Kate Twinning
Few issues in Australian society have been as divisive as the mandatory detention of 'off-shore' asylum seekers. Borderline both capitalised on the explosion in public interest and pre-empted many of the disturbing events that were to occur following its publication. As with most literature written before an issue has culminated, Peter Mares' book at times seems dated. Such is the fate of books written without the benefit of significant hindsight. However, Borderline is not intended to be a definitive analysis but a stimulus for intelligent and considered debate on the 'real issues', something that has been largely stifled in the public arena.
Borderline examines the moral, legal and political aspects of the debate, with Mares unashamed of his liberal perspective. The book's opening focuses on the moral dimensions; a wise move as it humanises the experience of asylum seekers, rather than demonising them, as the federal government is wont to do. Integrated into the tragic personal stories of asylum seekers are details of the mainstream media's gross misrepresentation of the issue and its unswerving belief that the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' (DIMA) press releases are the undisputed truth.
Borderline attributes such "shallow treatment" (2001:15) of events to the federal government's "black out on news from Australia's six immigration detention centres"
(2001:15). However, such suppression of information has not prevented some journalists from effectively campaigning against mandatory detention: notably, the ABC troika of the '7.30 Report', 'Four corners' and 'Lateline', together with some broadsheet journalists.
Borderline focuses much of its attention on exposing and explaining the machinations of the refugee determination process, including the limited avenues of appeal. This includes dispelling the popular myth that 'boat people' are "queue jumpers"
(2001:19), when in fact there is no queue. Mares points out that this wouldn't even be an issue if the Howard government hadn't collapsed the onshore and offshore categories into one, something that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) discourages.
Another shocking issue raised by Borderline is the almost complete lack of separation of powers between DIMA and the Refugee Review Tribunal. This is an affront to the rule of law, a principle that ordinary Australians take for granted today. There is little independence or transparency in the refugee determination process. Borderline alleges that Philip Ruddock "warned that members would not be reappointed if they made decisions that went beyond the law" (2001:101). This would not be contentious if it had not been made in relation to a case based on sound legal precedent. Such comments create an environment in which pleasing the Minister may be the motive for allowing or rejecting an application for refugee status.
Borderline contends that the system has become so bureaucratised and politicised that it is no longer serving its purpose; that is, protecting the vulnerable. The federal government has been so sycophantic that it dare not jeopardise diplomatic relations with nations such as Indonesia and China by recognising that those countries might actually be persecuting their own citizens. Mares bestows much print to the plight of East Timorese asylum seekers in the face of a bipartisan commitment to appeasing Jakarta, in which innocent lives became pawns in a political game.
While Mares attempts to be fair in his portrayal of Mr Ruddock, denying that he deserves to be demonised as the "minister for misery" (2001:146), it is nonetheless unconvincing. The federal government has shown itself all to eager to resort to scaremongering and wedge politics, which reached it's peak during the 'children overboard' affair. Some may consider describing the policy of mandatory detention as "racist" to be hyperbole, yet it is not too unbelievable that cultural prejudice may play a role. If the asylum seekers who arrived by boat were Zimbabwean farmers, would they be locked up in desert detention centres? Although Borderline briefly alludes to the issue of race, Mares largely skirts around the issue.
This is evident in Borderline's treatment of the historical context of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. Mares barely scrapes the surface of a nation's history characterised by a fear of invasion. While significant space is devoted to Indo-Chinese refugees and the often alarmist response to the "fucking Vietnamese Balts" (2001:67), this alone cannot provide an accurate background. This is highlighted by the contribution of writers such as Alison Broinowski (2002), who has illustrated the racially prejudiced motivations of Australian governments dating back to white settlement. Borderline does make the point that, even today, "European refugees stand a better chance of making it to
Australia under the offshore program than their counterparts do in Asia, Africa and the
Middle East"(2001:20). That's despite the refugee populations in the latter countries being considerably larger than their European counterparts.
Borderline's critique is strengthened by the suggestion of alternatives to mandatory detention. Mares looks mainly to Sweden for inspiration and in doing so provides a somewhat shocking contrast. Most obvious amongst the many is that asylum seekers are treated as human beings, deserving of respect and compassion. As Mares illustrates, the Australian system "destroys the very soul of applicants…[and] denies them their identity" (2001:119).
Borderline is perhaps most distinctive for its perceptiveness. Mares anticipated much of what was to follow the publication of his book. This is evident when he states that "the real issue is not the relative needs of refugees; it is control-control of the border and control over the selection of future Australian residents" (2001: 159). This was evidenced during the Liberal Party's 2001 election campaign, when Prime Minister Howard pronounced: "We will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come" (Hirst, 2002:90).
Borderline raises enough important issues to be considered a significant contribution to the debate surrounding asylum seekers. It does not profess to have all the answers, although it does offer alternatives. At the very least, it challenges the supremacy of the government line; that is an achievement in itself.
Bibliography
Broinowski, Alison. 2002. Correspondence on Girt by sea in Beyond belief, Australian quarterly essay, Issue 6
Hirst, John. 2002. Correspondence on Girt by Sea in Beyond belief, Australian quarterly essay, Issue 6