Prime Minister Julia Gillard convinced her Labor caucus to back changes to the Migration Act in order to legalise the Malaysia refugee swap, but will Tony Abbott support them?
The Coalition has long promised to re-open processing of asylum seekers in Nauru if it won government. But the recent High Court decision questioned the legality of any offshore processing, including Nauru and Malaysia.
Gillard’s argument is that changes to the migration legislation will help any future government, not just her own. “I am not asking Tony Abbott to give me any more power as Prime Minister than he would seek for himself if he were ever prime minister,” said Gillard.
So far Abbott isn’t giving too much away, only saying that he wouldn’t make a decision until he saw the legislation. Although he — unsurprisingly — remains vocal against Gillard’s Malaysia plan: “Only the combination of Nauru, the re-introduction of temporary protection visas and a willingness to turn boats around, where it is safe to do so, will stop the boats.”
But which way will he vote? Will he support Gillard’s legislation or demand further amendments? Let the speculation begin.
“… the future of Australia’s border protection rests with Tony Abbott,” write Simon Benson and Alison Rehn in The Daily Telegraph. It’s not just Abbott feeling the pressure, “Julia Gillard’s hopes of reviving the Malaysia plan are hanging by a thread ..,” reports Phillip Coorey in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Abbott — and the Coalition’s — worst nightmare would be Labor dumping Gillard and the carbon tax, writes Niki Savva in The Australian: “Abbott’s second-worst nightmare has to be Gillard striking a workable, humane policy on asylum seekers, which stops the boats, secures the support of Left and Right, and does it without his help. In all our dreams, most likely.”
Gillard is trying to shy away from the spotlight and shine it on Abbott now, says Phillip Hudson in the Herald Sun:
“After a rough first year, Gillard needs a victory on this issue and is framing it as a test for Abbott, saying he can’t just be the leader of a protest party. She wants him to give in to her in their battle of wills.
In a press conference yesterday the PM mentioned Abbott 24 times and people smugglers just five.”
Abbott needs to back the changes, because it’s critical that our government has these powers, declares The Australian‘s editorial:
“Labor is wrong to rule out Nauru, just as Mr Abbott should not rule out Malaysia. For the moment, however, the more pressing issue for politicians is not the specific location of any centres, but ensuring the executive government — whatever its political stripe — alone decides Australia’s policy on managing asylum seekers.”
“How did the Liberals get into this mess?” asks Paul Kelly in The Australian, where he argues that Abbott needs to rethink his move to block the Malaysia option simply so Gillard doesn’t get a win. “Contrary to popular opinion, this is not smart politics. Abbott is now attacking Gillard from the Left. This will hopelessly compromise his boat-people message,” writes Kelly.
43 thoughts on “Abbott stays quiet on refugee policy”
guytaur
September 13, 2011 at 9:37 amAbbotts response is going to be extremely interesting. It will come down to a decision on legal advice on Nauru to the Coalition and if Abbott thinks voting no to the Government legislation can be politically defended.
It is as sure as night follows day that the Gillard Government will blame every boat arrival on Tony Abbott if he does vote no. So he has to be sure of his political ground. Otherwise he cedes the whole tough on “illegal immigrants” to Gillard and Bowen.
I predict he will vote no. Citing Nauru as effective reflecting what he thinks is the legal advice he has. I predict this just from the response in public so far especially question time.
I think for the Coalition this is wrong. Just as the Government is most likely going to find its legislation is wrong and will be overturned in the High Court. I say this on the basis you cannot argue the best interest of the child and ship them off to a third country without watertight protections against practices known to have occurred in the past like caning.
Watch that case on the Indonesians fighting their arrest on the basis they aiding refugees and thus are not people smugglers.
Are these people refugees. Are they illegal immigrants. In both cases what human rights do they have?
What the High Court will decide I do no know as I am not a lawyer though it seems plenty of those got it wrong last time.
What I do know is that Australians want our government to respect human rights.
How far can the major parties go in their unholy alliance against human rights before votes shift in a major way to the party upholding human rights, the Greens.
The whole issue it seems will be crystallised by the treatment of unaccompanied children. Just one child coming to grief will be political poison to the major parties in this.
oggy
September 13, 2011 at 9:41 amAs mentioned on another thread the Govt’s options are “Stop the Boats” as per Abbott although using Malaysia,or “Onshore Processing”which will appease many especially if they ramp up the numbers from the UNHCR in Malaysia and stop the boats by offering hope to the people there.Either option will eventually stop loss of life on perilous sea voyages.Only the rabid right wing want Nauru and this can only happen if Abbott becomes PM,this may get some of the swing voters to think differently about the options.
oggy
September 13, 2011 at 9:48 am@Guytaur agree, also the Malaysian Govt want this to work for the obvious reasons so will probably be vigilant to that end.Finally the Gov’t on the front foot, at least for now.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 9:52 am[“Abbotts response is going to be extremely interesting. It will come down to a decision on legal advice on Nauru to the Coalition and if Abbott thinks voting no to the Government legislation can be politically defended.”]
I’ve covered this already, all he needs to do is agree to the proposals in full for UN Refugee Signatory countries only.
It’s the perfect wedge. And when Labor and it’s lackeys whine Abbott can say “look how inhumane these guys are, they want to send them to non-signatory countries!”.
Then he can quote various Rudd and Gillard ministers, including Gillard herself that said Australia will only send boatpeople to Refugee Signatory countries(when they were trying to float the East Timor Solution bungle).
Ah yes… the perfect wedge….
Andrew McIntosh
September 13, 2011 at 9:53 am“Abbott is now attacking Gillard from the Left” – a remark that shows how pathetically one dimensional the entire debate has been. The only way things could get more to the Right is if the proposal to block all refugees is raised and that’s just a stone’s throw away at this rate.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 9:55 am[“Only the rabid right wing want Nauru and this can only happen if Abbott becomes PM,this may get some of the swing voters to think differently about the options.”]
Whats wrong with Nauru and be specific.
Do people get canned on Nauru? Nope.
Are people left to fend for themselves on the streets of Nauru? Nope
Oh thats right… Howard did it, so the lefties aren’t interested in reality on the ground you just don’t like the “word” Nauru.
Don’t you worry your little head about it though, if Labor is allowed to use Malaysia I simply can’t WAIT until Four Corners rocks up with their video cameras of unaccompanied kids sent by Gillard working the streets of Kuala Lumpa trying to make a living.
It’ll be “just another Labor stuffup”
Son of foro
September 13, 2011 at 10:07 am“After his departure the situation only grew worse: numerous organisations including Oxfam and the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists reported high levels of mental illness and the lack of mental health services for detainees on Nauru. I personally noted significant psychiatric symptoms among women I cared for. When Senator Amanda Vanstone finally closed the camp in 2005 it was because of the deteriorating mental health of remaining detainees.
“However for those among the Australian population unconcerned about the mental health of people locked up by our government, there are also multiple financial reasons for not reopening the Nauru camps.
“Nauru (population about 12,000, that is, half that of Broken Hill) is a dot in the Pacific some 21 kilometres square; 80% of this has been mined for phosphate and is uninhabitable. Topside was hastily built on a shadeless rubbish dump at the top of the island; only a few decayed dongas now remain. There is very little infrastructure on Nauru: everything must be brought at great cost from Australia to build and maintain a detention centre, feed, clothe and shelter the inmates. An unreliable water supply depends on one ageing desalination plant (run on diesel shipped from Australia) — even water may need to be transported to the island for potential detainees.”
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 10:22 amNauru was cheaper because there was only 4 people on Nauru when it was closed by Rudd.
4 People even in remote detention is cheaper than 7000 on the mainland.
Did you do maths at school per chance?
oggy
September 13, 2011 at 10:38 amAll the indicators to this point say Labor will not go to Nauru but will use Manus if the need arises.
@TTH Son of Foro covers most of your points however this needs a comment
“Don’t you worry your little head about it though, if Labor is allowed to use Malaysia I simply can’t WAIT until Four Corners rocks up with their video cameras of unaccompanied kids sent by Gillard working the streets of Kuala Lumpa trying to make a living.”
You seem excited at the prospect of any suffering that may ensue,I find this quite disgusting.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 10:55 am[“You seem excited at the prospect of any suffering that may ensue,I find this quite disgusting.”]
No just it’s obvious what going to happen yet Labor and it’s hacks continue down the path of predictability and stupidity.
Then when it happens you will be all “oh gee, how could this happen?!?”
Do Labor EVER think anything through? Honestly?