It’s easy to criticise Governments in a free democracy. Especially when it’s a Government that exists in your opposing worldview. Conservative, not conservative enough, left-leaning, not left-leaning enough.
But there’s an almighty difference between something you don’t agree with and just plain, phenomenally terrible policy.
This Government seems to have struck a lot of the latter, either by odds-destroying sheer bad luck or because it is genuinely abominable. Guess which one.
Yesterday the majority of the full bench of the highest court in the country – the High Court – found that the Federal Government’s asylum seeker ‘fix’, the Malaysia Solution, was unlawful. Illegal. It said the Immigration Minister Chris Bowen was the prime guardian of unaccompanied children who arrived in Australia as asylum seekers and that he, nor anyone in the Government, had the right or legal power to wax lyrical about how safe another country was if it hadn’t signed up to the United Nations Refugee Convention.
Where have we heard that before? Oh, from this very Government when they entered the last election and swore black and blue that it wouldn’t reinstate detention facilities at Nauru, which had previously been established by the Howard Government. Why? Because Nauru hadn’t signed up to the United Nations convention.
Give me strength.
Annabel Crabb, the first lady of fine commentary on these matters, sums it up nicely:
“It’s disastrous because having hoped to draw attention to the toughness of its new border protection policy, the Government has now effectively hung a lantern on its own problems.
It’s disastrous because rather than brutally curtailing the sense of crisis, the Government has fanned it with this failed policy.
But the most egregious aspect of today’s decision by the High Court is that it provides a new and crushing chapter in what has become a tale of rambling incompetence.
There is only so far the defence of ‘but they’re in a minority Government now and it’s much harder to govern’ will take you. It’s true, to an extent, with all the petty squabbles and piecing together a platform piece by legislative piece, never knowing where support will be on any given issue. But the Prime Minister knew this was a reflexive, divisive, dog whistle of a policy from the get-go and that’s unforgivable.
This isn’t the case of a solitary fumble. Everybody drops a catch once or twice. But this Government? It’s like they’re staring into the sun. Remember during the last Federal election when, starved of any asylum seeker policy, Ms Gillard said she’d open a regional processing centre on East Timor. Without even asking them first. The idea never survived.
Remember the Citizen’s Assembly to (eventually, one presumes) find a way to fight climate change? Ridiculous.
The Cash for Clunkers scheme? A policy with a membranous veneer of credibility. But not much more.
As always, it takes two to tango and our deficient Government has been in lock-step with the High Chieftan of Negative Tony Abbott and the Opposition. It’s a poisonous climate, an atmosphere filled with vile sloganeering and poor policy and alternative policies.
So now the Federal Government says it won’t rule anything in or out when it comes to its asylum seeker policy. They don’t have many options left, of course. It could change the Migration Act and relevant legislation but the Greens would never let it fly. You can’t appeal the High Court.
Of course, there’s always onshore processing. But the dog whistle rhetoric of the previous years would make that a supremely hard sell. Then there’s Nauru. Oh, wait.
What, can anybody tell me, does this Government stand for? And when, more to the point, are they going to stand up for it?
It is, above all else, embarrassing.
How would you address the asylum seeker policy question?
[poll id=”99″]
Top Comments
Rick, genuine question:
Why won't any major party support gay marriage? The large majority of Australia supports it, many feverently. Surely it could be a potential election winner for the party willing to go out on that limb. Right? Do we have a small but vocal and powerful religious lobby in Aus or something?? Why is it not in their political interests to support gay marriage?
Hello! Good question. It has quite a bit to do with the way the members of parliament are voted in. 60% might support gay marriage around the country, but they tend not to be where the swing sweats are which are the seats any side needs to win Government. So while something might have strong support generally, they need it to have strong support in these few seats otherwise it is a politically risky move.
Also, some of them really believe it's a terrible thing and they let personal preferences get in the way of policy.
Ok, I know I'll get shot for this, but I would hazard that the actual truth is that the reason it is not getting in is that despite what the media tells us, maybe most people DON'T actually support it. I would have used italics rather than shouty capitals in that last sentence but don't have the option, sorry!
Can I humbly ask where the 60% just quoted is from (genuine question)?
I'm not saying I'm for or against but I find that you don't have to look hard at all to find people (yes they are generally older but they don't have an exclusive belief system on this one - there are plenty of younger people who have the same belief) that do not want to see it happen.
I would humbly venture that, just maybe on this issue, it is actually the noisier minority that is pushing for it? Just maybe when people vote on this one (where they have the option of secret ballot and don't have to be concerned about what others will think of them) that they are actually not wanting this one to come in?
As I said, I am not saying it is right or wrong - I am just saying that I think its possible that there are actually people who are against it, but don't want to say so for fear of sounding homophobic as this is what they would be immediately painted as.
Okay, seeing as how I have said all of this and probably look like I am hiding something I will say that I would actually like to see a new name created for this relationship rather than using the word 'marriage'. One that signifies it is a life long commitment between two loving partners, that leaves the word 'marriage' to represent what it always did - a union between a man and a woman. I do not consider myself homophobic (even though I am sure that will be what several of the next shots at me will say), and would number my gay relatives and friends for you, except that that defence to me has always sounded kind of weak ("I'm not racist, I have two black friends...."). I just believe that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman, and I would love to see a creative new term come up with that signifies this special relationship when it is not between a man and a woman, but rather a woman and a woman, or a man and a man.
Ok, fire at will...!!
Just on the 60% figure, it's an average of the last few polls over past few years that all had support for gay marriage at more than 50%. Galaxy, Nielsen, Roy Morgan, you name them, all the big ones have found the same thing.
I have a headache and don't really have time to debate you on the rest except to say that calling it something else is not equal. That's the whole point of marriage 'equality'. And marriage over history has, in many cases, been about more than just between a man and woman so using 'tradition' as an argument is bunk.
I should add I do 100% support that committed gay couples should have the exact same rights as married couples (eg all the financial benefits, and recognition in important matters where a spouses wishes would be the most important ones) and believe that they should be able to make a lifelong recognised commitment. It is just using the word 'marriage' that I am just not sure I agree with. Maybe that's ignorant but it is in a similar way that I kind of like to say 'my husband' rather than just 'my partner' as it has now been watered down to be. I would like to see a new word come up with? Maybe that would remove the last of the opposition?
On this though, whilst I am very interested in further discussion on this (and am happy to be educated on this issue) I think it is somewhat of a crime that rather than talking about some very immediate issues like the carbon tax, climate change, etc, that we are being distracted by an issue which, while important, can probably wait a bit longer while the bigger issues are dealt with. I realise there will probably 'never' be a good time and we need to deal with it sometime - I just think the political situation is in a big mess in Aus at the moment and that we could maybe afford to put our country's house in order before moving on to individual ones, so to speak.
Great article. On one level it's sad that mamamia stands for more than the government. Is more articulate, intelligent and thought through, great for us! But concerning on a broader level.
Q and a is one of my favourite shows, but where it started as a forum for politicians to be more 'real' and conciliatory. It's a shame to see how quickly even that forum has descended. I am genuinely not one of those people that regularly complains about where 'my taxes!' are going. I pay $800 a fortnight in tax, a lot but a comparable drop in the ocean. Occasionally watching all this however, I think, you realise it's not actually your money and your country, and you are suppose to represent the people of Australia. Where is that happening? (I also think large sections of the media are equally responsible) it's not about your personal thoughts of those on the other side, or winning the papers for this day and this day alone. We have a great country but that is thanks to the culture and people, not the current crop of leaders.
I've been deeply impressed with Tony windsors cool head and ability to look at the big issues and take nothing personally. More could learn from him.
I think to virtually everyone the government now stands for nothing. They lost me on asylum seekers and the reinstatement of live exports.
I realise my grammar is usually poor. Typing on an iPhone is so tedious.