Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Rudd looks like a man who isn’t confident of his own policy
|
Hard cases make bad law, lawyers say, and in the case of the Oceanic Viking, they may make for bad policy. There are no easy or obvious solutions because all the options have negative consequences. There’s no domestic policy reason why the refuseniks aboard the Oceanic Viking should not be taken to Christmas Island and processed like other boat arrivals. If they’re found to be genuine refugees, they will form a small part of the 13,750 refugees we’ll accept this year. If not, they will be sent back to Sri Lanka. That they have acted in an uncooperative fashion in order to secure being taken to Christmas Island is frustrating but, in the end, irrelevant. But these are not like other boat arrivals. These people never left Indonesian waters. Greg Sheridan argues today that taking them to Christmas Island would be “a tremendous defeat for the integrity of the Australian immigration program. The word would go out very quickly to all would-be illegal immigrants: you don’t even have to get to Australian waters, if you merely get into a section of the Indonesian search-and-rescue zone near Australian waters and declare yourself in distress, you get to live in Australia forever.” That’s the floodgates argument. Always beware anyone warning that the floodgates will open — it usually means they don’t have a strong argument about why you shouldn’t do something. There are tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the region who are trying to come to Australia already. The specific circumstances of the handling of the Oceanic Viking are unlikely to make any significant difference to their numbers, regardless of Sheridan’s overblown claims. What taking them to Christmas Island might do, however, is encourage other asylum seekers in the belief that the already-perilous boat journey to reach Australian territory can be undertaken with the assurance that they will be rescued by Australian vessels even deep inside Indonesian waters. Like temporary protection visas, this might have the unintended consequence of increasing the risk that a boat containing asylum seekers will sink before help can arrive. It is conceivable that the lives of asylum seekers might be lost in future as a consequence of how the Oceanic Viking is handled, and policymakers will surely be remiss not to consider that possibility. That this coincides with a political perception that agreeing to remove them to Christmas Island would be a “defeat” for the Government is, again, frustrating but not relevant. The Government is waiting and hoping that something will happen along to resolve the dilemma. That’s the least worst option at the moment and the Government is correct to pursue it for now. It has repeatedly emphasised that both it and the Indonesian Government will be patient about a resolution. How long it remains the least worst option depends, more or less, on how long we can leave a major Customs asset stranded in an Indonesian port. There’ll be a growing media clamour for some form of resolution, and repeated headlines about the Government’s policy being ‘in tatters” (© The Australian) but no compelling policy reason for precipitate action. That’s the specific issue of the people aboard the Oceanic Viking. It is effectively unrelated to the broader issue of handling the flow of asylum seekers, where the Government has struck a sound policy of regional cooperation, humane handling of asylum seekers who reach our shores, and efforts to disrupt the process that sees people risking their lives to get here. It has also increased the number of places in Australia’s humanitarian program, although by no means nearly enough. The fact that few people — and certainly not the Opposition — are proposing any significant change to Australia’s refugee assessment process suggests that, through the rhetorical sound and fury, the Government’s policy doesn’t differ significantly from that of the previous Government and has broad support. Watching Paul Howes and John Roskam mostly agreeing on The 7.30 Report last night, despite Kerry O’Brien’s efforts to suggest otherwise, shows how the asylum seeker debate has evolved since eight years ago. Neither Roskam nor Howes is particularly representative of each’s notional sides of politics but even so, the sight of “the Left” and “the Right” agreeing we should be accepting more refugees and that the Oceanic Viking should head for Christmas Island suggests there should be room for a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers, which would go a significant way toward ending the sense of crisis — admittedly mainly stirred up by the ABC and The Australian — that pervades the issue. The main problem in all that is that Kevin Rudd doesn’t really do bipartisanship, not even when the Government and Opposition agree on most aspects of the handling of asylum seekers. Normally Rudd has no interest in bipartisanship because he is in such a position of strength. On this issue, he has no interest because he fears he is in a position of weakness, and one slip could see his huge poll lead evaporate in a flash of fury about boat people. Indeed it’s significant that Rudd’s normally deft touch in communicating his key message has deserted him in recent days and Stephen Smith has looked the more relaxed and calm figure, partly because he doesn’t start talking about “kids behind razor wire” the moment he opens his mouth. Rudd’s behaviour is suggestive of a man who isn’t confident of his own policy. Eventually that lack of confidence might do more to undermine it than any number of boats. The PM should remember that not everything is a crisis just because some journalists and commentators insist that it is. |
|
|
9 Comments
Is it essential that these asylum seekers be re-settled in Australia? Would it be possible to meet our humanitarian obligations by rescuing and protecting them, and then arranging for their resettlement in a country other than Australia? In turn, could we take an equivalent or greater number refugees from the receiving country so that there is no net gain or loss for Australia or the receiving country?
If the objective of the asylum seekers is to escape persecution in their own country, then this would achieve their stated objective and they could have no objection to this solution. Since there would be no benefit to be gained by undertaking a long and perilous sea voyage, would this address the safety issue raised above by Bernard, and would it cut out the market for people smuggling?
These Asylum seekers from Sri Lanka should be sent straight back,if the refuse to leave the boat,Rudd should order the boat to sail and tell the people on board where they are going and see what happens.
Its time to stop pussyfooting about with these people if you have $15000 to throw around you are not a refugee,send em back and the others will soon get the messeage.
Rudd has sewn the seeds of his neurosis with the appointment of Brendan ‘war for oil’ Nelson to a senior diplomatic post. The pro Iraq War cronies were all there at his farewell. Howard, Costello, and Downer I’m sure would have like to be.
Such an amoral appointment that must have signaled to the ALP tribe that surely everything is opportunism and spin now, so why co-operate on diverse other issues the leader wants help with. The ALP ‘team’ is now infected with the same spiritual sickness that fatigues the Coalition. The Iraq war should see the demise of the Liberal National coalition and at this rate it will pull down Rudd’s leadership.
Oh that’s right. It was Simon Crean who opposed the Iraq war. Not Kevin Rudd. Back then as shadow foreign minister he was agnostic.
(Obama on the other hand was against it from the start. )
And then there is Rudd’s cynicism on the environment. Really he’s looking pretty threadbare on the moral goodwill front - so essential to generating consensus on diverse fractious matters - when he has to wheel his wife’s record on disabilities out on national tv.
Bernard, you are right about the ABC and The Australian attempting to run this debate along 2001 lines and for the benefit of the Coalition. Whilst I can understand the Opposition Organ helping out a mate, I can’t see why the ABC has to become a player.
It disturbs me to see ABC journalists, such as Chris Uhlmann writing Op Ed pieces for The Oz and Leigh Sales contributing to The Punch. Is this the covert influence of Keith Windschuttle and Janet Albrechtsen at work? Why, indeed, do ABC journalists feel the need to be pwned and pimped by News Ltd. anyway? Eventually, there’ll be none of the objectivity and impartiality that the ABC is renowned for, left.
Bernard, your thoughts and mine are in alignment except for one grain of sand in my sneakers. My charity and tolerance are easily given, except when there is a gun at my head.
If the boat of 78 win their concessions the smugglers will have a new business model. Insist on every possible concession or threaten something really awful. Maybe even children overboard. Will every future boat load use the same tactics? Maybe that doesn’t really matter as the numbers are very very small, unless the Australian electorate decides we have lost our border protection. A party desperate for an election win will have a gift if they offer a harsh “we will decide who…etc” policy. Then all refugees that follow will pay the price for the intransigence of the boat of 78.
If I were on the Oceanic Viking and fleeing from death or torture for my family and was told to go ashore and stay in the detention centre that is only marginally better than that from which I sped and get assessed for resettlement in Australia I would say “yes please can I be first on the queue”.
The boat of 78 risks alienating people who would normally be their supporters.
It is interesting that this issue has finally seen Rudd out of control. He has no idea how this episode with the Oceanic Viking will evolve, he has no control over it and it shows. This to my mind highlights how his obsession with having a finger in every pie, finally became a loose cannon. He is now very concerned how the electorate will judge his meddling in Stephen Smiths portfolio. Meddling which has brought out the best in Smith, who has remained cool and calm while Rudd yells and screams and dithers. One also gets the impression the PM has been less than honest about his dealings with Indonesia and it may assist his cause if he stopped actinglike a little dictator and let his Ministers do their job. They are a talented lot and Rudd does them no favours by putting his oar in publically. These days question time in the house is becoming more and more the Kevin Rudd show and God forbid I ever agree with Chistopher Pyne, but he has a point, the PM is starting to bore the House to distraction. He drones on and on, no longer the energetic, quick witted stirrer, more a long winded drone. if he was to just shutup and leave the negotiations up front to Smith this sorry mess may reach a quicker conclusion. There is more than a little truth to the accusation Rudd is becoming full of his own importance, he would best be mindful the electorate is very unforgiving. The Govt was in cruise control over the asylum seeker boats until Rudd decided on the Indonesian solution, he should ask himself why it has turned pear shaped. What did he expect from Asias most corrupt regime?
78 refugees are nothing. The only real concern is what effect this has on other would be asylum seekers.
My prediction: the Oceanic Viking will be left where it is for long enough that it’s clear that the refugees aren’t going to go ashore peacefully, and more importantly, Kevin’s credentials as harsh (but humane) are enforced, at which point we’ll declare that this is an exception, a special case, and let them into Australia.
A question: I see a lot of people saying that we should discourage people from taking to boats, for their own good. Is that really true? Is it better to live and die in a refugee camp than to take a chance at sea?
I’m stunned that BK & RayC think Smith is anything other than a kruddrone - they both seem to think that he has independent thoughts. Any evidence thereto? I’m still waiting to find out the full price SBY & his cohort have, and will, extract for this “help”.
JOHN RYAN “if you have $15000 to throw around you are not a refugee” Well yes you are if you’re not part of the group who are running the country, and who’ve been engaged in a 30 yr war to get rid of you and yours. some of these people were engineers etc in good positions, but that obivously hasn’t helped them stay alive. I’m led to believe that the Sri Lankan govt is using genocidal practices to get rid of them. I’ve also heard, that organisations like the Red Cross, Oxfam and the like are either not allowed in the ‘compound’ where Tamils are, and if they do relent, they must remove any labels etc on their clothing that would allow the Tamils to think, that they might be interested, let alone sympathetic to their plight.
This debacle is just another version of Howard’s Pacific Solution. It’s sloppy, immature, inhumane and plain ridiculous. We’re going to look really good, when we start herding off pregnant women, kids and others at the point of a gun. Wilson Tuckey’s solution, to bring in the army just showed what a maniac he is. have our military, with guns drawn on Indonesian soil. Sounds like an invasion to me, a militant and bullish act, that could invite a similar response. Now wouldn’t that be something to be proud of! War with our neighbours, who we carry on are our friends. My god, if this is how we treat our friends, god help us! We’d lose as indeed we should!
These people have sold their homes, or families have probably pitched in so they can get out of the way of the bloodshed. Also, if it’s not a crime for the asylum seekers to seek refuge, why are those who bought the boat to bring them here charged with crimes, that carry a mandatory 20 yr jail sentence. It’s our justice system being abused by politicians. Those who saved the Jews were heroes, those who help those tortured souls via our acts of violence are called ‘scum’? Confused!!!
After the Vietnam War, there were over a million people seeking refuge. Malcolm Fraser and Fred Chaney fought the racists in their own ranks, proceeded in a humanitarian manner, and the rest as they say, is history. Why not allow people who are found to be correct in fearing for their lives, to settle here and make up part of the 150,000+ immigrants each yr. This seems to be a commonsense solution. We still exercise control over “our borders”, and incidently, what about those arriving by plane? What precautions, checks, personnel etc are there to protect us from the 50,000 or so who are probably illegally residing here as I write? Of course, most of them are white and speak English as their first language, so they can’t be a threat can they? Truly, I despair! If we want to be recognised as a ‘grown up country’ we should start acting like it. Kevin Rudd wants us to have a permanent seat at the UN, Why? When we can’t abide by the obligations we’ve said we’re supportive of - human rights, the Migration Act etc?
Kevin Rudd was in an ideal position to act as a leader in the first instance, instead of carrying on like an immature child, fearful of the big bad media backlash. The racists and the Howard descendents will bang on anyway. Nip their nonsense in the bud, by telling the Australian people the facts - give an Address to the Nation. That’s leadership, not this childish BS going on now. I think we have a damn cheek, to expect a poorer country than us take on our responsibilities. There are over 250 million people in Indonesia, as opposed to our 22 million. Countries in Europe have 100% and more people turning up on their doorstep, due largely, to our horrific acts of violence and killing in Afghanistan. Talk about damned cheek! We’re (with the coalition of the killing) who’ve helped render a couple of these countries to almost total destruction, and we won’t take responsiblity for it. Great messages of adult responsibility to our young people.
Register now to join the conversation instantly, or log in to post a comment now.