tip off

The Rudd Solution passes political test, but can it pass policy test?

Kevin Rudd’s PNG agreement on asylum seekers has so far worked politically, but whether it stops boat arrivals will become clearer soon. Will this pass the policy test?

The first test of Kevin Rudd’s avowed “hardline” asylum seeker stance (for which he “made no apologies”, in case anyone was wondering if he was tempted to do so) was held on Friday evening, and it passed with flying colours. The Seven and Nine networks’ Sydney news bulletins — total local audience just under 700,000 — delivered the “no asylum seekers arriving by boat will be settled in Australia” message. Nine carried Greens Senators Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young criticising the plan. Exactly what Labor would have wanted. Asylum seekers rioting on Nauru wouldn’t have hurt either.

The deal, announced on Friday afternoon, is for the Papua New Guinea government to resettle all maritime arrivals who arrive in Australia and are assessed as genuine refugees. There would be no chance for anyone who arrives by boat henceforth to be resettled in Australia. In return, Australia gives more aid to PNG.

The second test for the Rudd Solution came with the opposition’s reaction, and it passed again. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott initially backed the PNG agreement, but said Rudd couldn’t be trusted to deliver it; by the weekend the opposition was trying to unpick it, and criticising the ads that had suddenly bloomed in the nation’s media, ostensibly aimed at the “asylum seeker diaspora” here, but in reality aimed at marginal seat voters.

A characteristic — a puzzling one, given how long they had to prepare — of the opposition since Kevin Rudd returned has been an inability to maintain a consistent line of attack, one that addresses the specifics of a particular issue while linking to the opposition’s broader theme of what is wrong with Labor. At the moment, the specific attacks are all over the place and the broader theme is missing. Indeed, the opposition looks rattled, and so does Abbott, who keeps producing malapropisms. Last week he mysteriously spoke about Rudd “massaging the boats”.

Meantime, the Left marched, and issued condemnatory media releases, and pointed out what a terrible country PNG is, and called on the government to “let them all come”, all, again, exactly what Labor will want to demonstrate to swinging voters in metropolitan marginals that, finally, it has got the message on asylum seekers and is going to be more “hardline” than ever.

The agreement may well drive a couple of percentage points from Labor’s Left flank back to the Greens, whose vote has been slowly but consistently deflating since former leader Bob Brown handed over to Christine Milne, but that vote will simply flow back to Labor in nearly all of the 150 House of Reps seats, unless progressives decide to vote informal or preference the Coalition. Such straitjacketing is the great gift of compulsory voting and compulsory preferential voting for the major parties, albeit one on which compulsory voting advocates are peculiarly silent.

If the Rudd Solution does work, it will mark a substantial step for Labor in neutering something that … has been electoral poison for over a decade.”

Whether the “hardline” stops people getting in boats and actually stops people dying, however, is a test that remains ahead.

By purporting to shut the door on all boat arrivals from this point, the government is looking to address the basic flaw in both the Howard and Gillard governments’ versions of the Pacific Solution, that asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat might be transferred for processing to an offshore facility, but they ultimately remained Australia’s responsibility and would have to eventually be resettled in Australia unless another country accepted them.

The Gillard government’s “Malaysian Solution” avoided this problem by consigning a small number of boat arrivals to Malaysia. After the Malaysian deal was struck down, the Gillard government tried to ameliorate the central flaw of the Pacific Solution by condemning people sent to Nauru to years of uncertainty, in the hope that would appear worse than the limbo of being in a refugee camp.

Merely to describe the strategy is to realise how (a) brutal and (b) ineffective it was always going to be.

PNG is the new, improved Malaysian Solution, open-ended and a significantly less appealing a destination than Malaysia, even if asylum seekers found to be refugees will have full rights there.

After the announcement of the Malaysian Solution, boat arrivals dipped significantly, but that also coincided with a fall in global and regional numbers of asylum seekers from the highs of 2010; it was thus hard to distinguish the push and pull factors in establishing whether the prospect of automatically being transferred to a third country is a significant deterrent for asylum seekers desperate to reach Australia by boat.

However, we’ll know before even an early election whether this works. Every boat arrival henceforth will be a test of what impact the announcement has had on asylum seekers. It’s also likely to be challenged by refugee advocates. The history of legal challenges to the government’s treatment of asylum seekers suggests successful challenges only ever usher in more draconian policies, never more humanitarian ones. Successful court challenges in the 1990s by Chinese and Cambodian illegal immigrants seeking to game the asylum system led to the establishment first of specialist tribunals and, eventually, measures to prevent appeals altogether. The successful challenge to the Malaysian agreement ushered in a new Pacific Solution and this latest policy.

That gloomy history is unlikely to deter refugee advocates from going to court, but a defeat of this agreement will likely see still more hardline policies, possibly from a Coalition government, designed to sate the electorate’s loathing of maritime arrivals and prevent Australia’s entire humanitarian program from becoming self-selected by people with the resources to get in a boat from Indonesia.

If the Rudd Solution does work, it will mark a substantial step for Labor in neutering something that, in spite of its lack of wider economic and social significance, has been electoral poison for it for over a decade. If it doesn’t, it will be another in a long line of failed Labor policies on the issue.

27
  • 1
    Xoanon
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    No idea why you suggest that compulsory preferential voting might be a problem. It allows Greens voters to cast votes which either actually elect Greens MHRs and Senators, or failing that help choose which other party will be able to form government - and of course most Greens voters would prefer the ALP in government over the Coalition.

    It’s only a possible problem for parties trying to squeeze deals from How to Vote cards. Easy solution: ban such cards, and allow voters to preference the individual party lists above the line on the Senate paper.

  • 2
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think asylum seekers arriving by boat is a problem for Australia. But maybe the Rudd solution would be better than the Coalition’s next move, which seems to be withdrawing from the Refugee Convention.

    Optional preferential voting, in Queensland for example, tends to turn the electoral system into first past the post, which may or may not be problematic depending on one’s view.

  • 3
    Keith1
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Such straitjacketing is the great gift of compulsory voting and compulsory preferential voting for the major parties, albeit one on which compulsory voting advocates are peculiarly silent.” I agree with Xoanon. What’s the problem? Compulsory voting, including compulsory preferential voting, makes it harder for the individual to leave the decision up to the rest of society without conscious thought. It is no surprise that most people, confronted by that conscious decision, decide to have a say (i.e. register a valid vote). Arguments for optional voting depend on the (often unstated) view that some votes, and some voters, are more valuable than others. I’d rather citizens attended the polling booth than stay away, even if some of them toss a coin. How they make their decision is, in the end, their (democratic) business.

  • 4
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    You are revolting Bernard, you reduce everything to same ignorant rant as Andrew Bolt and think you are a clever clogs.

    Too much Canberra kool aide and not one thought for human beings or law.

    We will not stop anyone from dying, 20,000 kids a day are dying of starvation and we cut foreign aid to make the die a bit quicker.

    Crikey has gone the way of Fairfax and become a redundant dodo.

  • 5
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    The opposition will not withdraw from the convention, but Rudd has already effectively decided we will.

  • 6
    mikeb
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    I expect true asylum seekers won’t be deterred because they will presumably end up and supported in a safe environment. Economic refugees will certainly be disappointed so it will be interesting to see what does happen with boat arrival numbers once the message crosses into Indonesia & surrounds.

  • 7
    Bo Gainsbourg
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    The fig leaf Labor is using to cover this lurch is that of avoiding the tragedy of the drownings we have seen. Then accusing anyone who disagrees of being unrealistic and lacking compassion (read the Greens). Never mind that Labor got to this policy point b/c of focus groups, polling and the race to the bottom rather than concern for refugees, or that there is no conceivable way the response would be the same should the refugees be ‘white’. As suggested this morning on AM by a professor of law, different visa arrangements and processing of refugees in Indonesia has at least as good a chance of avoiding drownings as this policy. The fact that it has never been raised, and only crueler treatment of refugees has been posited, tells you everything. The major parties should spare us the false claims that its compassion driving this response.

  • 8
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Indeed, the piece on Radio National’s Breakfast program on 22 July was excellent. It was by James C Hathaway, the James E and Sarah A Degan Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, as well as Distinguished Visiting Professor of International Refugee Law at the University of Amsterdam and Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne Law School.

    James Bourne’s report of the interview ‘PNG asylum deal could be in breach of UN convention’ is on Radio National’s web site.

  • 9
    Bronwyn
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad to see some analysis of this as a policy rather than a vote-winner, but I’m still not sure this goes far enough.

    If we suspend disbelief for a minute and accept that the policy intention is to prevent deaths at sea, then I suppose it’s arguable that - all other things being equal - fewer boats in the next few weeks will be a measure of whether the policy “works”, but it can never be a “success” if that outcome could be achieved in other, better, ways.

    Still nothing will be done more address the reasons people feel the need to risk their lives at sea - the underlying assumption continuing to be that people simply want to get to Australia at all costs. Nothing will be done to improve the prospect for refugees to be resettled through the alleged “proper channels” (a really ridiculous term in the context of people fleeing war and persecution ). Nothing will be done to address he problem of refugees sitting for years in Indonesia awaiting resettlement. And what will happen to the West Papuans already seeking refuge in PNG?

    I think the only lives this will save is the political lives of some politicians.

  • 10
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Why on earth we couldn’t simply let refugees stuck in limbo in Indonesia come here beats me, why do we have to go into human trafficking bullshit.

  • 11
    Daveo11
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    While a compassionate solution regarding irregular maritime arrivals in concert with our UNHCR obligations has never been seriously considered by either major political party for too many years, perhaps thousands of innocent refugees have perished in their effort to enter Australia. This tragedy may have finally hammered the conscience of most Australians

    Initially, Labor’s PNG solution was a jaw-dropper. On further reflection, however, if it can be successfully instigated and enforced, it could dramatically slow the abominations of people smuggling and deaths at sea. It would seem that the only people risking the uncertain boat journey would be those who believe that asylum in PNG is preferable to staying in Indonesian refugee camps. It is uncertain how many would make this decision. Obviously, the fewer the better. It will be devastating for anyone who didn’t get the message and ends up in PNG instead of Australia or dies in the attempt, but that may be the least of many evils.

    Whichever political party is prepared to put humanity before politics, increase support of the UNHCR efforts in our region and significantly raise the number of asylum seekers to be assessed then settled in Australia, if found eligible, deserves our support in the upcoming election.

  • 12
    Ian
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    So it’s all about deaths at sea, Dave11, is it? That is crap and you should know it. It took me about 10 years living in this country to begin to realize what a cruel, inhumane society our governments have spawned.

    It is not only their vile attitude to refugees that gives the game away but their foreign policy in support of US wars and genocidal governments in Israel and previously Indonesia under Suharto.

  • 13
    Keith Thomas
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Together with the agreement with Indonesia the new agreement with Papua New Guinea is the best of a bad bunch.

    I don’t think it will last more than 2 or 3 years in its present form. And I don’t think either Rudd or O’Neil think it will either - hence the decision to review it every 12 months. Much of the criticism is based on the incorrect assumption that the PNG solution is meant to last forever.

    It is good for another reason: because it engages Australia more publicly and more broadly with PNG through our involvement in PNG’s higher education sector and Lae hospital.

    After 2-3 years, the situation - and attitudes globally - will shift and become clearer on:

    • what responsibility we should take for Muslims fleeing Muslims terrorising each other

    • just how dangerous the threat from internal jihadists and sharia advocates/activists is to Australia

    • the atavistic/sociopathic criminality among the communities of recent immigrants

    • the environmental implications of our present population under the effects of climate change.

    When that global shift occurs and clarity comes - as I believe is inevitable - Australia will be able to be more decisive, with a more effective border defence, an ecologically sustainable immigration policy, a socially sustainable refugee admission policy (firmly within an ecologically sustainable immigration/population policy) and sending all Muslim refugees to Muslim countries.

  • 14
    Andybob
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Sending people to New Guinea doesn’t sound like protection to me. We promised to protect people looking for safety. I haven’t heard a convincing reason why we shouldn’t do that.

  • 15
    AR
    Posted Monday, 22 July 2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    I almost puked when I heard Krudd & Burke refer to ‘Budget neutral’ when referring to treating humans as a political problems.
    What has happened to this country & when? Did the Rodent create it when he absorbed the Hansonites? Did he nurture it with the SAS boarding the Tampa? Did Bumbler Beazley enable him with his gutless ‘mee-tooism’?
    Or did we, the electorate, acquiesce,reluctantly or eagerly, as did the 70% of Germans who didn’t vote for the National Socialists in 1933, in 2004 when Truth Overboard was fully documented?
    And again in 2007 when Krudd promised/assured/threaten us that he was Rodent-Lite, with slightly more hair & fewer scruples?
    Poor Bugger, my Country.

  • 16
    geomac62
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    AR
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

  • 17
    CML
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    According to Senator Kim Carr on ABC Lateline tonight, the government has intelligence information that some 50,000 people are being, or have been, targeted by people smugglers offering to take them to Australia and permanent settlement here in the next little while. Clearly this would be a disaster for our country, and makes evident the reasons for the so-called ‘hardline’ policy involving PNG.
    It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the radical elements in the refugee advocate cohort that the people smugglers, and their agents, are recruiting boat-people all over the world. There have been several reports that this is the case in Iran and Vietnam, where the asylum seeker numbers have skyrocketed this year - 7,000+ boat people from each of these countries. While neither country is a bastion of human rights, what has changed there to suddenly produce this number of ‘refugees’? Let’s face it, the whole people smuggling business is a criminal racket, and I believe that Bob Carr is correct. These people are mostly economic refugees.
    I hope this new policy from Labor works, so we can take the 20,000+ refugees/year, who have no money and are currently in camps around our region with no hope of ever getting on a boat. Funny how the refugee advocates’ only answer to their plight is to quote THE LAW at everyone. Seems the law only applies to those who have the money to get on a boat. Not good enough!!

  • 18
    Malcolm Street
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    PNG as a safe destination? Best (sick) joke of the week.

    AR - excellent post. For me it was when Beazley went along.

  • 19
    Andybob
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    This article sets out recent data regarding asylum seekers without spin, which is an unfamiliar experience:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers

    @ CML. What is the source of your claim that Iran and Vietnam each contributed 7,000 boat people last year ? I can’t see that in this data.

  • 20
    pritu
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Until I see either party doing something meaningful about visa over-stayers who come by air I’ll continue to say a pox on any party that panders to the racists by using all manner of ploys to cover their behinds.

  • 21
    Bob the builder
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Two points: -

    1) This all started 21 years ago when Keating Labor introduced mandatory detention and continued when two years later they scrapped the 273 day limit on detention. From there on it’s been a contest of ‘toughness’ against the most vulnerable of our fellow humans.

    2) The reason people come on ‘leaky boats’ is because of the Australian policy of seizing and destroying vessels carrying asylum seekers. Merely discontinuing this practice would save more lives than anything else as the Asian Schindlers would use better-quality vessels.

  • 22
    simpletext
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Pass the policy test?

    Sadly, in Australia today, to get favourable news coverage or opinion pieces written on any government action, effectively means its good policy

  • 23
    Sirro
    Posted Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Rudd’s leap to the right on Friday has effectively assured a landslide to the coalition. I believe that the vast majority of voters whether of the left, centre or right know deep down that Rudd has no real substance to him and is simply a populist. I also firmly believe that a vast majority of voters deep down abhor the idea of sending anyone to be settled permanently in PNG. Not only because its a third world country where they’ll undoubtedly be poorly treated. But also because it will cause problems for the local populace. This is a complete disaster waiting to happen. The fact that the leaders of the Labor left (Albanese, Cameron, Plibersek) are happily supporting Rudd on this is clear proof that they have zero principal. I’m sad to say its only the Greens with their usual crazy ideas who have maintained a moral and ethical stance.

  • 24
    Ian
    Posted Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    Sirro,

    Greens with crazy ideas? Please back this wild statement up with some substance.

  • 25
    Andrew Johnson
    Posted Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been watching this debate for years now and watched the argument for stopping the boats morph from, “well decide who comes here and under what circumstances”(clearly aimed at the rednecks)to the poor people are dying (have to change the argument because the first is clearly racist but these pricks are still not coming).
    It seems to me that if a person of their own free will decides to take a boat from Indo to Oz then they accept the risks.
    If that boat is unseaworthy when it leaves Indo then that is an issue from the relevant Indo authorities and all Oz can do is pressure those authorities to make change.
    If that boat then runs into trouble, then Oz should help in exactly the same way as it would if it was not a asylum boat from Indo.
    If the closest country won’t take these ship wreck victims because they’re assholes, then Oz should continue to help these people because were not assholes.
    If they claim asylum then so be it and we process them in a humane way and in accordance with the relevant conventions we are a signatory to.
    Smashing the people smugglers business model is crap. If they are in Indo then we should pressure Indo to do something. Punishing the people because of people smugglers makes as much sense as punishing the child because of child molesters.

  • 26
    Ian
    Posted Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, we’ve got a new war on our hands in addition to the war on terror, the drug war the cyber war, the war on whistle-blowers we now can add Australia’s very own manufactured war on people smugglers. Hooray, hooray. Something to really get our teeth into like good little Aussies should.

    We need more F16’s our navy is not enough.

  • 27
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    AndrewJ - beautifully put.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...