatole France identified as punishing rich and poor alike for sleeping under bridges, we have a majestic equality of freedom of speech in this country, allowing rich and poor alike to make their own one hour TV programs to put their views.
Mr Smith, who lives in a mansion and flies a private helicopter, is perfectly entitled to worry about the impact of humans on the planet. It bothers me too. But it also bothers me to hear reasoning such as the following (I think I am quoting correctly): "We are currently about 22 million sharing the wealth of this country. If we grow to 44 million, we will all be half as wealthy."
That means that in about 1963, when our population was around 11 million, we must have been twice as wealthy as we are now.
Issues like global warming, wealth distribution, water usage, education expenditure, soil degradation, urban sprawl, etc. are in fact far too important to be turned over to this sort of simplistic argument.
01 August 2010
Sustainability, the new weasel word
The economic historian Niall Ferguson has described Australia's current "population debate" as asinine.
Ferguson is far from being a radical. The fact that he was invited to talk in Australia by the Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative think-tank, confirms this.
Everyone politician in the country seems to think that the only word they need to use to describe their views on population, immigration, climate change and the environment is "sustainable". A word that is used to mean just about anything ends up being totally meaningless, and that is precisely what is happening here.
When it comes to population issues, what they are really saying is their program is to convince anti-immigration voters that they are against opening the floodgates, and at the same time convince business interests that they don't want to cut back on the supply of cheap skilled labour that immigration has been bringing in. In fact, they have no policy at all.
To tell the truth, I rather prefer them to have no policy. Like most things, they usually work out better when the politicians don't interfere.
The economic historian Niall Ferguson has described Australia's current "population debate" as asinine.
Ferguson is far from being a radical. The fact that he was invited to talk in Australia by the Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative think-tank, confirms this.
Everyone politician in the country seems to think that the only word they need to use to describe their views on population, immigration, climate change and the environment is "sustainable". A word that is used to mean just about anything ends up being totally meaningless, and that is precisely what is happening here.
When it comes to population issues, what they are really saying is their program is to convince anti-immigration voters that they are against opening the floodgates, and at the same time convince business interests that they don't want to cut back on the supply of cheap skilled labour that immigration has been bringing in. In fact, they have no policy at all.
To tell the truth, I rather prefer them to have no policy. Like most things, they usually work out better when the politicians don't interfere.
22 July 2010
Telling it like it is
Watching the ABC program The Making of Modern Australia tonight I heard a woman of Vietnamese origin sum up her parents' experience with a powerful metaphor: "a whole generation laid down its body as a bridge for the next to pass over".
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
Watching the ABC program The Making of Modern Australia tonight I heard a woman of Vietnamese origin sum up her parents' experience with a powerful metaphor: "a whole generation laid down its body as a bridge for the next to pass over".
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
14 July 2010
East Timor or Nauru? What's the difference?
There are of course lots of differences between East Timor and Nauru. Geography, size, history, language, politics, economy, etc. Then there are two differences which, according to the Government and the Opposition, make all the difference (though for different reasons).
The first is that East Timor is a signatory to the International Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees, and Nauru is not (or not yet). This is what the Government says makes all the difference.
The second is that Nauru has an Australian-built detention centre which it is happy to fill, at a price, with asylum seekers delivered there by the Australian Navy, while East Timor does not and does not appear to want one, either. This is the difference that the Oppostion says is the one that matters.
Exactly what difference it would make if the country where the camp was located was a signatory to the Convention is not entirely clear. Arguably, an inmate of such a camp could call upon the host country to honour its obligations, which include Article 26: "Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances." But that would make it a disadvantage (from Australia's point of view at least) if the camp was in a signatory State, because the detainees could then petition the Court's of the country to release them. The signatory State would, in fact, find itself compelled by its own laws to accept the asylum seekers for resettlement. Hardly an attractive prospect for a poor country struggling to feed and house its own population.
The one big difference between and unwilling East Timor and a more-than-eager Nauru, as far as the Government is concerned at least, is that it is politically unacceptable for them to adopt the exact same policy they were so critical of in Oppostion.
It is not possible to understand whether either of these differences really makes a difference without looking first at what the issue is. Why would Australia want a processing centre for asylum seekers in either country?
To stop them coming here? To stop them being seen on the evening news coming here, more likely, since the Nauru experience showed that most of them ended up here anyway.
To stop them jumping the queue? Please explain just where that queue starts. In fact, even the Minister accepts that there is no queue.
To protect our borders? Against what?
There is however one legitimate argument for trying to stop people getting into overcrowded, unseaworthy boats with insufficient food, water and fuel and no navigational gear -- to stop them drowning on the way as many hundreds have already done.
Did Howard's use of the non-signatory Republic of Nauru stop the boats coming? Almost certainly it did. Sure there may have been some coincidental decrease in the push factors, but there can be no doubt that Howard's policy knocked the wheels off the boat trade out of Indonesia. Why wouldn't it? The prospect of indefinite detention on a pile of dry bird droppings was even less attractive than indefinite abandonment in the squalor of Indonesia's camps and doss houses from where the boats departed. The fact that a large majority of the Nauru detainees eventually made it to Australia may have somewhat spoiled the effect for the next time round, however.
If you think that stopping the boats means the asylum seeker problem is solved, then deterrence is the simple answer. Make it clear that they will either be towed out to sea or sent to a concentration camp somewhere, and before long they will stop coming.
If you think that there is a bit more to it than that, then what about providing genuine, fast, objective processing in Indonesia and then bringing those found to be genuine refugees straight here by plane?
It would probably keep them off the evening news, too.
There are of course lots of differences between East Timor and Nauru. Geography, size, history, language, politics, economy, etc. Then there are two differences which, according to the Government and the Opposition, make all the difference (though for different reasons).
The first is that East Timor is a signatory to the International Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees, and Nauru is not (or not yet). This is what the Government says makes all the difference.
The second is that Nauru has an Australian-built detention centre which it is happy to fill, at a price, with asylum seekers delivered there by the Australian Navy, while East Timor does not and does not appear to want one, either. This is the difference that the Oppostion says is the one that matters.
Exactly what difference it would make if the country where the camp was located was a signatory to the Convention is not entirely clear. Arguably, an inmate of such a camp could call upon the host country to honour its obligations, which include Article 26: "Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances." But that would make it a disadvantage (from Australia's point of view at least) if the camp was in a signatory State, because the detainees could then petition the Court's of the country to release them. The signatory State would, in fact, find itself compelled by its own laws to accept the asylum seekers for resettlement. Hardly an attractive prospect for a poor country struggling to feed and house its own population.
The one big difference between and unwilling East Timor and a more-than-eager Nauru, as far as the Government is concerned at least, is that it is politically unacceptable for them to adopt the exact same policy they were so critical of in Oppostion.
It is not possible to understand whether either of these differences really makes a difference without looking first at what the issue is. Why would Australia want a processing centre for asylum seekers in either country?
To stop them coming here? To stop them being seen on the evening news coming here, more likely, since the Nauru experience showed that most of them ended up here anyway.
To stop them jumping the queue? Please explain just where that queue starts. In fact, even the Minister accepts that there is no queue.
To protect our borders? Against what?
There is however one legitimate argument for trying to stop people getting into overcrowded, unseaworthy boats with insufficient food, water and fuel and no navigational gear -- to stop them drowning on the way as many hundreds have already done.
Did Howard's use of the non-signatory Republic of Nauru stop the boats coming? Almost certainly it did. Sure there may have been some coincidental decrease in the push factors, but there can be no doubt that Howard's policy knocked the wheels off the boat trade out of Indonesia. Why wouldn't it? The prospect of indefinite detention on a pile of dry bird droppings was even less attractive than indefinite abandonment in the squalor of Indonesia's camps and doss houses from where the boats departed. The fact that a large majority of the Nauru detainees eventually made it to Australia may have somewhat spoiled the effect for the next time round, however.
If you think that stopping the boats means the asylum seeker problem is solved, then deterrence is the simple answer. Make it clear that they will either be towed out to sea or sent to a concentration camp somewhere, and before long they will stop coming.
If you think that there is a bit more to it than that, then what about providing genuine, fast, objective processing in Indonesia and then bringing those found to be genuine refugees straight here by plane?
It would probably keep them off the evening news, too.
06 July 2010
The population bugbear returns
Our new Prime Minister has chosen to make one of her first policy announcements on the subject of population, saying she is not in favour of a "Big Australia" and adding the word "sustainable" to the portfolio of the Minister for Population.
When the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a forward projection of around 36 million for the total Australian population in 2050, then Prime Minister Rudd made the (rationally) unremarkable but (politically) suicidal comment that he was in favour of a "Big Australia". Once deposed, the hapless ex-leader's naive remark was made into a "target" by those who deposed him, and having set up this straw man they proceeded to knock it down for political effect. Decrying "political correctness", Gillard has told us that there is nothing intolerant or racist about worrying about who is coming to this country and how, or how many for that matter.
But what is the issue? Should we really have any sort of target number for the country's total population 40 years from now? Could we if we wanted to?
Having a population policy that consists of a target number for a given date is nonsense. For one thing, a country's population isn't just a single number. Malawi has roughly the same total number of people as the Netherlands, for example. What does that tell us about either country? Not much. For these numbers to make sense you need to know things like age and geographic distribution of the population, the country's resources and access to technology, levels of income and education, wealth distribution, and many other things.
Most single-figure arguments are based on the idea that humans are indistinguishable from cattle. A cow can only behave in one way. It eats a certain amount of grass and produces a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans are the opposite. There is a virtually inexhaustible number of ways we humans can interact with each other and the environment we live in.
Try thinking back 40 years. Could the McMahon government of 1970, which still considered Taipei to be the capital of China, have had any chance of predicting what the economy, technology and geopolitics of 2010 would be like? All of these things are relevant to population policy.
Of course government policy must have regard to the future, but 40 years is far too long to be a meaningful limit, and as mentioned above putting all the emphasis on a single figure is a gross over-simplification. A more reasonable approach to population policy would be to look at trends in the various factors that go into the makeup of the country's population profile to determine what impact those policies are likely to have on the sort of population we have over time, rather than worrying about an arbitrary number at an arbitrary date.
Hard to fit into a sound bite, though.
Our new Prime Minister has chosen to make one of her first policy announcements on the subject of population, saying she is not in favour of a "Big Australia" and adding the word "sustainable" to the portfolio of the Minister for Population.
When the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a forward projection of around 36 million for the total Australian population in 2050, then Prime Minister Rudd made the (rationally) unremarkable but (politically) suicidal comment that he was in favour of a "Big Australia". Once deposed, the hapless ex-leader's naive remark was made into a "target" by those who deposed him, and having set up this straw man they proceeded to knock it down for political effect. Decrying "political correctness", Gillard has told us that there is nothing intolerant or racist about worrying about who is coming to this country and how, or how many for that matter.
But what is the issue? Should we really have any sort of target number for the country's total population 40 years from now? Could we if we wanted to?
Having a population policy that consists of a target number for a given date is nonsense. For one thing, a country's population isn't just a single number. Malawi has roughly the same total number of people as the Netherlands, for example. What does that tell us about either country? Not much. For these numbers to make sense you need to know things like age and geographic distribution of the population, the country's resources and access to technology, levels of income and education, wealth distribution, and many other things.
Most single-figure arguments are based on the idea that humans are indistinguishable from cattle. A cow can only behave in one way. It eats a certain amount of grass and produces a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans are the opposite. There is a virtually inexhaustible number of ways we humans can interact with each other and the environment we live in.
Try thinking back 40 years. Could the McMahon government of 1970, which still considered Taipei to be the capital of China, have had any chance of predicting what the economy, technology and geopolitics of 2010 would be like? All of these things are relevant to population policy.
Of course government policy must have regard to the future, but 40 years is far too long to be a meaningful limit, and as mentioned above putting all the emphasis on a single figure is a gross over-simplification. A more reasonable approach to population policy would be to look at trends in the various factors that go into the makeup of the country's population profile to determine what impact those policies are likely to have on the sort of population we have over time, rather than worrying about an arbitrary number at an arbitrary date.
Hard to fit into a sound bite, though.
Immigration and "sovereign risk"
The ongoing chatter about the Resources Super Profits Tax keeps referring to a term called "sovereign risk". Not being an economist, I had to look this up. Apparently it refers to a calculation made by foreign investors about the likelihood that the government of the country they are investing in will suddenly change the law in such a way that they will lose all or part of their investment. Obviously, a country deemed to have high sovereign risk is one where investors will be wary of putting their money.
For people thinking of investing their lives in Australia the sovereign risk factor has gone through the roof in the past weeks. Back in February the government decided to simply throw out all offshore skilled migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007. Then it changed the criteria for onshore applications so that students who had put all of their family's savings into a well-advertised and government-promoted plan to qualify for permanent residence through study were told they had never been promised any such thing and the best they could hope for was 18 months to try to find a job and an employer willing to sponsor them.
Now we have the Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010. This allows the government to throw out validly made applications based on any characteristic they choose - occupation, age, even nationality. Despite suggestions to the contrary by the Minister in an interview on the ABC, the Racial Discrimination Act does not prevent discriminatory laws based on a person's current nationality, only on their "national origin" -- see Macabenta v Minister for Immigration [1998] FCA 1643.
Applying for migration to Australia is becoming an increasingly risky business.
The ongoing chatter about the Resources Super Profits Tax keeps referring to a term called "sovereign risk". Not being an economist, I had to look this up. Apparently it refers to a calculation made by foreign investors about the likelihood that the government of the country they are investing in will suddenly change the law in such a way that they will lose all or part of their investment. Obviously, a country deemed to have high sovereign risk is one where investors will be wary of putting their money.
For people thinking of investing their lives in Australia the sovereign risk factor has gone through the roof in the past weeks. Back in February the government decided to simply throw out all offshore skilled migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007. Then it changed the criteria for onshore applications so that students who had put all of their family's savings into a well-advertised and government-promoted plan to qualify for permanent residence through study were told they had never been promised any such thing and the best they could hope for was 18 months to try to find a job and an employer willing to sponsor them.
Now we have the Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010. This allows the government to throw out validly made applications based on any characteristic they choose - occupation, age, even nationality. Despite suggestions to the contrary by the Minister in an interview on the ABC, the Racial Discrimination Act does not prevent discriminatory laws based on a person's current nationality, only on their "national origin" -- see Macabenta v Minister for Immigration [1998] FCA 1643.
Applying for migration to Australia is becoming an increasingly risky business.
13 June 2010
Indian lawn bowlers refused entry by the the majestic equality of Australian immigration law
The Indian lawn bowls team has been refused entry to Australia based on an assessment that they did not have sufficient finances or "incentive to return to India". See article.
An Australian immigration official in New Delhi, apparently with a straight face, is reported to have said: "People from all countries have the same right and opportunity to enter our country".
The French writer Anatole France said it better: "The majestic equality of the law, which punishes rich and poor alike for sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread".
The Indian lawn bowls team has been refused entry to Australia based on an assessment that they did not have sufficient finances or "incentive to return to India". See article.
An Australian immigration official in New Delhi, apparently with a straight face, is reported to have said: "People from all countries have the same right and opportunity to enter our country".
The French writer Anatole France said it better: "The majestic equality of the law, which punishes rich and poor alike for sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread".
21 May 2010
On migrants and bean counters
The following is a direct quote from a Ministerial press release of 17 May 2010: "Australia's migration program cannot be determined by the courses studied by international students".
Think about that. According to the Minister, it was the choices of overseas students to study courses like cooking and hairdressing that was keeping those occupations on the Skilled Occupations List (SOL).
Once again, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, the government chooses to blame to victims of this fiasco. First they pretend that they never encouraged anyone to think that there was a pathway from student visa to permanent residence (see earlier posting), now they say it was all the students' fault anyway for wanting to study those courses.
The Minister was of course announcing the belated arrival of the new SOL. As everyone expected, hairdressers and cooks are off the list. Curiously, though, that other much-maligned occupation -- accountants -- remains. And despite the Minister's oft-quoted lament that "Harvard-educated environmental scientists" wouldn't get in under the old program, they aren't on the new list either.
The new list will apply to all visa applications lodged on or after 1 July 2010, unless the applicant held or had applied for a subclass 485 visa on 8 February 2010, in which case the old SOL will continue in effect for onshore applications until 31 December 2012. The old SOL will also continue to apply to subclass 485 visa applications lodged up to 31 December 2012 if the applicant held a subclass 572, 573 or 574 visa on 8 February 2010. Subclass 485 visas are only valid for 18 months, so the holders will have no longer than that to find an employer to sponsor them to stay either temporarily or permanently.
The intention of the changes, we are told, is to "attract skilled migrants of the highest calibre and deliver people with real skills to meet real need in our economy". This is exactly what we have been told for the past 20 years. It is the metaphor of immigration as economic irrigation -- turn it on, turn it off, direct the flow where it is needed. The bean counters love it because they can measure it, or think they can. Come to think of it, weren't they the ones who kept saying cooks and hairdressers were in short supply?
For a country in which immigration is so fundamental to our national identity, you would think we could come up with a better justification than "real skills to meet real need in our economy". Are skills all the economy needs? and is the economy all that matters?
Reducing the immigrant to his or her "skills" (for which read "qualifications", since they are easier to measure) is the triumph of short-term accounting over long-term social development. It justifies any unfairness, such as cancelling 20,000 applications waiting in the queue, discriminating against tax-paying migrants who can't bring their parents to live with them here, and with the latest program changes, dumping thousands of overseas students whose only crime was to believe previous government promises into a dead-end visa category that will give them 18 months to desperately try to find a job in their "chosen" occupation or else be sent packing.
The following is a direct quote from a Ministerial press release of 17 May 2010: "Australia's migration program cannot be determined by the courses studied by international students".
Think about that. According to the Minister, it was the choices of overseas students to study courses like cooking and hairdressing that was keeping those occupations on the Skilled Occupations List (SOL).
Once again, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, the government chooses to blame to victims of this fiasco. First they pretend that they never encouraged anyone to think that there was a pathway from student visa to permanent residence (see earlier posting), now they say it was all the students' fault anyway for wanting to study those courses.
The Minister was of course announcing the belated arrival of the new SOL. As everyone expected, hairdressers and cooks are off the list. Curiously, though, that other much-maligned occupation -- accountants -- remains. And despite the Minister's oft-quoted lament that "Harvard-educated environmental scientists" wouldn't get in under the old program, they aren't on the new list either.
The new list will apply to all visa applications lodged on or after 1 July 2010, unless the applicant held or had applied for a subclass 485 visa on 8 February 2010, in which case the old SOL will continue in effect for onshore applications until 31 December 2012. The old SOL will also continue to apply to subclass 485 visa applications lodged up to 31 December 2012 if the applicant held a subclass 572, 573 or 574 visa on 8 February 2010. Subclass 485 visas are only valid for 18 months, so the holders will have no longer than that to find an employer to sponsor them to stay either temporarily or permanently.
The intention of the changes, we are told, is to "attract skilled migrants of the highest calibre and deliver people with real skills to meet real need in our economy". This is exactly what we have been told for the past 20 years. It is the metaphor of immigration as economic irrigation -- turn it on, turn it off, direct the flow where it is needed. The bean counters love it because they can measure it, or think they can. Come to think of it, weren't they the ones who kept saying cooks and hairdressers were in short supply?
For a country in which immigration is so fundamental to our national identity, you would think we could come up with a better justification than "real skills to meet real need in our economy". Are skills all the economy needs? and is the economy all that matters?
Reducing the immigrant to his or her "skills" (for which read "qualifications", since they are easier to measure) is the triumph of short-term accounting over long-term social development. It justifies any unfairness, such as cancelling 20,000 applications waiting in the queue, discriminating against tax-paying migrants who can't bring their parents to live with them here, and with the latest program changes, dumping thousands of overseas students whose only crime was to believe previous government promises into a dead-end visa category that will give them 18 months to desperately try to find a job in their "chosen" occupation or else be sent packing.
02 March 2010
Federal Court rules automatic cancellations of student visas invalid
On 2 March 2010 the Federal Court of Australia handed down two decisions that have created a potential nightmare for the Department of Immigration.
The background: since 2000 the Migration Act has contained a provision (section 137J) for the "automatic" cancellation of visas held by overseas students who were reported by their colleges for unsatisfactory attendance or performance and who failed to report as directed to the Department of Immigration within 28 days to explain themselves. By a technical amendment effective 1 July 2007, the circumstances leading to cancellation were to be prescribed in Regulations (a common method of giving the executive flexibility to determine the details of the law without having to go through the complicated procedures of amending an Act of Parliament).
But the drafters got it wrong. They left out a crucial reference to a particular section of the legislation which meant that the legal mechanism just didn't work. At first, nobody noticed. I didn't pick up on it for over a year, but when I first raised it with government lawyers in about September 2008, expecting a quick amendment to correct the error, they went into denial instead. For two and half years the official position of the government was that the error everyone else could see (once it was pointed out to them) just wasn't there. In December 2009 they finally corrected it, but they still kept saying the correction wasn't really necessary until Justice Buchanan of the Federal Court put the matter to rest in two cases handed down on 2 March 2010: Hossain v MIAC [2010] FCA 161 and Mo v MIAC [2010] FCA 162.
The result: all "automatic" student visa cancellations under s 137J based on notices to students dated between 1 July 2007 and 16 December 2009 simply didn't happen. I have no idea how many cases this covers, but every one of them is someone who was told their visa had been cancelled when, as a matter of law, it hadn't. Some would have left the country, others would have been overseas and couldn't get back. Some would have given up their studies. Some would have spent thousands of dollars on appeals.
Just a technicality, you might say. Just another example of the massive unpardonable bureaucratic bungling that has characterised the 15 billion dollar cash cow that the student visa industry has become.
On 2 March 2010 the Federal Court of Australia handed down two decisions that have created a potential nightmare for the Department of Immigration.
The background: since 2000 the Migration Act has contained a provision (section 137J) for the "automatic" cancellation of visas held by overseas students who were reported by their colleges for unsatisfactory attendance or performance and who failed to report as directed to the Department of Immigration within 28 days to explain themselves. By a technical amendment effective 1 July 2007, the circumstances leading to cancellation were to be prescribed in Regulations (a common method of giving the executive flexibility to determine the details of the law without having to go through the complicated procedures of amending an Act of Parliament).
But the drafters got it wrong. They left out a crucial reference to a particular section of the legislation which meant that the legal mechanism just didn't work. At first, nobody noticed. I didn't pick up on it for over a year, but when I first raised it with government lawyers in about September 2008, expecting a quick amendment to correct the error, they went into denial instead. For two and half years the official position of the government was that the error everyone else could see (once it was pointed out to them) just wasn't there. In December 2009 they finally corrected it, but they still kept saying the correction wasn't really necessary until Justice Buchanan of the Federal Court put the matter to rest in two cases handed down on 2 March 2010: Hossain v MIAC [2010] FCA 161 and Mo v MIAC [2010] FCA 162.
The result: all "automatic" student visa cancellations under s 137J based on notices to students dated between 1 July 2007 and 16 December 2009 simply didn't happen. I have no idea how many cases this covers, but every one of them is someone who was told their visa had been cancelled when, as a matter of law, it hadn't. Some would have left the country, others would have been overseas and couldn't get back. Some would have given up their studies. Some would have spent thousands of dollars on appeals.
Just a technicality, you might say. Just another example of the massive unpardonable bureaucratic bungling that has characterised the 15 billion dollar cash cow that the student visa industry has become.
15 February 2010
A few thoughts on parents
I lodged a Contributory Parent application for a client on 6 January. The Department receipted the fee on 19 January and sent out an acknowledgement letter on 27 January. Why rush? It's going to be well over a year before the application is processed.
For this the couple will pay in excess of $70,000 to the Australian government. If they can't afford that, they can do a Casablanca (wait.... and wait..... and wait).
But hey, they are old folks aren't they? Not much older than me, actually. The rationale is apparently that the money is intended to cover the enormous drain on the public purse of bringing in a couple of old codgers who will presumably go straight into high cost medical care.
It's certainly true that in the later part of our lives most of us will end up costing the taxpayer a lot of money. My parents worked and paid taxes all their lives and then required some expensive care before they died, but that was only a small return for what they had spent, wasn't it?
No it wasn't. That's bad economics. My parents taxes were fully expended on the government services of the day, including my education. Their health care was paid for by my taxes, and yours, and the taxes of millions of migrants working in today's economy.
So if those migrants are paying their taxes just like me, why can't their parents get the benefit of them like mine did? They paid for their children's education like my parents did, either through taxes or privately, and the Australian economy gets the benefit of that. Their children don't get a tax deduction because their parents aren't here.
Besides, $35,000 a head is only a fraction of what it costs to provide health and social security support for the elderly. As is so often the case in our spin-politics age, it's more for show than anything else.
It's just one more example of the mentality that sees migrants as commodities to be exploited for the quickest short-term gain.
I lodged a Contributory Parent application for a client on 6 January. The Department receipted the fee on 19 January and sent out an acknowledgement letter on 27 January. Why rush? It's going to be well over a year before the application is processed.
For this the couple will pay in excess of $70,000 to the Australian government. If they can't afford that, they can do a Casablanca (wait.... and wait..... and wait).
But hey, they are old folks aren't they? Not much older than me, actually. The rationale is apparently that the money is intended to cover the enormous drain on the public purse of bringing in a couple of old codgers who will presumably go straight into high cost medical care.
It's certainly true that in the later part of our lives most of us will end up costing the taxpayer a lot of money. My parents worked and paid taxes all their lives and then required some expensive care before they died, but that was only a small return for what they had spent, wasn't it?
No it wasn't. That's bad economics. My parents taxes were fully expended on the government services of the day, including my education. Their health care was paid for by my taxes, and yours, and the taxes of millions of migrants working in today's economy.
So if those migrants are paying their taxes just like me, why can't their parents get the benefit of them like mine did? They paid for their children's education like my parents did, either through taxes or privately, and the Australian economy gets the benefit of that. Their children don't get a tax deduction because their parents aren't here.
Besides, $35,000 a head is only a fraction of what it costs to provide health and social security support for the elderly. As is so often the case in our spin-politics age, it's more for show than anything else.
It's just one more example of the mentality that sees migrants as commodities to be exploited for the quickest short-term gain.
08 February 2010
Latest unfair policy change will not go unnoticed
The Daily Telegraph said it all. The screeching headline "MIGRANTS KEPT OUT" appeared under a banner saying "Unskilled foreign workers told they're not wanted". Then the first paragraph: "Twenty thousand foreigners applying to move to Australia will have their applications ripped up to stop an army of cooks, hairdressers and accountants from swamping our immigration system."
Sensationalism and mixed metaphors aside, the Sydney tabloid captures the flavour of the latest policy change with terms like "kept out", "not wanted" and "ripped up". Whether or not the target is such an unlikely invasion force as the one described, intent on swamping the system (in which case wouldn't it be a navy rather than an army?), is a technical detail the paper no doubt thinks is too complex for its readers to grapple with.
The changes announced today cover a wide field, but the decision to "cap" (or, as the Tele puts it, rip up) all skilled migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007 seems to be the one getting all the media attention, and for good reason. It is grossly unfair and will reflect badly on Australia's reputation in the long run.
On 1 September 2007 the Department of Immigration introduced electronic lodgement for offshore skilled migration visa applications. Resources were thrown into the new system and paper-based applications lodged before that date were put to the end the queue. By the time they were coming up for consideration early last year, the first wave of "priority processing" was introduced, which threw them back further.
Who are these people? A few cooks and hairdressers no doubt, a few more accountants, quite a lot of IT professionals, specialist managers, a lot of teachers, in short the people the Australian government said it wanted. They looked up the rules, correctly calculated their points, paid their fees (including fees for skills assessments, medical and police clearances and in some cases legal or agents fees) and waited patiently. On the reasonable expectation that they would be migrating to Australia they may have made choices such as turning down job offers, not applying to migrate elsewhere, decisions about property and education, etc.
How would you feel? What would you think about the country that treated you like that? What would you think of that country's attitude towards foreigners? Would you feel inclined to buy Australian goods, come here on a holiday, do business with this country? Would you communicate your negative feelings to others?
Apparently our political leaders have learnt nothing from the handling of the attacks on Indian students. It would be interesting to know how many of the 20,000 applications being ripped up came from Indian citizens.
More on the rest of the changes in another post.
The Daily Telegraph said it all. The screeching headline "MIGRANTS KEPT OUT" appeared under a banner saying "Unskilled foreign workers told they're not wanted". Then the first paragraph: "Twenty thousand foreigners applying to move to Australia will have their applications ripped up to stop an army of cooks, hairdressers and accountants from swamping our immigration system."
Sensationalism and mixed metaphors aside, the Sydney tabloid captures the flavour of the latest policy change with terms like "kept out", "not wanted" and "ripped up". Whether or not the target is such an unlikely invasion force as the one described, intent on swamping the system (in which case wouldn't it be a navy rather than an army?), is a technical detail the paper no doubt thinks is too complex for its readers to grapple with.
The changes announced today cover a wide field, but the decision to "cap" (or, as the Tele puts it, rip up) all skilled migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007 seems to be the one getting all the media attention, and for good reason. It is grossly unfair and will reflect badly on Australia's reputation in the long run.
On 1 September 2007 the Department of Immigration introduced electronic lodgement for offshore skilled migration visa applications. Resources were thrown into the new system and paper-based applications lodged before that date were put to the end the queue. By the time they were coming up for consideration early last year, the first wave of "priority processing" was introduced, which threw them back further.
Who are these people? A few cooks and hairdressers no doubt, a few more accountants, quite a lot of IT professionals, specialist managers, a lot of teachers, in short the people the Australian government said it wanted. They looked up the rules, correctly calculated their points, paid their fees (including fees for skills assessments, medical and police clearances and in some cases legal or agents fees) and waited patiently. On the reasonable expectation that they would be migrating to Australia they may have made choices such as turning down job offers, not applying to migrate elsewhere, decisions about property and education, etc.
How would you feel? What would you think about the country that treated you like that? What would you think of that country's attitude towards foreigners? Would you feel inclined to buy Australian goods, come here on a holiday, do business with this country? Would you communicate your negative feelings to others?
Apparently our political leaders have learnt nothing from the handling of the attacks on Indian students. It would be interesting to know how many of the 20,000 applications being ripped up came from Indian citizens.
More on the rest of the changes in another post.
24 January 2010
Tony Abbott's Australia Day Speech
When I first read about Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's speech to an Australia Day dinner, my impression was he must have inherited John Howard's famous dog whistle. But before writing this blog entry, I thought it might be a good idea to read what he actually said.
News reports like one in the SMH quoting the Green Party spokesperson Senator Hanson-Young seemed to imply that Abbott had resurrected the worst of the Howard era "wedge politics" rhetoric by surreptitiously giving comfort and permission to racism and xenophobia. After reading the actual text, I do not agree.
Considering the temptations the occasion must have offered to an opposition leader with nothing to lose (his chances of winning this year's election are pretty dismal), I thought Abbott showed considerable restraint. The statement that "the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law" is hardly dog-whistling, and I think it is unfair to accuse Abbott of targetting specific ethnic groups by mentioning the off-beam comments of Sheikh Hilaly when seen in the context of what he said next: drawing a parallel with the anti-British views of Cardinal Mannix in the early 20th century, Abbott noted, "There has hardly been a time when there were not some reservations about the loyalty of particular ethnic or religious groups. A generation or two on, all of them have eventually become as Australian as everyone else."
Pointing out that "it's no reflection on boat people that they want to come to Australia", Abbott seemed to be cautioning the crypto-racists in the hardline border protection camp rather than giving them comfort. He very rightly observed that the most important reason for trying to discourage boat arrivals is the serious danger that is posed to the lives of the people attempting the crossing.
One thing that I'm sure upset the Greens was Abbott's rejection of the neo-Malthusian paranoia that dominates their anti-immigration policy. Forty years ago, a doubling of the Australian population would have appeared to these people to be unsustainable. Abbott claims that, while we are now twice as many, we are four times richer. I don't really trust that sort of bald statistics, but I certainly agree that more long-term damage is done by the politics of neglecting infrastructure development in order to discourage migration, as championed by the misanthropic NSW government of Bob Carr, than by planning for growth in a sustainable and environmentally intelligent way.
As an opposition leader whose best hope is that he will at least still have that job after the next election, Abbott is in the enviable position of being able to criticise without having to come up with any real solutions, and that would be my main criticism of his speech. While deploring the inhumanity of mandatory detention, he offers no alternative. At a time when the government of the country has no coherent policy on how to deal with this problem, it would have been refreshing to hear something different from somebody with nothing much to lose.
When I first read about Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's speech to an Australia Day dinner, my impression was he must have inherited John Howard's famous dog whistle. But before writing this blog entry, I thought it might be a good idea to read what he actually said.
News reports like one in the SMH quoting the Green Party spokesperson Senator Hanson-Young seemed to imply that Abbott had resurrected the worst of the Howard era "wedge politics" rhetoric by surreptitiously giving comfort and permission to racism and xenophobia. After reading the actual text, I do not agree.
Considering the temptations the occasion must have offered to an opposition leader with nothing to lose (his chances of winning this year's election are pretty dismal), I thought Abbott showed considerable restraint. The statement that "the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law" is hardly dog-whistling, and I think it is unfair to accuse Abbott of targetting specific ethnic groups by mentioning the off-beam comments of Sheikh Hilaly when seen in the context of what he said next: drawing a parallel with the anti-British views of Cardinal Mannix in the early 20th century, Abbott noted, "There has hardly been a time when there were not some reservations about the loyalty of particular ethnic or religious groups. A generation or two on, all of them have eventually become as Australian as everyone else."
Pointing out that "it's no reflection on boat people that they want to come to Australia", Abbott seemed to be cautioning the crypto-racists in the hardline border protection camp rather than giving them comfort. He very rightly observed that the most important reason for trying to discourage boat arrivals is the serious danger that is posed to the lives of the people attempting the crossing.
One thing that I'm sure upset the Greens was Abbott's rejection of the neo-Malthusian paranoia that dominates their anti-immigration policy. Forty years ago, a doubling of the Australian population would have appeared to these people to be unsustainable. Abbott claims that, while we are now twice as many, we are four times richer. I don't really trust that sort of bald statistics, but I certainly agree that more long-term damage is done by the politics of neglecting infrastructure development in order to discourage migration, as championed by the misanthropic NSW government of Bob Carr, than by planning for growth in a sustainable and environmentally intelligent way.
As an opposition leader whose best hope is that he will at least still have that job after the next election, Abbott is in the enviable position of being able to criticise without having to come up with any real solutions, and that would be my main criticism of his speech. While deploring the inhumanity of mandatory detention, he offers no alternative. At a time when the government of the country has no coherent policy on how to deal with this problem, it would have been refreshing to hear something different from somebody with nothing much to lose.
13 January 2010
More havoc wrought by the bean counters
If 2009 was the year when all the contradictions of the visa (sorry, education) export industry bubbled to the surface, 2010 looks like being the year of inept attempts to [make it look like the government has a plan to] do something to fix it.
Reading this article in the Australian, I noticed the following piece of bean-counter-speak from a DIAC spokesperson: "migration policy is responsive to economic conditions and labour market needs". The thinking is reactive, short-term, spin-driven. The resulting policy "responses" have been predictably chaotic and, as we are gradually coming to realise, damaging to the country's image internationally. Some examples can be found in a petition being launched one by one migration agency.
I don't want to enter into the debate on whether the brutal murder of Mr Garg and the other attacks on Indian students were motivated by racism or opportunism, though I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive. I have suggested in the past, however, that there is more to the anger and frustration being shown by overseas students in their response to these events. We are constantly reminded of the $15 billion or so that the industry is worth to the Australian economy, to the point where if I were an overseas student I would be thinking that Australia only sees me as a cash cow, not a person. This is where the responses of the government to the attacks and the way they have implemented the recent policy changes come together.
In both cases, there is a distinct lack of empathy -- if not a blaming of the victims then at least an attitude that they have no right to expect anything better. The murder rate is higher in India, one commentator points out, and the Immigration Minister's attitude to the complaints of people disadvantaged by policy changes has been commented on previously in this blog. "Beggars can't be choosers", a former PM once said about asylum seekers. A similar philosophy underlies the disingenuous claims of the present government that they have never fostered expectations of a "pathway" from student visas to permanent residence. In the recently-stated view of the Senate Education, Employment Workplace Relations Committee, it is all the fault of "some education agents and advisers" that such a perception should exist at all. Before the same Committee, DIAC referred to its Visa Wizard website as a source of information for prospective visa applicants. Try it: tell it that you are interested in a student visa and your intention is to remain in Australia permanently, and you will get a whole list of ways to go about it.
When it comes to the reason for the anger over both the attacks and the policy changes, Senator Evans, Julia Gilliard and the government as a whole just don't get it.
If 2009 was the year when all the contradictions of the visa (sorry, education) export industry bubbled to the surface, 2010 looks like being the year of inept attempts to [make it look like the government has a plan to] do something to fix it.
Reading this article in the Australian, I noticed the following piece of bean-counter-speak from a DIAC spokesperson: "migration policy is responsive to economic conditions and labour market needs". The thinking is reactive, short-term, spin-driven. The resulting policy "responses" have been predictably chaotic and, as we are gradually coming to realise, damaging to the country's image internationally. Some examples can be found in a petition being launched one by one migration agency.
I don't want to enter into the debate on whether the brutal murder of Mr Garg and the other attacks on Indian students were motivated by racism or opportunism, though I don't see why the two would be mutually exclusive. I have suggested in the past, however, that there is more to the anger and frustration being shown by overseas students in their response to these events. We are constantly reminded of the $15 billion or so that the industry is worth to the Australian economy, to the point where if I were an overseas student I would be thinking that Australia only sees me as a cash cow, not a person. This is where the responses of the government to the attacks and the way they have implemented the recent policy changes come together.
In both cases, there is a distinct lack of empathy -- if not a blaming of the victims then at least an attitude that they have no right to expect anything better. The murder rate is higher in India, one commentator points out, and the Immigration Minister's attitude to the complaints of people disadvantaged by policy changes has been commented on previously in this blog. "Beggars can't be choosers", a former PM once said about asylum seekers. A similar philosophy underlies the disingenuous claims of the present government that they have never fostered expectations of a "pathway" from student visas to permanent residence. In the recently-stated view of the Senate Education, Employment Workplace Relations Committee, it is all the fault of "some education agents and advisers" that such a perception should exist at all. Before the same Committee, DIAC referred to its Visa Wizard website as a source of information for prospective visa applicants. Try it: tell it that you are interested in a student visa and your intention is to remain in Australia permanently, and you will get a whole list of ways to go about it.
When it comes to the reason for the anger over both the attacks and the policy changes, Senator Evans, Julia Gilliard and the government as a whole just don't get it.
26 December 2009
Remember Liu Xiaobo
Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo has been sentenced to 11 years in prison in China for the crime of expressing an opinion that the authorities did not like. He was one of the authors of a document called Charter 08, which dared to suggest that Chinese citizens should not be locked up for criticising their government.
Since weblogs are a form of free expression, I think all bloggers should express their support for Liu and their disgust with the Chinese government.
Australia will soon join China and a few other select nations such as Iran and Myanmar in censoring the internet. We are told it is all about child pornography, and other stuff that is "refused classification". Interestingly, our Prime Minister has publicly declared "people smugglers" to be the scum of the earth, presumably putting them in the same basket as pedophiles and terrorists, so perhaps it won't be long before any discussion of the free movement of people around the world will join the new index urlorum prohibitorum.
Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo has been sentenced to 11 years in prison in China for the crime of expressing an opinion that the authorities did not like. He was one of the authors of a document called Charter 08, which dared to suggest that Chinese citizens should not be locked up for criticising their government.
Since weblogs are a form of free expression, I think all bloggers should express their support for Liu and their disgust with the Chinese government.
Australia will soon join China and a few other select nations such as Iran and Myanmar in censoring the internet. We are told it is all about child pornography, and other stuff that is "refused classification". Interestingly, our Prime Minister has publicly declared "people smugglers" to be the scum of the earth, presumably putting them in the same basket as pedophiles and terrorists, so perhaps it won't be long before any discussion of the free movement of people around the world will join the new index urlorum prohibitorum.
13 December 2009
You may qualify for a visa, but will you get it?
The papers this weekend are telling us that a new government proposal may "spark panic". The idea seems to be to alter "the relationship between the lodgement of an application and the legal obligation to grant a visa".
The legal obligation refers to s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, which obliges the Minister to grant a visa to a person if they satisfy all of the criteria for that visa. Of course, those criteria include some pretty discretionary "public interest" tests which give the Minister lots of scope for refusing a visa to anyone he or she doesn't really want to let in, but the idea now being kicked around seems to have something to do with changing the rules after a person has applied.
Actually, there is plenty of scope for that already. The current law allows the government to impose a numerical cap on certain visa classes and then declare void all outstanding applications once that cap is reached (s 39). The points test pass marks can also be hiked up or down at any time, and the new mark made applicable to any existing application (s 93). Even more generally, changes to the "time of decision criteria" for any visa subclass can operate retrospectively.
The media quickly understood that the likely target of any new changes would be the student visa industry. Not surprisingly, they sought comment from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, which represents the education providers at the heart (for want of a better word) of that $16 billion dollar cash cow. And not surprisingly, their response was along the lines of "we'll all be rooned!".
There appear to be two different ideologies at work here. On one side, there are the national sovereignty supporters (remember "We will decide who comes to this country, blah blah blah"?). Migrants are foreigners, we owe them nothing, they should be grateful if we let them in, and whether they are or not nobody can claim a right to a visa. We control the tap, and we can turn it on or off as we please.
The other side of the argument starts from the proposition that immigration is a long-term society-building program that has worked astonishingly well in this country and, most recently, probably saved us from the worst effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Rather than being about foreigners, it is actually about Australians -- the Australians that the migrants become once they get here.
I have previously blamed the bean counters of the 90s for replacing long-term planning with short-term accounting. It looks like their offspring are carrying on the same tradition.
The papers this weekend are telling us that a new government proposal may "spark panic". The idea seems to be to alter "the relationship between the lodgement of an application and the legal obligation to grant a visa".
The legal obligation refers to s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, which obliges the Minister to grant a visa to a person if they satisfy all of the criteria for that visa. Of course, those criteria include some pretty discretionary "public interest" tests which give the Minister lots of scope for refusing a visa to anyone he or she doesn't really want to let in, but the idea now being kicked around seems to have something to do with changing the rules after a person has applied.
Actually, there is plenty of scope for that already. The current law allows the government to impose a numerical cap on certain visa classes and then declare void all outstanding applications once that cap is reached (s 39). The points test pass marks can also be hiked up or down at any time, and the new mark made applicable to any existing application (s 93). Even more generally, changes to the "time of decision criteria" for any visa subclass can operate retrospectively.
The media quickly understood that the likely target of any new changes would be the student visa industry. Not surprisingly, they sought comment from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, which represents the education providers at the heart (for want of a better word) of that $16 billion dollar cash cow. And not surprisingly, their response was along the lines of "we'll all be rooned!".
There appear to be two different ideologies at work here. On one side, there are the national sovereignty supporters (remember "We will decide who comes to this country, blah blah blah"?). Migrants are foreigners, we owe them nothing, they should be grateful if we let them in, and whether they are or not nobody can claim a right to a visa. We control the tap, and we can turn it on or off as we please.
The other side of the argument starts from the proposition that immigration is a long-term society-building program that has worked astonishingly well in this country and, most recently, probably saved us from the worst effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Rather than being about foreigners, it is actually about Australians -- the Australians that the migrants become once they get here.
I have previously blamed the bean counters of the 90s for replacing long-term planning with short-term accounting. It looks like their offspring are carrying on the same tradition.
08 December 2009
When is a punishment not a punishment?
Is visa cancellation a punishment? Most people would think so. It can have pretty devastating effects. For one thing you can be arrested (sorry, "detained") and locked up in a jail (sorry, "detention centre"). Then you can be deported (sorry, "removed").
The official view is that all of this is "administrative", not "punitive". An interesting view from the other side can be found in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Royal Abbott.
Is visa cancellation a punishment? Most people would think so. It can have pretty devastating effects. For one thing you can be arrested (sorry, "detained") and locked up in a jail (sorry, "detention centre"). Then you can be deported (sorry, "removed").
The official view is that all of this is "administrative", not "punitive". An interesting view from the other side can be found in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Royal Abbott.
30 November 2009
The student visa industry
We are told time and time again that international education is our third largest export industry. I saw recently that for NSW is it in fact the second largest.
Isn't that amazing? All those foreigners queueing up to pay money to study at our world-class institutions: doctors, lawyers, physicists, engineers, the odd musicologist perhaps, undergraduate degrees, masters degrees, a smattering of PhDs.
Not really. The occasional PhD there may be, but we all know what this "industry" is about. It's such a big export earner because it's about selling visas. In my practice, I see these poor kids every day. They started out doing a community welfare diploma (kids from the Punjab with a burning desire to study the lives of drunks and single mums in Cabramatta), then the assessing authority tightened up the requirements so they all suddenly switched to graphics pre-press - whatever that is.
I certainly don't blame them. They had no illusions about what Mum and Dad were paying all that money for. In fact I admire them. It must be pretty scary to leave home and go to a strange country where you have to deal with everything from opening a bank account to finding a place to live, getting a part-time job, enrolling in a course, complying with visa requirements, without any of the support mechanisms of home and family. They are also very much aware of the investment that the folks back home have made in them, and how disastrous it would be if they failed in their quest, which is to get permanent residence here.
Why not just sell them the visas and be done with it? They pay around $20,000 to $30,000 each in fees, so why not have them pay it into consolidated revenue instead of the pockets of the private businesses whose only reason for existing is to service the visa trade? It seems to me that most of them would make pretty good migrants, with or without a trade certificate in hairdressing.
Not likely, I suppose. On the other hand, we do charge a whopping big fee for parent visas, so there is a precedent. More about that another time.
We are told time and time again that international education is our third largest export industry. I saw recently that for NSW is it in fact the second largest.
Isn't that amazing? All those foreigners queueing up to pay money to study at our world-class institutions: doctors, lawyers, physicists, engineers, the odd musicologist perhaps, undergraduate degrees, masters degrees, a smattering of PhDs.
Not really. The occasional PhD there may be, but we all know what this "industry" is about. It's such a big export earner because it's about selling visas. In my practice, I see these poor kids every day. They started out doing a community welfare diploma (kids from the Punjab with a burning desire to study the lives of drunks and single mums in Cabramatta), then the assessing authority tightened up the requirements so they all suddenly switched to graphics pre-press - whatever that is.
I certainly don't blame them. They had no illusions about what Mum and Dad were paying all that money for. In fact I admire them. It must be pretty scary to leave home and go to a strange country where you have to deal with everything from opening a bank account to finding a place to live, getting a part-time job, enrolling in a course, complying with visa requirements, without any of the support mechanisms of home and family. They are also very much aware of the investment that the folks back home have made in them, and how disastrous it would be if they failed in their quest, which is to get permanent residence here.
Why not just sell them the visas and be done with it? They pay around $20,000 to $30,000 each in fees, so why not have them pay it into consolidated revenue instead of the pockets of the private businesses whose only reason for existing is to service the visa trade? It seems to me that most of them would make pretty good migrants, with or without a trade certificate in hairdressing.
Not likely, I suppose. On the other hand, we do charge a whopping big fee for parent visas, so there is a precedent. More about that another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
