If you want to see how Australian Federal politics have changed in a few short years, it’s worth contrasting the cases of Andrew Theophanous and Philip Ruddock. Theophanous,a former Labor MP, is serving a jail sentence for taking bribes in return for making false representations on visa applications. This was straightforward old-fashioned corruption – his clients paid cash and, if things went to plan, got a visa.* In one form or another, this happened ever since the First Fleet, though it used to be rare at the Federal level.
Now contrast the modern way of doing things under Ruddock. Nothing as sordid as a brown paper bag ever enters his office. He receives representations on immigration matters from prominent and well-respected community leaders, and responds by intervening to grant visas. Of course, under the general rules that apply nowadays, only friendly community leaders are likely to get a hearing and the best way of demonstrating friendliness is to deliver votes and donations to the Liberal Party. But, except for slipups like the Dante Tan case, there’s nothing so crude as the appearance of a quid pro quo in individual cases.
But how do the respected community leaders get the information on deserving migrants and the resources they need to maintain their leadership? No doubt they are approached by upstanding members of the community, who have demonstrated their upstandingness by supporting the community organisations that have such respected leaders. And, in one form or another, whether in cash or mutual and familial obligations, these upstanding members of the community expect some sort of return from the potential immigrants whose applications they support.
So, when everything is netted out, the applicants have less cash, but a better chance of getting a visa, while the Liberal Party ends up with more cash and the general pool of applicants loses some potential places **. But no-one has done anything illegal, or even sackable, and the crucial step – the Minister’s intervention – is on the public record, open and above board. Isn’t progress wonderful?
*I should note that Theophanous was partially successful on appeal and maintains his innocence on the remaining charges.
** In these circumstances, it is more necessary than ever to punish and demonise ‘queue-jumpers’ who have paid common criminals in the hope of securing a visa.
John Quiggin 
I once saw a bumper sticker that said “Crime wouldn’t pay if the government ran it”. This has a serious point, the same one that comes up in reasoning that parasites have one pressure (among others) to evolve towards a form that causes less harm to the host; the actual harm does depend on where the balance ends up.
The parallel with forms of government has been brought out elsewhere: that raiders evolve into taxers with an incentive to leave seed corn, as it were, to build up later returns. And, of course, true aristocracies do end up with better long termism than some apparently less exploitative systems. (Of course, this is only a partial offset to their other downsides, but it is real.)
So yes, in a certain specialised sense it is indeed “better” that Ruddock does as he does than that other more virulent forms of back door should flourish. Please note, I am not commenting on any absolute good in it, and things are still very far from reaching their non-virulent equlibrium at the moment.
I think that Pr Q is missing the broader point about immigration control.
Theophanous and Ruddock are both guilty of more traditional crimes of accpeting economic inducements – and should be punished.
But the ALP machines systemicly rorted Australia’s alien intake system.
THe ALP set up a bypass to immigration control through the rorted family reunion program, which allowed large numbers of non-acceptable immigrants to get into the country on the tacit assumption that they would vote for the ALP, contribute to it’s coffers and join it’s moribund unions and participate in branch stacking.
The process was widened to cover refugee program, where Australian courts relaxed the notion of refugees to allow illegal economic immigrants into the country.
This corrrupted the ALP and the state.
Both these policies debased the notion of citizenship, and had to stop.
Border Protection is only the most brutal manifestation of the necessary reforms.
Jack is on the money with regard to the ALP and immigration although it was quite left wing induced.
however why can’t we accept ANY person who leaves a despotic regime as a refugee.
What do people such as Ruddock and fellow travellers expect when such people are ‘returned’ to such countries?
Shouldn’t we ,with all other democratic countries being actively encouraging people to leave despotice regimes?