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 10:57 am@Oggy
Spot on.
More generally it looks like my prediction regarding the Coalition is right. This in the 00.
theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/tony-abbott-stalls-on-bid-to-legalise-malaysia-refugee-deal/story-fn9hm1gu-1226135463161
So it looks like human rights and The Greens are the winner as no legislation will get possessed.
Turn ball must be smiling in private.
Son of foro
September 13, 2011 at 11:10 am“Nauru 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?”
Putting aside the temptation to ask you about your comprehension studies at school for just one moment, in 2007 Department of Immigration officials informed a Senate estimates hearing that maintaining the facilities on Nauru cost about $2 million a month. Australia also paid ‘development’ money to Nauru as part of the deal, so that needs to be factored in as well. Reminds me again of how much you righties love spending other people’s money.
I take it your lack of response about the mental health issues indicates you accept the point – specific as requested – about the brutality of life at Nauru.
beachcomber
September 13, 2011 at 11:10 am“Abbott stays quiet..” That’s the only good feature of this debacle.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 11:12 amI reckon Abbott should allow the passing of the legislation with the requirement that TPV’s are reintroduced. Labor won’t be able to complain because none of their Malaysian Refugee’s will be applicable so assuming their 800 Boaties policy works which it won’t, they won’t ever need to hand out a single TPV.
If however their 800 Boaties policy fails, they will start having to use Manus Island which they keep telling us “won’t work”(well actually they say Nauru won’t work because it’s just another Australian processing centre, yet somehow Manus Is isn’t, LOL).
So Labor gets it’s Malaysian Solution to bungle, Abbott gets his TPV’s and everyones happy.
guytaur
September 13, 2011 at 11:12 amFor those interested.
ABC News 24. Is going to broadcast Carbon Tax introduction live at 12.
Unusual for them. Will finish for cross to Tim Flannery at 12:30
guytaur
September 13, 2011 at 11:22 amTTH
So far it looks like Abbott is going for block the legislation.
Every boat that comes will be laid at Abbott’s feet. The Greens and Labor left will cheer. The right will be well and truly wedged.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 11:28 am[“So far it looks like Abbott is going for block the legislation. “]
It’s introduced next week.
He won’t block it but will probably ask for amendments.
It’ll either be that the country has to be a signatory of the U.N refugee convention as Labor has been demanding for years, OR it’ll be what I said for the reintroduction of TPV’s for illegals processed in Australian detention centres(Manus Is and Nauru included).
Gillard won’t be able to complain about TPV’s being reintroduced because according to her Malaysia will stop the boats so we’ll never go over the 800, therefore no TPV will ever need be handed out.
Peter Ormonde
September 13, 2011 at 11:29 amWhy did the High Court find against offshore processing? Essentially because it is inhumane – it breaches our responsibilities as a nation to protect and assist those who seek our help.
So what’s our government’s solution: we’ll make it legal by changing the law.
Doesn’t make it humane though does it?
The blurb on “Aussie values” given to new migrants here is chock full of self-congratulatory smugness about our sympathy for the underdog and our commitment to a fair go. Better change that as well. Or put in a rider “except for this lot”.
Shameful, grubby stuff.
I look forward to watching the TV footage of unaccompanied kids being herded onto planes by guards and dogs. Let’s see how that affects the focus groups who seem to be running the country on this issue. Or will we just hide that away too… change the law to stop anyone watching.
Knack
September 13, 2011 at 11:43 amOK, stop using the words ‘illegal immigrants’, its not ‘illegal’ to try and enter Australia with out meeting the requirements of Section 166 of the Migration Act, its ‘unlawful’, there’s quite a difference, there’s no mention of the word ‘illegal’ in relation to the act of coming to Australia without a visa in the Migration ACT, its ‘unlawful’
Here’s a great explanation of the difference.
‘Illegal means “against or not authorized by law.” Unlawful means “contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law…while necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it.” (Black’s Law Dictionary) So, for example, you could unlawfully stay in your apartment after your lease is up (unlawful detainer) but that’s not a crime against the state, it’s a civil wrong (tort) against your landlord. If the landlord then took you to court and had you properly evicted, and you then returned to the premises, you might then be guilty of the crime of trespassing. Trespassing is illegal. See how easy?’
Its an emotive ploy to keep using the term ‘illegal’
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 11:52 am[“OK, stop using the words ‘illegal immigrants’, its not ‘illegal’ to try and enter Australia with out meeting the requirements of Section 166 of the Migration Act, its ‘unlawful’, there’s quite a difference, there’s no mention of the word ‘illegal’ in relation to the act of coming to Australia without a visa in the Migration ACT, its ‘unlawful’”]
Since 2001 boats arriving illegally are referred to as Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEV).
If the government says they are illegal boats, I can only assume they are illegal people.
Even ignoring that point, I find their methods of jumping the queue and forcing the hand of Australia to process them first(stuff anyone else, I’ve got money!) to offend my morals and values as does it to a lot of Australians.