|
Issue No. 140 | 14 June 2002 |
Abbott's Rule of Law
Interview: Party Girl Unions: Touch One, Touch All Industrial: Condition Critical International: Innocence Lost History: Strange Bedfellows Organising: Just Say No Review: Choosing Life Beneath The Clouds Poetry: Did We Make a Big Mistake
Building Workers Gagged By Commission Combet Drives Car Industry Summit Green Ban Protects Aussie Timber Jobs Della Picks Up Manslaughter Baton Billions Of Reasons For Reasonable Hours Swans in Dark as Lights Go Out Workplace Wishes Walked All Over Campaign Steps Up To Stop Child Labor
The Soapbox The Dressing Room The Locker Room Week in Review Bosswatch
Due Credit Tom's Foolery More Latham More Tom
Labor Council of NSW |
Letters to the Editor Due Credit
Last week, I sent in a letter which you titled "our home is girt by wire". In the letter I wrote, not attributed to me, I suggested that the current policy consensus on refugees was unacceptable with regards to the values that ought to sustain our way of life. What I forgot to point out was that if one was to take the position that refugees should not be allowed to come to Australia from "transit countries" (so that we can break the people smugglers' trade), the natural alternative is that you must ensure that the UNHCR is properly funded in the countries of "first asylum". Leaving aside that there is not one signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees (or the Protocol) between Afghanistan and Australia, at least you'd think the "hard" border protectionists would want to ensure that the "queue" was properly functional. This, unfortunately, is simply not the case, leaving the question open as to whether the Howard Government wants to accept refugees at all, even if they do "wait in line". So the fabric of the policy orthodoxy is unravelling. This is unfortunate. I have recently been party to some advice on our internal polling from certain MPs. It has apparently been found that the Liberals are capable of stringing another four election victories together solely on the issue of refugees. This has become the new "Vietnam" for us. Despite the resolve of the state branches, it is unlikely that a policy will be presented to the electorate that is radically different to the Howard position. The FPLP will not adopt the Labor for Refugees charter. Equally, it is not foreseeable that a split will occur in the party over the issue. And whether we like to admit it or not, we simply would not have a substantial number of members in Parliament if we had done anything but follow the Howard Government on the issue - sad, but true. I voted for Kim Beazley, but I did so (as did many other party members) knowing that our position on asylum seekers was shambolic. The best thing Simon Crean could do on this issue is to address the concerns of the UNHCR. At the very least it should be recognised that if you accept the current criteria of the debate, you have to fill the holes. Whilst I agree with a substantial part of the Labor for Refugees platform, whether we like it or not we are stuck with the concept of "overseas processing". At least we should propose funding this process accordingly. Secondly, there has not been enough rational debate regarding our allotted intake. John Howard said that the current figure of 12,000 per year was "correct", a strange Orwellian slip during the election campaign. The Democrats have made noises about increasing the rate by 4 or 5,000. Surely we might like to consider doubling our intake? Overall, if we accept the terms of debate (as is likely) and maintain the status quo of cracking down on refugees who move through "transit countries" and thus maintaining a "queue", the least the FPLP could do to regain our damaged pride is to advocate ways of co-operating properly with the UNHCR, ensuring it can run it's operations in an orderly manner. Further, it is also worth considering increasing our intake from the low figure of 12,000 per year, to something far more substantial. If the electorate wishes to maintain a regime of "border protection" (as is the cold reality), the least we can do is work around this to find more humane solutions to the status quo. It is disappointing that the Liberals have chosen, for the sake of electoral advantage, to completely throw rational and sensible policy-making out the window, fanning the flames of hysteria. I will stop short of using the word "racist" (as many people have been doing) simply because labelling the coalition "racist" is exactly what they want us to do (remember the 1996 "for all of us" campaign?). It will take time before Labor is able to re-inject some common sense into the debate, but I cannot see anything occur beyond a gradual process of working around the terms of debate, advocating some sensible changes, with the long term view of shifting public opinion. It is only then that we can start addressing some of the more adventurous, but favourable, ideas regarding the reform of Mandatory Detention. Let's try to unravel public faith in the orthodoxy, and with time, we may be able to win people over with a sensible platform for government. Steve Murray Edwards Ed's Reply: Apologies for not attributing this week. The letters is an arduous chaore completed minutes before deadline by a flagging ed ....
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|