Calls intensify for a Royal Commission into immigration detention

While all eyes have been on former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his inept defence for his actions in the Robodebt scheme, more pressure has been mounting on the current leader of the Liberal Party, Peter Dutton. The latest public demands for accountability have led to renewed calls for a Royal Commission into immigration detention practices, an issue that has stirred outcry and ignited a heated debate within federal parliament.

The impetus for this renewed push for a Royal Commission stems from a series of revelations that have surfaced over the past weeks that the Home Affairs Department, under the purview of Peter Dutton, entered into significant contracts with a businessman who was under investigation for allegations of corruption and bribery. This revelation, combined with comments made by Dutton himself, has only exacerbated the controversy surrounding his tenure and actions during his time in office.

During a recent exchange, Dutton asserted: “as Minister I had no involvement whatsoever in relation to the contract negotiations, the execution of the agreements”. He also emphasised that the procurement arrangements in place during his tenure were consistent with those of his predecessors and maintained that he was not privy to any briefing related to the matter and had no memory of receiving such information.

These assertions, however, have not gone unchallenged. The Australian Federal Police has refuted Dutton’s claim, asserting that a meeting between him and the law enforcement agency did indeed occur. The discrepancy in statements has further fueled suspicions and intensified the demand for a thorough investigation.

In response to growing public concern, the federal Labor government has taken initial steps by initiating an independent inquiry into the contracts involving the businessman in question. However, critics argue that this step may not suffice, given the gravity of the allegations and the broader issues at play within the immigration detention system.

This controversy has reignited calls for a Royal Commission into immigration detention practices. Advocates argue that such a commission would provide an avenue for an impartial, thorough examination of the matter, uncovering the truth behind the alleged corrupt practices and ensuring transparency within the system.

However, the question of whether a Royal Commission will be established remains contentious. Some believe that the government should gather all relevant information before announcing such a commission, in order to avoid unnecessary expenditures and bureaucratic delays. Furthermore, there is a perception that the many parts of the electorate are not invested in pursuing a fair and transparent immigration detention system and asylum seekers, potentially creating a complex political problem for the Albanese government.

The potential implications of a Royal Commission extend beyond addressing the immediate controversy. It could also create political opportunities for conservative opposition parties – especially the Liberal Party – who have always leveraged anti-asylum seeker rhetoric to gain an advantage. As a result, the decision to establish a Royal Commission into the immigration detention system is a complex and delicate one, with political, ethical, and practical considerations at play.

Immigration as the political play tool for conservatives

The issue of immigration detention and treatment of refugees has long been a source of easy political capital for conservative parties, maneuvering to find a stance that resonates with their respective voter bases. A comparison of records reveals a nuanced dynamic; Labor’s position arguably reflects a marginally better track record in handling refugee and asylum seeker issues in some instances. However, the broader trend suggests that the Liberal Party, particularly since John Howard’s tenure between 1996–2007, has been more prone to adopting a hardline approach and milking every opportunity to gain advantage from the more racist parts of the electorate.

The core question remains: what are Australia’s obligations in the 21st century, over 70 years after the establishment of the 1951 Refugee Convention? Many argue that these obligations endure, grounded in the principle of protecting those seeking refuge from persecution. However, the underlying moral imperative to treat refugees fairly and humanely has often been overshadowed by political considerations – especially when looking at Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and genuine refugees in Nauru and Manus Island – but there is a growing sentiment that it is time to reassert this moral compass.

The call for a Royal Commission has gained traction, with various political figures and parties demanding an impartial and comprehensive investigation into the matter. Senator Nick McKim from the Australian Greens emphasised the gravity of the allegations, stating that “highly credible and extremely serious allegations of systemic corruption” require the scrutiny that only a Royal Commission can provide.

Zoe Daniel, the independent member for Goldstein, added her voice to these concerns, highlighting the need for a broader independent inquiry into offshore processing contracts that continued despite warnings about the businessman’s investigation. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has refrained from directly mentioning a Royal Commission but underscored the responsibility of Dutton to explain the expenditure of taxpayer money.

The potential for a Royal Commission hinges on multifaceted factors, encompassing both political calculations and public interest. Establishing a Royal Commission requires a delicate balance between political benefit and addressing genuine concerns. However, the urgency to address the lack of transparency and accountability within the immigration detention system has heightened the pressure on the government.

The issue extends beyond Dutton, with broader systemic questions about immigration detention practices in Australia. Critics argue that billions of dollars have been spent without proper accountability, necessitating an in-depth investigation to shed light on the allocation of resources and the treatment of those within the system.

The political fallout and ethical implications of the situation are far-reaching. The public’s demand for transparency and accountability underscores a growing expectation for integrity within the political sphere. The potential long-term consequences for Peter Dutton’s political career are uncertain, but the mounting controversies are undoubtedly eroding his standing within the opposition, a position which is possibly too low to be resurrected.

The pressure on Dutton will continue to mount, as will the calls for the Albanese government to hold a high-profile investigation as soon as possible. The enduring calls for a Royal Commission underscore the public’s deep-seated concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness within the immigration detention system. It is evident that while the debate might ebb and flow in the short term, there needs to be a critical spotlight cast on the functioning of the nation’s institutions and the conduct of its political leaders.