ALP MPs to vote to change law so they can deport children without caring about what happens to them

Does anyone really join the ALP planning to pass legislation specifically so they can deport children to countries with no refugee protections without having to consider the child’s interests at all?

Staring down her critics in caucus, the Prime Minister announced the government would bring in amendments to give the Immigration Minister discretion to send asylum seekers for offshore processing.

This would restore the government’s power to what it was assumed to be before the High Court struck down the Malaysia deal. A separate change would also ensure the minister could send children offshore without having to establish this was in their best interests.

Does anyone who’d vote for such legislation deserve to be in a party with the platform the ALP claims to have? You know, one that claims to care about human rights. One that specifically claims “protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory”.


Jon Kudelka’s magnificently biting cartoon in The Australian

And is anyone impressed by Chris Bowen’s attempt to blame his treating minors with contempt on their parents allegedly having done it first?

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said unaccompanied minors presented ”very emotional and difficult issues”. ”The overriding obligation is to say to parents, ‘Do not risk the lives of your children to get the prospect of a visa in Australia.’ ”

Because if you do, we’ll risk the lives of your children by dumping them in Malaysia!

Perhaps worst of all, the proposed legislation, if passed – with the Liberal and National Parties – would enable a future Prime Minister Abbott to simply reopen Nauru, even if he didn’t control the Senate.

Decent people who’ve been voting Labor because they’ve absorbed some of the Murdoch media’s lies about the Greens and think at least they’re voting for a party that’s more humane than the Liberals – well, time to check out the Greens again. They’re the only party in Parliament not committed to dragging boats out to sea and trying to shrug off Australia’s obligations onto struggling third countries.

Seriously, ALP – you’re amending legislation expressly so you don’t have to consider the welfare of children under your care? You deserve the coming electoral oblivion. The Libs don’t deserve to benefit from it, but you deserve to be destroyed by it.

Advertisements

14 responses to “ALP MPs to vote to change law so they can deport children without caring about what happens to them

  1. I actually gave the labour party the benefit of doubt.

    I thought it may have been tactical when they reached out to western sydney to say they ‘understood’.

    I thought it was reasonable when they said they would at least get the children out of detention.

    I thought it was forgivable when they tried to put together a regional solution which may involve off-shore processing in order to speed up claims and stop the boats.

    I thought it was a little strange when they proposed the malaysia swap, as it was not particularly sound economically or morally. But maybe in an overly clever, misdirected way, they might have been trying to re-phrase the debate – rephrasing the debate is not a bad thing.

    Then I thought it was a massive opportunity when the high court decision came through and the crazy possibility even crossed my mind that the labour party could have engineered the ruling that all offshore processing was always illegal. Put that in your pipe, johnny.

    All you would have to do now is pummel the line that johnny broke the rules and abbott wants to rewrite them to get his own way. Proper stick in the spokes moment.

    With this latest bit, now I just think labor is proper batshit insane..
    …either that or arbib et al are actually working for the other side (as in political side, we already know they are working for another nation).

  2. I used to think “anything from the ALP as long as it keeps Abbott out”, but I can’t really justify that position any more. I mean, if they bring in the same policies as the Lib/Nats then what’s the point. I know the Greens have their fair sharer of loonies, but they are starting to look awfully attractive right now…

  3. I agree with you Jeremy. We don’t deserve Abbott but Labor deserve a kicking. And Milfot is right too, the High Court ruling was Labor’s last best chance to change course and adopt a humane course of action. But what can you do? These political geniuses when they have an open goal in front of them and opponents floundering in their wake they stop and kick the ball the wrong way so the other team can have it.

    What percentage of the primary vote did state Labor get in NSW?

    Twenty five percent!

    I’ve got a feeling that an Abbott government will make us nostalgic for the Howard years…

    Brendan O’Reilly

  4. “And is anyone impressed by Chris Bowen’s attempt to blame his treating minors with contempt on their parents allegedly having done it first?”

    I wonder if some of the parents he’s slagging off are even alive? I wonder if he knows the exact circumstances as to why they became separated in the first place?

    Also, I wonder if Mondo still supports deporting unaccompanied children to Malaysia?

  5. “I used to think “anything from the ALP as long as it keeps Abbott out””

    I personally think that Nauru is a more humane option than Malaysia. I don’t vote Labor but yeah, what’s the difference? When it comes to unaccompanied children the ALP are prepared to be crueler than the Coalition.

  6. Also, I wonder if Mondo still supports deporting unaccompanied children to Malaysia?

    Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!

    A tip for you bobby boy – the Malaysia solution involves sending all sorts of refugees to Malaysia: men, women and (yes) children. You’re not being particularly subtle by focusing solely on the children.

    But it also involves bringing a far larger number of refugees into Australia including men, women and (debate trumping) children. Certainly a better solution may be to bring them ALL into Australia (as Jeremy has argued), but that’s not an option we are currently presented with.

    Faced with the choice of bringing 800 or 4,000 refugees under Australia’s protection – I’ll still take the 4,000 thanks very much. Including the children.

  7. “– the Malaysia solution involves sending all sorts of refugees to Malaysia: men, women and (yes) children. You’re not being particularly subtle by focusing solely on the children.”

    The children are the most vulnerable.

    “But it also involves bringing a far larger number of refugees into Australia including men, women and (debate trumping) children”

    We should take them regardless, in fact we are.

    “Faced with the choice of bringing 800 or 4,000 refugees under Australia’s protection – I’ll still take the 4,000 thanks very much. Including the children.”

    You live in a black and white world, a world where you are prepared to punish unaccompanied children to set an example to others. I’m not prepared to make an example.

    And one more time, the 4 000 isn’t tied to the 800. The 4 000 are coming regardless, this, in my opinion is a good thing.

    “Certainly a better solution may be to bring them ALL into Australia (as Jeremy has argued), but that’s not an option we are currently presented with.”

    It is an option. Another option is for us to take loads from places like Malaysia and try and shame the rest of the west into following our lead. After all boat people have a negligible effect on population growth.

  8. Bobby – I think what Mondo is trying to say here is that while he agrees that not deporting children is the best option, it is not an option being considered by the Government ie not an option we are currently presented with.

  9. Yeah, I know what he’s saying what I’m saying is just because the government aren’t pursuing a path doesn’t remove any alternative options, why can’t I be dissatisfied with all options the govt have to offer?

    I prefer the onshore processing option, the option the party i vote for supports. I totally oppose deporting of unaccompanied children to a future in limbo, Mondo supports this.

  10. I guess i think he is being pragmatic and choosing the ‘lesser evil’. The reality is that the fuzzy nice option (or even humane option) isn’t even on the table. This Government seems determined to win the “I can be crueller to vulnerable people” contest.

  11. why can’t I be dissatisfied with all options the govt have to offer?

    You can be as dissatisfied as you want, but if the “Malaysia Solution” is blocked then the 4,000 refugees awaiting resettlement in Malaysia will not reach our shores. You have confidently stated above that they’re all coming regardless, but I dispute that – common sense alone dictates that Labor won’t accept 4,000 new refugees from Malaysia for no consideration.

    I understand the principle that you are defending here – but in practice the outcome for which you advocate may mean that a net of 3,200 refugees will miss out on coming to Australia this year.

    That’s a high human price to pay in defence of a principle.

  12. It’s not the lesser evil, Nauru is, Malaysia is designed to stick it up the people smugglers and it wont work (IMO)

    ” the 4,000 refugees awaiting resettlement in Malaysia will not reach our shores.”

    Yes they will, the govt has repeatedly stated that they are still prepared to take the 4 000.

    “common sense alone dictates that Labor won’t accept 4,000 new refugees from Malaysia for no consideration.”

    Common sense and labor? 😉 They’re coming unless Bowen has said otherwise in recent days.

    “I understand the principle that you are defending here – but in practice the outcome for which you advocate may mean that a net of 3,200 refugees will miss out on coming to Australia this year.”

    Except they are still coming, unless you know otherwise, please share it.

  13. narcoticmusing

    I dare say there is no contract between Australia and Malaysia such that Ausralia could fall back on frustration of the contract to get out of fulfilling their part of the agreement (to take the 4,000 refugees). It is more likely just a political agreement that isn’t specifically enforceable anyway – which was likely a major reason the High Court disallowed Australia’s part of it (because we couldn’t enforce human rights treatment of refugees). Even if it were, it (the High Court decision) was reasonably forseeable.

  14. Perhaps Gillard & Bowen might even be able to get front row seats if the main act is a deported refugee from Australia:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s