Well, the newspapers are full of condemnation of the Gillard government for having tried a novel approach to the refugee issue and getting it knocked down by the High Court yesterday. Even columnists who the Right (unfairly, for the most part) normally consider to be too sympathetic to Labor are putting the boot in.
This morning on Sunrise, the normally Labor friendly David Koch has got ex Labor senator Graham Richardson on to help condemn the Gillard leadership. Richardson's new media career annoys me, because it trades on whatever Labor connections he still has and lets him continue his previous "career" of attacking his perceived enemies and boosting his political friends. Just as I think it is unseemly for a journalist with close connections to politicians to run for office (like Maxine McKew), I don't care for ex-politicians who want to be on TV every night still trying to play the game from afar.
(A good post by Ken Parish about Richardson's evident enthusiasm to see Gillard replaced as leader is here.)
It's true, as Annabel Crabb writes, the whole problem for Labor has been that it has been trying to find a way to differentiate itself from the Coalition approach, but has always given the impression it was coming up with ideas in a completely haphazard way.
Still, I can't help but feel sorry for a Labor PM (well, any PM other than Rudd) who is stuck on the horns of this dilemma.
One of the more radical suggestions gets a mention in The Age this morning - Labor could just withdraw from the Refugee Convention. It doesn't necessarily mean we don't take the same number of refugees, it would just be that we can deal with those who arrive in a way free of many of the current legal restrictions. But we could still pretty much follow the same assessment process that we use now.
As the article notes, this is likely to appeal to a large part of the population, but it would be anathema to a significant chunk of the Left.
I'm not sure where I stand on the question. To do it would be a triumph for Labor being able to show it is pragmatic, and if they continue taking higher numbers of refugees than before, that it has no great practical effect apart from freeing up the hands of government as to the way in which they can deal with a difficult problem.
The debate could still swirl as to where processing takes place, and be changed from off shore to on shore depending as circumstances change and the political mood at the time.
I guess there might be some downside that I am missing here, but my impression is that it might be worthwhile. But it almost certainly has no chance of happening. Labor is too attached to symbolism.
UPDATE: gee, even Ken Parish thinks this seals Julia Gillard's fate, and she may as well go down with dignity by allowing on shore processing.
What he fails to address is the humanitarian aspect of not wanting to see hundreds of refugees drown every year on the dangerous trip from Indonesia. I mean, it is this aspect that really makes the issue morally complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment