Pretending the complicated is simple

Something Mad about refugee policies

Leslie Cannold is typical of the kind of commentator who belittles the humanitarian aspect of the Australian government trying to stop people smuggling via boat. Bob Ellis is the same.

They both decry a supposed "lowest common denominator" "hysteria" about boat people.

Yet, I can't see how it is "hysterical" to say that people smuggling in boats places vulnerable people in dangerous, life threatening situations. It is not a hypothetical danger. Surely it is difficult to argue against the proposition that aggressive action to deter future people smuggling via boat actually saves lives.

There is a legitimate argument to be had over how "tough" that action should or needs to be to stop people smuggling. I was one of those of the view that the processes used by the Howard government were in some respects too tough. But the basic idea of keeping boats from reaching our shores is surely an important way of trying to stop such attempts.

For someone like Ellis to say that support for "toughness" is all about ignorant racism is a facile response to a difficult issue. (Indeed, the evidence of increased African migration we can all see in Australian cities indicates the government is hardly motivated by the colour of the skin of those who want to live here.)

Even though the Rudd government has modified the processes (with support from the Coalition), refugee advocates seem to think they haven't really "won" unless all people turning up on boats are given an easy run through our system. But making the process too easy is going to result in more arrivals via that method, and more drownings.

What about Bob Ellis saying that if we are so concerned about their safety on boats, the government should just let them fly in:

We put the people in physical danger by not letting them come here on aeroplanes and wait in Villawood for a month or so to have their claims assessed. We put them in danger by harassing the boats they were on, and at gunpoint ordering them to go back into stormy seas. We put them in danger by burning the boats others came in on the beach, which meant they had to buy new boats, cheaper and cheaper boats, to come here in. Does anyone have the right to burn another's boat? Isn't that piracy?

Again, he can only afford to say this because he is not a position of responsibility. By what criteria would Ellis have the government decide to let asylum seekers (probably many without papers) get on a 747 to Australia? Those that sign an affidavit saying they will get on a boat if we don't do it?

How many people does Ellis want to migrate here that way, compared to the number of refuges who have been assessed already by the UN and been waiting in a camp for years for a country to take them?

There is nothing easy about the issue, despite what these commentators claim.