|
September 5, 2011
The Coalition is keen to revive its old strategy of warehousing asylum seekers in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea---a Pacific solution Mark II.This policy is being used as part of the background scratching of the conservative noise machine with the Murdoch media setting the agenda for regime change.
Behind the noisy scratching of "we want an election now" is the policy reality that 61 per cent of the people on Manus Island and Nauru who were found to be refugees were resettled in Australia; and that offshore processing looks increasingly difficult after the High Court's decision.
Though Nauru has joined PNG as a signatory to the refugee conventions, both countries need to insure practical compliance'' with their obligations and they must comply ''in practice with human-rights standards acceptable at least to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees''. The inference is that offshore processing could result in another legal challenge.
One possibility suggested by the High Court is a deal with Nauru that kept asylum seekers effectively in Australia's hands would satisfy the requirements of the Migration Act. If so, why bother with Nauru? Why not do the processing onshore? Isn't onshore processing with brief mandatory detention the ALP's platform?
Abbott is contesting the government's interpretations of the Solicitor-General's (Stephen Gageler,) the written opinion, and saying if Labor wants to put the situation beyond doubt, he would support legislation to change the Migration Act to cover Nauru and PNG. Abbott is endeavoring to exploit what he perceives as Gillard's lack of authority and the weakness of minority government.
The desire of both political parties sides is to keep offshore processing as a policy because they see it as the strongest option to act as a deterrent to asylum seekers. They do not want bulging detention centres, years of delays and endless legal appeals from asylum seekers through the Australian courts. The ALP right are basically Howard lite, and they are eager to embrace the Coalition's Nauru option and TPV's.
A far better option is to accept on shore processing and, as a reforming government, work towards some sort of regional co-operation across southeast Asia on the matter of stateless and displaced people. Malaysia was a flawed start. It was an attempt to avoid other countries being put in a situation where they are a way-station for people en route to Australia.
So Australia should cooperate with them. It's what governing means on this issue. There is no policy paralysis here.
|
The Australian's advice is to not cave into Labor's Left and the Greens and abandon offshore processing, further increasing the "pull" factors that encourage people-smugglers.
The best option is:
it acknowledges that accepting a huge slice of humble pie in the form of the opposition's offer would be deeply galling for Julia Gillard, who is mired in a deep political trough amid leadership speculation.
The Coalition is running hard on government incompetence. Surprisingly they are saying little about unelected judges meddling in the running of the country.