Labor struggles with end of year immigration challenges

In the current political environment, immigration policy always defaults to a fear of outsiders and disdain for the other.

While the end of the year in Australian politics is coming to an end, the dramas for the federal government continue to unfold, casting a shadow over what they were hoping would be a quiet end to 2023. However, in the ever-turning world of politics, there is never a quiet moment, regardless of the which part of the year we are witnessing.

At the forefront was the contentious response to a High Court decision in early November, which decided that the indefinite detention of asylum seekers and stateless individuals is unlawful. The repercussions of this decision have sent shockwaves through the political community, prompting a frenzied race to enact legislation before the parliamentary curtains fall on the year. Yet, it is in the field of immigration and asylum policies that Australia often witnesses the creation on even more contentious—dangerous—and ill-conceived laws.

The Coalition, which has a penchant to politicise immigration at every opportunity, has been a driving force behind the formulation of draconian and, in some instances, unlawful legislation. However, the pendulum of blame swings both ways, as when the Labor Party is in government, they too engage in the same draconian practices to quieten the weighty debates surrounding immigration. This cyclical—and cynical—approach to policymaking has left many questioning the efficacy and morality of the legislative process, arguing that such a crucial matter should not be subjected to the whims of partisan politics.

What sets Australian immigration law apart is its distinctive nature; unlike most nations, Australia boasts comprehensive and complex legislation governing immigration rather than relying on policy frameworks. However, this complexity comes at a cost, as evidenced by the intricate web of immigration laws that empower the minister with the authority to overturn any decision. While there might be an argument that such a provision is necessary to address exceptional cases, there is the potential for abuse inherent in such unchecked power.

The intricate interplay of immigration legislation reveals the broader complexities of Australian politics—multiculturalism, once hailed as a triumph and one of Labor’s significant policies—which had faced general bipartisan political support in the post-war era—has faced its share of challenges since 1996, when the Howard government was elected to office, which “always had trouble” with the concept of multiculturalism, deemed it to be a failure, and believed that migrants should “absorb the mainstream culture”. Despite its undeniable success in fostering harmonious co-existence among diverse communities, the undercurrent of discontent has been fanned by conservative political leaders, and it’s a dynamic that is ever present in contemporary Australian politics.

Australia, a nation built on the premise of a “fair go”, seems to be struggling with the intricacies of immigration and multiculturalism as the year draws to a close, and the recent announcement by the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, to reduced immigration to “a sustainable level” is the epitome of this struggle, even though Labor is generally the political party that supports higher levels of immigration.

The perennial issue: exploiting fear on national security, asylum seekers and immigration

Historically within Australian politics, the trifecta of national security, asylum seekers, and immigration has emerged as the Liberal and National parties’ political stronghold. Like a well-worn script, they seize every opportunity to stoke fear and sow discord on these issues, transforming them into political weapons that consistently create political difficulties for Labor, whether they are in government or opposition. The strategy is clear: create an atmosphere of “fear and loathing” and paint asylum seekers as a “threat” that must be repelled at all costs, a narrative that plays into the Coalition’s hands.

For the Labor government, navigating this terrain has become a political tightrope walk. Desperate to distance themselves from the spotlight of immigration and asylum policy, they engage in a delicate process of downplaying the issue, hoping it will simply fade into the background or the electorate will forget about the issues. Yet, no matter how tough or draconian the laws they propose might be, it’s usually a futile effort. The Coalition, in conjunction with the media who are ever eager to sensationalise and support this conservative agenda, consistently conspire to portray Labor as weak and incompetent on matters of national security.

This isn’t a novel predicament; the roots of this political strategy stretch back at least to 1998 and, in a broader historical context, to the 1950s during the Cold War, reaching a peak with the Petrov Affair, which was ruthlessly exploited by Prime Minister Robert Menzies just before the 1954 federal election. The Coalition, with a seemingly innate ability to exploit fears of outsiders, perpetuates a narrative that has been a fixture since the 1800s: the perpetual fear of invasion. The Chinese, in particular, have been a recurring bogeyman, a trope that has persisted for almost two centuries despite a lack of substantiated threats.

However, the historical pattern extends beyond the manufactured threat of a Chinese invasion. Even recent episodes, such as the ‘African gang’ narrative pushed by Peter Dutton in 2018, have proven to be largely baseless when challenged and scrutinised. Time and time again, the data reveals that immigrants contribute positively to the Australian landscape—economically, socially, and culturally. They become integral threads in the fabric of the community, fostering economic growth, creating jobs, and enriching the tapestry of multiculturalism. Despite these demonstrable benefits, the narrow-minded, racist voices continue to hijack the narrative, drowning out the nuanced truth with their divisive rhetoric.

As the politics struggles with these perennial issues, the challenge remains: can Australia move beyond the historical fear-mongering, and embrace a more inclusive and evidence-based approach to immigration and asylum policy? A nation such as Australia can rise above the shadows of its own history, dispelling the persistent myths that threaten to overshadow the reality of a diverse and dynamic society. But, it takes both sides of politics to be committed to this, and the tragedy is that if one side can see that there are significant political opportunities to be gained by this mayhem, the other side—Labor—will always be languishing in the catch-up lane.

A lack of preparedness, reactive policymaking and shaping perception

As the political fallout from the High Court decision continues to reverberate, an alternate narrative has emerged: that the government was caught off guard, unprepared for the shift in asylum seeker policy. The principle of political readiness—to always be prepared for the unexpected, a fundamental tenet of effective governance—seems to have eluded the government in this instance. Given the historical behaviour of the Coalition on such issues, there should have been a meticulous readiness for any judicial outcome, no matter how unlikely. While it could be argued that the government could hardly be blamed for not be prepared when the High Court didn’t immediately release their reasons for overturning a previous ruling from 2004, the problem lay in their political responses.

The absence of such preparedness has given rise to a chaotic aftermath, where the government appeared to flounder in crafting an appropriate response. The consequence of this lack of foresight then manifested in the form of hastily created legislation, provided even more draconian measures for asylum seekers, which underscored the perils of reactive policymaking.

The government’s failure to anticipate and prepare for this legal outcome has exposed a critical flaw, as the essence of politics lies not only in governance but also in deftly managing public perception. The Liberal Party, historically adept at diversionary tactics, typically resorts to discussing polarising issues such as the fruitless pursuit of nuclear energy, social division of transgender rights, or border security to divert attention when facing political challenges.

In contrast, Labor, often more competent in governance than political strategy and base politics, finds itself at a disadvantage in this arena. Effective governance necessitates not only sound policy decisions but also astute political management, political bastardry and manipulation—a balance that the Liberal–National Coalition, in certain aspects, seems to have mastered more proficiently, at the expense of good governance.

While allowances must be made for a new government finding its footing—in office for 18 months after being out of office for nine years—it is imperative to hold a government accountable for their actions. The public is less forgiving: they care less about who created the problems or what the problems are, they mainly want the problems resolved and will punish governments who either fail to resolve these problems or avoid their responsibilities altogether. Ministers, even those with previous experience in government, often struggle with shifting circumstances. However, this does not absolve them of responsibility, and vigilance from the public is paramount.

Amidst the turmoil, a misleading conservative narrative has surfaced, insinuating that the High Court decision has unleashed a wave of criminals into society and, by extension, is the fault of the Labor government. This perspective conveniently sidesteps the fact that majority of High Court justices were appointed by Coalition governments, and hold “black letter” legal opinions that align with a traditionalist interpretation of the law. The High Court applies the law according to the Constitution: it pays no interest to the politics of the days—nor should it—and assesses the case that it sees in front of it, based on its legal merits. In this recent High Court ruling, it was a unanimous 7–0 decision, including the four justices who were appointed by the Coalition.

The recent escape and subsequent capture of five asylum seekers who were recently released from indefinite immigration detention has also been subject to sensationalised media coverage. It is crucial to recognise that very few refugees are “criminals”, and an objective analysis reveals that only a small minority of refugees run afoul of the law, in many cases, at a lower rate of recidivism than the general community. Contextual factors, exacerbated by prolonged detention and mistreatment, often contribute to such transgressions.

As the nation deals with the aftermath of the High Court decision, a nuanced and comprehensive approach is required—one that balances accountability, adherence to the Constitution, and an understanding of the complex factors influencing the behaviour of those seeking asylum. In scrutinising the government’s response, citizens must remain vigilant in holding power to account, ensuring that justice is served without compromising the principles that define Australia’s democratic fabric. In the current political environment—as it has been for much of Australia’s history, which always defaults to a fear of outsiders and disdain for the other, this is a difficult task.