After a day of arguments over amendments to the Migration Act, the Gillard government remains at a political standstill on asylum seeker processing, with onshore processing currently the only viable refugee policy.
First Julia Gillard announced the Migration Act amendments the government was prepared to make in order to get the Coalition to approve them, in order to get around the High Court’s recent decision to rule offshore processing unlawful.
These amendments included assurances that offshore processing countries could not return asylum seekers to dangerous circumstances in their home countries, but these assurances did not have to be enshrined in law. Instead, it was reliant on the immigration minister acting in the “national interest” in picking countries for offshore processing.
“How can an obligation be an obligation if it’s not legally binding?” asked opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Unsurprisingly, Abbott then rejected Gillard’s amendments, saying the Coalition would only allow an amendement which insisted that asylum seekers in Australia were only sent to countries that are signatories of the United National Refugee Convention. Meaning, it would still be impossible for refugees to be sent to Malaysia — Gillard’s policy — but that they’d be able to be sent to Nauru — — a Coalition policy.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen continued to rule out offshore processing on Nauru, instead declaring the government “would not be going down that road”.
As Jacqueline Maley wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald: “If question time is capable of having a vibe, then this one had a distinct ‘I’d sooner eat a bowlful of my own hair than agree to your amendments’ feel to it.”
If Abbott truly believes the Malaysia policy is a bad idea, then he needs to reject any amendment that would encourage it, says Nikki Savva in The Australian:
“Abbott’s critics claim he would be a hypocrite if he voted against the amendments. In fact, he would be a hypocrite if he voted for them. Any one of the issues he has nominated is ample justification, this time at least, to just say no.”
Does that signal a win for onshore processing? Bowen says yes: “Onshore processing is the current situation — in the absence of any agreement, we do that.”
Onshore processing has long been supported by the Labor Left faction, who yesterday called for the legislation to be redrafted as it claims it breaches Labor party platform. But Labor caucus is expected to vote against the Left’s plan today.
But the government will still attempt to pass the Migration Act amendments through parliament today even though it is a “doomed” policy, as Michelle Grattan writes in The Age, since even if it manages to pass the House of Representatives there’s no way it will pass the Coalition and Greens-controlled Senate.
The latest Newspoll has a low primary vote for the Labor Party but Gillard’s own popularity ratings are up, reflecting that Australians appreciate when their political leaders attempt to compromise on an issue. Not that a compromising is everything. “Gillard’s winning a negotiating war, but the fundamentals have not changed,” writes Dennis Shanahan in The Australian.
The Liberals can make all this pain for Labor go away, all Gillard and Labor need to say is those 3 little words: “Howard Was Right”
Then we will finally have a bi-partisan solution, she can pick up the phone to Nauru and the boats will stop and her political career won’t be over just yet.
The anywhere-but-Nauru solution silliness has just got to stop. The anything-but-TPV’s solution has just got to stop. It’s time that we put back into place the policies that worked in the past and will work into the future.
TTH
No all Labor has to do is adhere to its party platform and the Human Rights and Refugee Conventions.
Joining the Greens and say those three little words “Howard was wrong”.
The only winners here are the Greens. A victory brought about by Tony Abbott being too clever by half.
Tony Abbott opposes on shore processing yet here he is voting for on shore processing.
Very damaging and a blow to the right wing off shore policies.
Gillard will keep on shore processing as long as she can blame the boats on Abbott.
As this happens the News Limited focus and the shock jock focus on the boats will go away.
The right result for the wrong reasons.
[“Gillard will keep on shore processing as long as she can blame the boats on Abbott.
As this happens the News Limited focus and the shock jock focus on the boats will go away. The right result for the wrong reasons.”]
LOL, no it won’t.
The call across the nation will go out: GILLARD, PICK UP THE PHONE TO NAURU!
While this option remains on the table, Gillard can’t blame Abbott she can only blame herself for her inability to admit Labor got this one wrong.
Gillard/Rudd caused the boatpeople armada problem by scrapping the policies that worked, it’s clear to fix the problem all she needs to do is eat humble pie and recite these three little words: Howard Was Right
The question of where the “processing” of boat arrivals will take place will be settled by default … Malaysia, Nauru, Tierra del Fuego or “anywhere else”foundering on the rocks of political posturing and rhetoric. Looks like a decent outcome by accident. Seems apt.
But the “where” has completely overshadowed the “what” in my view. The attitudes and deep seated bigotry exhibited by DIAC officers (see for example Dinstar’s post elsewhere on Crikey) will guarantee that the work of the RRT will continue apace, overturning outrageous and baseless refusals, that refugees will remain behind razor wire and that taxpayers will be carrying both the financial and political costs of a nasty hateful system.
If Bowen was actually serious about fulfilling his responsibilities under the convention, he would be shipping those officers with a track record of overturned decisions off to re-education or getting them out of the way. And he would start at the top where the Howard/Ruddock mindset remains untouched and unchallenged.
These faceless little desk jockeys exercise enormous power over people’s lives and they do so without any form of public scrutiny or accountability. They act on the basis of suspicion rather than evidence and they appear to be answerable to no one.
Time to get the chainsaw out Mr Bowen.
TTH
Dream on.
I have spoken the reality. Remember I have been saying all along we are going to have on shore processing now. This because Abbott cannot help himself. He says no even when saying yes is to agree with his policy.
Mr Abbott has voted no to off shore processing. I think this is great.
For those advocating off shore Abbott has just destroyed it. Gillaird will make sure the country knows that.
As I keep saying the only vote winners out of this are the Greens.
Labor may get a long ter benefit as “Stop The Boats” stops being an election issue or can be used against Abbott for voting aginst off shore.
It is certinly no win for Abbott and his party.
I can see the slogan now.
“The Liberal/Nationals just say no”