When “adequate” is inadequate

Felicity Throsby, in Canberra

Before any inspection, meeting or field-visit, a politician must work out what he or she will say, especially concerning critical events. 

Pre-determined words must stress several key imperatives – that it demonstrates a proactive “hands-on”, “rolling-up-the-sleeves” approach and, if any unfortunate issues become apparent publicly before the event, those words should expresses resolve, determination and commitment to improve the situation and – above all – they must appeal to the greatest number of voters while alienating the smallest number, if at all. 

If you are a Government Minister the underlying message is that basically everything is just fine and dandy, the policy is sound, the fundamentals are solid but that more can and will be done urgently. If the politician is from the Opposition, then the message expresses shock and outrage at an utterly deplorable situation and that it confirms the very worst fears that the current Minister/Government is hopeless and we will do much better.

The announcement by Immigration Minister Tony Bourke after his visit that detention facilities at Manus Island are “more than adequate” certainly ticks all the boxes. And to stress this reassurance, Bourke went further saying conditions there were “infinitely better” than he had expected to find and, indeed, the Manus Island centre “compared well”  with other (unnamed) centres elsewhere.

There was also the mandatory positive undertaking that “changes will be made to minimise the risk of asylum seekers being abused.” That is the essential “get out of jail free” card because if nothing, or too little, is done the Minister can deflect blame – naturally in sorrow more than anger – to hapless public servants, contractors and anybody else handy. 

The media were banned from accompanying the Minister on his Manus Island fact-finding mission because they could well have proven to be difficult.

I’m sure that Manus Island “compared well” to and was even “infinitely better” than, for example, Auschwitz. 

The scales must have fallen from the Minister’s eyes following his inspection because only a few days previously he told the ABC that the facilities there were “inadequate for families” and that he could not say when families would be sent. Obviously there is nothing like a personal inspection – and, of course, a proper PR briefing.

The use of the term “more than adequate” in Minister Bourke’s post-visit statement is clever – it seeks to assure assorted lefties and bleeding hearts that the place is of a reasonably high standard while it simultaneously tips the wink to those demanding a more robust policy that the place is no Sheraton.

It even has the wonderful benefit of appearing to fulfil our international obligations. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services…”.

The Australian Human Rights Commission in a wide-ranging report last year on existing detention facilities then concluded that current clinical spaces at three major centres in Australia appeared to be “entirely inadequate.” We can only wonder, because Minister Bourke hasn’t exactly told us, how health - including mental health -facilities have already been provided already at Manus Island to lift it to its “more than adequate” status.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in a sharply critical and comprehensive statement said the Rudd Government could well have broken international law with its PNG deal adding, “… UNHCR is troubled by the current absence of adequate protection standards and safeguards for asylum seekers and refugees in Papua New Guinea…”  There’s that “adequate” word again.

Australia’s peak legal body, the Law Council of Australia, agreed saying the Malaysian deal – which was dismissed by the High Court - did not legally guarantee refugee rights and it appeared the PNG deal didn’t either. The Human Rights Commissioner Gilliam Triggs said the government needed to explain how this deal addressed our obligations under international human rights law.

Happily, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has cheerily reassured us that everything is perfectly legal although we have to just take his word for that. There is no independent legal advice it seems.

The clear implication of Minister Bourke’s comments is that it stands to reason (for reasonable people only, of course,) that if the Manus Island facility is “more than adequate” that we are doing more than enough. 

Adequacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Comments

[Grumpyoldman2]

1.

Wonder why KRudd sent Bourke when he could have gone over himself? Wonder why we are at all interested in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" when we in Oz don't have an Australian Bill of Rights at all?
Where are all those highly skilled International jurists who have been advising KRudd now? The UDoHR does not make provision of those rights mandatory terms of forced entry to any country let alone ours.

[AlterEgo]

2.

Too right we don't have a Bill of Rights here in Australia.

If we did, gay marriage, kids adopted to same sex parents, you name it, would have been introduced years ago and be fully entrenched by now.

Opening Pandora's box - anyone want to?