Read his article and add your comment on the link below
Preamble
The
purpose of this essay is to advance the view that, difficult though it may be, it
is essential that moral principle and intention be kept at the forefront of the
development and application of public policy. In particular, I want to examine
the possibility of practicing politics with compassion. The
catalyst for this essay is the current policy the Australian Government is
implementing toward asylum seekers who seek refuge in Australia.
Minister Morrison
and the Abbott Government, have been condemned by a wide range of eminent
Australians and international human rights groups for their so called border
protection measures. They are administering one of the most shameful and cruel
public policies ever operated in the name of the Australian nation – perhaps
rivaled only by aspects of government policies toward indigenous Australians in
past eras. Regrettably, the present government's approach to the vexed human
rights question of dealing with asylum seekers has been generally supported, to
their shame, by the Opposition Labor Party.
he
Case Study
The
Minister's profession
(Archbishop)
Desmond Tutu, Nobel laureate and one of the heroes of the struggle against
South Africa' apartheid, reportedly once declared:
... we
expect Christians ... to be those who stand up for the truth, to stand up for
justice, to stand on the side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the
naked, and when that happens, then Christians will be trustworthy believable
witnesses.
Why do I
quote these words?
Because, in his maiden
speech to the House of Representatives on Thursday February 14, 2008, Scott
Morrison MP, currently Australia's Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection, invoked these words as testimony to his personal beliefs and
philosophy as a new member of parliament. He also cited Abraham Lincoln's
wisdom, not to claim 'God is on our side' but to consider 'whether we are on
God's side'. Well may we inquire which or what 'God'? But the discussion here
does not rest on theology. Interestingly, Mr Morrison prefaced his use of the
Tutu quote by making the commendable claim: "From my faith I derive the
values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion
and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of
others; to fight for a fair go for everyone to fulfil their human potential and
to remove whatever unjust obstacles stand in their way.....". Altogether
it was a speech which would have given hope to Morrison's small 'l' Liberal
predecessor as Member for Cook, Bruce Baird, a campaigner for compassion in
politics – who must now be deeply disappointed! That said, Scott Morrison is
not the first Australian MP, wearing faith on his sleeve, who has been
compromised by the poisoned chalice of the immigration of desperate asylum
seekers. Kevin Rudd and Phillip Ruddock come to mind.
Given Mr
Morrison's application of the Abbott Government's policies which condemn
thousands with traumatic pasts to fearful and uncertain futures, one wonders
how he now views the moral claims of his maiden speech. Rather than look to
Archbishop Tutu for a confirming text, perhaps he might have consulted
Machiavelli (the medieval chronicler of political ruthlessness). It is all but
certain that Archbishop Tutu would line up with scores of Australian religious
leaders who have strongly criticised Australia's approach to this difficult
issue.
Of course,
the case against Australia's treatment of those seeking refuge is not just a
moral argument. The real politik case includes the following:
1. The current measures are not cost
effective – for instance, the Commission of Audit Report issued just before the
2014 Budget estimated the annual cost of detaining a person in offshore centres
such as Nauru at $400,000 per person whereas it is less than $100,000 to
maintain an asylum seeker in the Australian community.
2. Australia is not fulfilling its
international obligations, is damaging its relationships with neighbour
Indonesia, and exaggerating the burden Australia faces with boat arrival
numbers which, in the case of Mediterranean countries, are five or six times
greater.
3. There are accountability issues:
Australia's policy is being implemented with secrecy and has arrangements with
nations where corruption of governance is a major question.
4. As for the case to smash the people
smugglers' business, desperate people fleeing persecution have always used such
devices, as did certain German Jews under Hitler.
5. Then we are told that many who seek asylum
are "economic migrants". But surely those with means may also face
persecution and the need for safe refuge.
The
oxymoron of political ethics?
As a
student of political ethics, I am not naïve about the inevitability of moral
ambiguity in political practice. Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam correctly
surmised: "Only the impotent are pure". My mentor of decades past,
Reinhold Niebuhr, the American Christian ethicist, concluded that politics is
"an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and coercive
factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and
uneasy compromises". To Minister Morrison, and his colleagues, I freely
concede that governing requires actions at times which are morally
disagreeable.
The excellent
Labor for Refugees publication, The Drownings Argument, launched in
mid-July, outlines sound and instructive policy principles which are necessary
to good refugee policy. The Introduction asserts that moral sentiment in public
policy can be problematic. So it can. For instance, the treatment of the First
Australians from the first British Governor, Arthur Phillip, onward has been
littered with good, moral intentions which resulted in severely damaging
outcomes. As with Aboriginal Australians, moral intentions in public policy are
often nullified as compassion and charity become paternalism and pity. This
observation is very pertinent to the argument used to defend the Australian
policy of "stopping the boats". Briefly that argument is: by stopping
the boats we have stopped "boat people" from drowning. Ipso
facto, the policy is justified on the moral grounds that the lives of men,
women and children have been saved. But that moral justification is both
short-sighted and self-serving. It may result in people being pushed back to
even more horrendous circumstances. Rather than a possible future where human
rights are assured, they face a probable future where human rights are denied,
whether that be in their country of origin, a transit country or in Australia's
detention camps.
Moreover,
the moral justification for preventing drownings cannot be held as a trump card
over the consequential appalling treatment being meted out to those who have
come here "via the back door" as a way of sending a message to
prospective arrivals and smugglers. The claim that one compassionate good is
achieved (stopping drownings) should not come at the cost other unjustified
practices.
Politics
is the art of the possible; but not of any possibility surely. Political
practice that is morally defensible aims for the best possible outcome. The
criteria for "the best possible" are various. In this case much is
heard of "the national interest", a slippery criterion if ever there
was, and surely subject to considerations of international and humanitarian
responsibility. For a start, rather than merely following public opinion and
feeding xenophobia, humanitarian leadership would challenge and inspire public
opinion beyond a narrow view of "the national interest". In my view a
justifiable policy has the character of "responsible utilitarianism".
Our approach to ethics in public policy ought to reflect a sense of the common
good, and responsiveness to the most disadvantaged. In this case, that involves
social justice action for the human community beyond our borders.
The
responsibility of citizenry in a democracy is to apply pressure to improve
political performance; in this case to say emphatically in as many ways as we
can "NOT IN MY NAME MR MORRISON – we have had enough – our reasons are
multiple but, at the core they are fuelled by our disgust at how the Abbott
Government and the previous Labor Government have thrown compassion out of the
cabinet room". Of course, Australia alone cannot save the 45 million or
more displaced persons in our world but, as a rich nation claiming that we are
a culture of "the fair go", we can do a lot, lot better!
What
place is there for compassion?
In his
maiden speech the future Minister Morrison used the term "compassion"
more than once, hardly a word one associates with the action of his government
in returning Tamil asylum seekers to the Sri Lankan navy on the high seas or
with the Manus Island riots which led to manslaughter in early 2014. My
contention is that the virtue of compassion has a key role to play in public
policy, in a hard headed sense, not in a "warm, fuzzy" sense.
Moreover, it is fundamental to both the substance and demeanour of good
political leadership.
But what
is "compassion"?
Morrison
links "compassion" to his religious faith. It is certainly a central
characteristic of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and also the
Buddha. But it would be spurious to contend that being compassionate depends on
following any religion. Compassion is the first among secular/sacred virtues.
As such, it ought to be central to the communal life of our nation as a global
citizen. According to The Charter of Compassion (www.charterforcompassion.org),
compassion is "born of our deep interdependence...essential to human
relationships and a fulfilled humanity...indispensable to the creation of a
just economy and a peaceful global community". Literally, from the Latin,
"compassion" means "the act of suffering with". Its
companion is "empathy". Compassion requires entering into another's
reality with empathy, putting aside presumptions and waiting to hear the
other's story. In public policy terms, compassion is the antidote to
paternalism, public pity or narrow nationalism.
The United
Nations' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, are born
of the international awareness of human suffering, and of compassion as the
catalyst for humanity's global hopes – and we, Australia, to our shame are
thumbing our collective nose at this aspiration, either by flouting the
convention or regarding it in mean, minimalist terms.
Earlier I drew
some parallel between Australia's current treatment of asylum seekers and that
of Aboriginal Australians, particularly how moral sentiment can undermine
policy intentions. This parallel question brings to mind a memorable speech by
Prime Minister Keating in Redfern Park on International Human Rights Day 1992.
It was delivered in the context of Australia's debate about legislation to
follow the High Court Mabo decision – a matter of human rights and public
reconciliation.
We took
the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the
diseases, the alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from
their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance
and our prejudice and our failure to imagine these things being done to us.
With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic response and enter
into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask 'How would I feel if this were
done to me?' As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing
degraded all of us.
Keating did not
mention "compassion" or the "Golden Rule" as a marker for
public policy but that is what he was talking about. The parallels and
application to Australia's treatment of thousands of asylum seekers are all too
obvious. Is the best that we can hope for that some future Prime Minister will
apologetically name the truth that our policy toward asylum seekers in the
early decades of the twenty-first century failed the compassion test? What if
it were us who endured the mental and physical anxiety, trauma and cruelty
typical of so many who have sought refuge in this land? What if we failed to
see that what we are doing degrades all of us?
Appendix:
compassionate policy alternative
have not
provide a detailed critique of all aspects of Australia's policy. That is
available in many other essays (for example, the Labor for Refugees'
publication The Drownings Argument edited by Robin Rothfield, 2014). As
for alternative policy suggestions, I do not envisage an 'open door' approach.
However, in this Appendix I list a selection of substantial policy ideas which
together would signal a more compassionate approach. Along with these, the
language of political leadership needs to change. Mr Morrison, and the Jesuit
trained Prime Minister and Opposition Leader need to revisit how they can move,
in a bipartisan way, to a language of humanitarian compassion and social
justice in this public policy. It is also worth saying that, along with the bad
and sad stories, there is scope for Australians to hear (current or previous)
good stories about refugee settlement in Australia.
Proposals
for a substantial change in policy on asylum seekers, indicating that compassion and real
politik can co-exist.
1. Australia's humanitarian refugee intake
should be increased to 30,000 per year.
2. As part of regional co-operation,
Australia should fund and help run an asylum seeker processing centre in
Indonesia working with the UNHCR – this proposal has been advanced by Julian
Burnside QC.
3. Immediate steps must be taken to clear the
backlog of applications for protection visas along with building an Immigration
and Border Protection Department culture that is more supportive to applicants.
4. The budget cuts to programs providing
support in the community for asylum seekers and refugees should be reversed
(for instance, to the Refugee Council of Australia and the legal support agency
RAILS).
5.
Australian
offshore detention centres must be phased out as soon as possible and the
policy of denying those arriving by boat amended.
6.
The
offer of the Uniting Church in Australia to government to house and support
unaccompanied asylum seeking minors be implemented.
7.
As
soon as possible, onshore detention be limited to special cases, while the
fostering of community detention with visas allowing people to work should
become the norm, supported by non-government local hospitality.
The policy not to
allow family reunion for "boat people" should be reversed.
