Up until 1989 Australian immigration policy was based on Ministerial discretion. This gave the executive the power to decide policy without review either by parliament or the courts. But during the 1980s the context changed. Many more would‐be immigrants were already on Australian soil on a temporary basis and, if they were rejected, they could appeal to the courts. Ministerial discretion was hard to defend in court and selection criteria were progressively widened by court judgments. The Hawke Government compounded these difficulties by a number of unwise policy decisions. By 1996 the immigration program that the Howard Government inherited lacked a clear economic rationale, was dominated by family reunion, brought in many migrants who needed welfare support and was open to fraud. It was also unpopular. The Howard/Ruddock reforms sharpened the program's economic focus, reduced the size of the family‐reunion component, restricted new migrants' access to welfare and increased the program's integrity. The new Government also took a firm stance on border control and tried to limit the role of the courts. Many of these reforms have been controversial but, by 2002, immigration was much less unpopular than it had been in 1996.

No abstract

It is argued that the problem of ‘structure and agency’ should be reconsidered as the problem of ‘fate and agency’ for event causation and agency causation). The problem of fate and agency is addressed by outlining a model of the conditions of action derived from work by Giddens and Wright Mills. The model uses the concepts of different forms of knowledge and of the unintended consequence to set up a framework by which it should, in principle, be possible to decide of fate or events. This framework is then used to discuss the problems raised by defining power in terms of interests. It is argued that this definition is inadequate and suggested that a definition of power based on access to resources and causal responsibility for outcomes may be more useful.

Solving the problem of the adverse impact of human numbers on the natural environment is a collective action problem and, if we are to understand it fully, we need good interdisciplinary research which includes work by demographers and sociologists. A number of factors inhibit this work in Australia: narrow disciplinary training; the scarcity of extrinsic rewards; and, as population growth has come to depend on immigration, the risk of peer disapproval. There is also little encouragement for such research from political leaders or the public. Indeed survey data show that the more Australians worry about the state of the environment the more likely they are to want a higher migrant intake.

No abstract