The Evolution of Punitive Detention Six years after the Hawke Labor government was elected in 1983, in the face of mounting arrivals from Cambodia, parliament toughened its stand against ‘boat people,’ passing the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1989 with strong bipartisan support. This act was notable for the power which allowed officers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an ‘illegal entrant��. Although detention remained discretionary until 1992, this Act essentially introduced a policy of ‘administrative detention’ for all people entering Australia without a valid visa.9 Such was the resurgence of onshore arrivals that by 1991 a disused mining camp in Port Hedland, Western Australia became Australia’s first remote detention centre. Some Cambodians, after two years incarceration, made an application to the Federal Court to be released on the basis that their detention was unlawful.10 Goaded by High Court criticisms of its treatment of asylum seekers and anxious to allay public disquiet over the resurgence of boat arrivals, the Keating Government rushed The Migration Amendment Act 1992 through the Parliament two days before the Cambodians’ case was to be heard. The bill authorised mandatory detention making it clear that the government was determined to send a clear signal that migration could ‘not be achieved by simply arriving in this country.’11 This tough approach to detaining unauthorised boat arrivals was in contrast to the treatment of visa over-stayers. The differential treatment still applies today.12 Echoes of White Australia As far back as 1988 Coalition opposition leader John Howard echoed the criticisms of immigration and multiculturalism published by conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey.13 In his One Australia policy Howard expressed concern about the pace of Asian immigration suggesting that ‘it would be in our immediate-term 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb would be greater.’14 In the ensuing public furore the government brought on a debate seeking reaffirmation of the previously bipartisan policy that prohibited race being a factor in the selection of migrants. Howard declared ‘I don’t believe it is wrong, racist or immoral for a country to say we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be.’ Three members of his party crossed the floor against their leader. One MP argued: ‘The simple fact is that opinion is easily led on racial issues. It is now time to unite the community on the race issue before it flares into an ugly reproach to us all.’15 In 1989, John Howard lost the leadership and did not regain it until 1995 by which time he had retreated from his previous views. With Howard at the helm again, the Coalition Party was swept to power in 1996. That same year witnessed the rise of far-right politician Pauline Hanson, a disendorsed Liberal candidate, who as an independent won the federal seat of Oxley, on an anti-Asian immigration platform. In her first speech in Parliament she declared: ‘I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.’16 Hanson unsuccessfully attempted to regain her seat in 1998. She remained an influential voice in public debate on immigration. Boat arrivals remained steady until a precipitate increase beginning in 1998. That year a poll showed the average Australian overestimated by 70 times the number of ‘boat people’ arriving each year in the country.17 By 1999 asylum seekers arriving by boat, began to surge. 18 ‘Politicians across the spectrum joined in persistent, low level abuse of boat people as ‘queue jumpers’ for not waiting in foreign camps and ‘illegals’ for arriving without proper papers.’19 Processing slowed and with six, now overcrowded, detention centres on the Australian mainland 20 the government introduced three year Ibid page 3 of 43. From the outset, Cambodians suffered from the misfortune that their claims for asylum contradicted the peace plan for Cambodia and efforts to repatriate 300,000 Cambodians from Thailand. There was political interest in labelling these’ boat people’ as economic migrants. Fr. Frank Brennan, Tampering With Asylum, University of Queensland 2006. At the same time as the end of the orderly departure programme in 1989, the High Court found in favour of Chan Yeek Kin, a Chinese stowaway, who had claimed refugee status. The Court criticised the Department of Immigration for having reached a conclusion in the case: ‘so unreasonable as to amount to an improper exercise of the power to determine refugee status.’ Ibid. Bridging visas were issued to people who satisfied certain criteria, usually over-stayers who had arrived on a visa and then claimed asylum, but never people who came irregularly by boat. Peter Mares, Borderline, p30, University of New South Wales (UNSW) 2002. Geoffrey Blainey, All for Australia, Methuen Haynes, 1984. George Megalogenis, Asian Influence Spices up Contest, The Australian, February 27, 2007. Steele Hall MP, Hansard, 25th August, 1988. Australian Parliament. Pauline Hanson, First Speech, 10th September 1996, Hansard, Australian Parliament. Mary Crock and Ben Saul, Future Seekers: Refugees and the Law in Australia, p22 The Federation Press Sydney 2002. Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks, Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976. p6 9th July 2012 Australian Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia. David Marr and Marion Wilkinson, Dark Victory, P37. Allen & Unwin 2003. Curtin at Derby in northwest Western Australia (WA), Port Hedland, in northwest WA, Woomera in remote South Australia, Perth WA at the domestic airport, Villawood in Sydney NSW and Maribyrnong in Melbourne Victoria. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 17