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”
Son of foro
September 13, 2011 at 2:00 pmWaiting for The Strewth Nurks to admit a mistake is like waiting for Tony Abbott to take a consistent approach to … well, anything.
Today’s Exhibit A: Ask for evidence about Nauru; get provided with facts about mental health and the high cost of maintaining Nauru; ignore said facts and keep stumbling down the road like an Irish poet after a big weekend on the black stuff.
He’s fun to play with but best not to take too seriously. Bit like that Tony Abbott again …
beachcomber
September 13, 2011 at 2:28 pm@Thetruthhurts, the ALP vote is collapsing so far that the Greens will get elected in the House of Reps in several seats at the next election.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm[“Now another poster has pointed out your error. Can you acknowledge that you were mistaken? Will you admit that the whole basis of your “illegal” argument is out the window because you simply had your facts wrong?”]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspected_Illegal_Entry_Vessel
What you need to do now is admit you were mistaken and that YOU got the facts wrong.
It is very often that leftwing talking points just aren’t the reality. Since 2001 boats have been referred to as Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels. The Labor Government have tried to play silly buggers with the words and put “Irregular” instead of “Illegal” like the boaties have an All-Bran deficiency problem, but the Navy still refers to them as Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels to this day.
guytaur
September 13, 2011 at 2:38 pmFor all right wing idiots.
Labor Party Platform states processing of refugees will be on shore.
The Government is going directly opposite that ruling.
The NSW government did the same with privatisation.
We all saw the resukts.
On a Federal level the Greens will profit. So will your Coalition.
It is very strange this behaviour of labor in committing electoral suicide.
Knack
September 13, 2011 at 2:49 pmTTH,
as stated before, thats the vessel your referring to not the people in it, and arrival with out a visa or documents is ‘unlawful’ not illegal.
TheTruthHurts
September 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm[“as stated before, thats the vessel your referring to not the people in it, and arrival with out a visa or documents is ‘unlawful’ not illegal.”]
And I haven’t disagreed with this…
However to say boatpeople are not illegal, despite arriving on illegal vessels… despite being deemed “unlawful” by Australian Immigration Laws is a long stretch by the left.
Even if you don’t like the word, the reality is that illegal is probably the most appropriate. It is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, but it is illegal to just rock up willy-nilly without any Visa.
Why is it the left refer to those “pommy visa overstayers”(majority of Visa overstayers are actually Chinese, never let facts get in the way of a good white bash though) as Illegals, but ones on boats aren’t?
Peter Ormonde
September 13, 2011 at 3:10 pmNot wanting to get into a slanging match with Troofie so here are some facts for others who are actually interested in the legal status of boat arrivals (the source is the Parliamentary Library, Canberra) … don’t worry Troofie, I don’t expect you to understand … glad to see tour grammar and punctuation has improved – overnight apparently:
”Generally speaking ‘illegal immigrants’ are people who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements for entry (without a valid visa, for example). However, under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum and the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on those entering ‘illegally’ who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.[7]
The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not be labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’ as the very nature of persecution means that their only means of escape may be via illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation.[8] The Refugee Council of Australia similarly notes the practical difficulties encountered by asylum seekers in obtaining the requisite documentation prior to departure:
Applying for a passport and/or an exit visa can be far too dangerous for some refugees; so too can be an approach to an Australian Embassy for a visa. These actions can put their lives, and those of their families, at risk. In such cases refugees may have to travel on forged documents or bypass regular migration channels and arrive without papers.[9]
Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’ does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.[10]
The confusion about legal status arises from those arriving by boat doing so without a valid visa or any other appropriate authorisation, whereas most, though not all, who arrive by air and then seek asylum, usually enter on a valid visa. Currently, when unauthorised boat arrivals are intercepted in Australian waters, the passengers are transferred to Christmas Island in order to establish their reasons for attempting to enter Australia without authority. If a government official determines that an individual is raising claims which may engage Australia’s protection obligations, the asylum seeker will be assessed under the Protection Obligations Determination (POD) process in place on Christmas Island.[11]
The majority of people arriving by boat claim asylum although a few may not (these are usually crew members). The preferred terms for boat arrivals as used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) are ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ or ‘irregular maritime arrivals’ and, as noted above, people arriving by such means who then claim asylum are entitled to do so.
The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers.[12] As at 30 June 2010, it was estimated that there were about 53 900 visa overstayers residing in Australia.[13]
In Europe, the term ‘illegal’ is more appropriately used to describe visa overstayers or those working in breach of their visa conditions.[14] However, the terms ‘illegals’, ‘irregular migrants’ and ‘irregular residents’ are commonly used interchangeably in Europe and may also refer to those arriving without authorisation. As Europe has much more porous and less geographically isolated borders, it is almost impossible to monitor the exact numbers, but it is estimated that about 500 000 ‘irregular’ migrants or residents (including visa overstayers, people working in breach of their visa conditions and those who go on to claim asylum after arrival) are apprehended each year.[15]
Globally, the International Office for Migration (IOM) estimates that there are roughly 20 to 30 million unauthorised or ‘irregular migrants’ worldwide, comprising around 10 to 15 per cent of the world’s immigrant stock.[16] By ‘irregular migrants’ the IOM means both those who arrive in a country ‘undocumented’ and those ‘who enter the host country legally with tourist documents, but later violate their conditions of entry by taking a job’
SBH
September 13, 2011 at 3:35 pmOh Truthie, it’s not a long stretch by the left, it’s what the High Court said. There can be only to reasons why you keep making this basic mistake. You’re either too stupid to read and understand Gummow J or your a liar.
I’m put in mind of Otto from a ‘Fish called Wanda’
Otto: Don’t call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
Unlawful does not equal illegal – it’s a mistake truthie, I looked it up
SBH
September 13, 2011 at 3:36 pm‘two’
SBH
September 13, 2011 at 3:50 pmKnack, that’s a good question but if you come from Afghanistan or Iraq and head this way the countries which are signatories to the convention are Australia, Cambodia, the Phillipnes, New Guinea and New Zealand. Most people head the other way of course.
And of course ‘you’re’