Federal election 2016: Opinion - the moral equation of Peter Dutton’s outburst

DENNIS ATKINS: MANY senior Coalition people were uncomfortable when Immigration Minister Peter Dutton decided to attack refugees - but they also know it works for them politically.

DENNIS ATKINS: After two full days of asylum seeker/refugee outrage it’s time to consider the moral equation because we should.

This is not - and shouldn’t be - just a political thing which is measured by whether the election participants win or lose support for how they are seen and how they react to asylum seeker/refugee events.

If it was we would be a cold-hearted nation that most people would be uncomfortable with.

This, though, doesn’t mean those same people can’t be quite accepting - even if still uncomfortable - of a “turn the other way” attitude.

As we’ve discussed a majority of Australians don’t like the idea of thousands of asylum-seekers arriving by irregular means, especially on unsafe boats.

This in turn causes a lowering of support for the refugee program generally.

A “rule” in Australian politics in the last decade or so is that if you want to increase the official refugee intake it’s best to get your borders under control.

We end up in barbed wire fence territory when the rhetoric heats up and the usual dog whistle becomes a mastiff’s bark.

This happened when Immigration Minister Peter Dutton decided to attack refugees and asylum seekers from both ends - they were stealing our jobs and sponging on welfare at the same time.

This kind of demagoguery is clearly offensive and many people quite senior in Coalition ranks were very uncomfortable.

They were not so uncomfortable they told Dutton to stop saying what he was saying because they know it works for them politically.

So they calculated the political imperative outweighed the moral imperative.

Bill Shorten went the other way - because he believes the primacy of the moral case and he had nowhere else to go.

He says even if it costs him votes he’s not going to stand by while refugees are abused.

The question now is whether Malcolm Turnbull will feel comfortable on July 2 if his victory came, even in part, on the back of a low-rent demagogic attack on desperate people fleeing persecution and worse.

‘Colossal mistake’ to increase humanitarian intake

RENEE VIELLARIS: Peter Dutton has stirred up a brouhaha with predictable outcomes. Left-learning activists are in hysterics, calling for compassion, while oddly demanding payback - Dutton’s scalp. Those who prostrate to the right are accusing the Left of being weak, rose-coloured glassed fools.

Channel’s 9 celebrity Karl Stefonovic labelled the Immigration Minister “unAustralian’’. What does that even mean?

It’s hard, but let’s take the politics out of the argument.

Dutton said on Sky News on Wednesday night that refugees are illiterate and innumerate, and they could take Australian jobs, which would hurt the economy. His comments were a bit sloppy and could have been uttered with more finesse but the essence of it is correct.

Dramatically increasing Australia’s humanitarian intake would be a colossal mistake.

Many people who are languishing in these camps have seen the worst of humanity. They have been tortured, raped, starved, left with no home, left to die. It is a sickening thought.

Can you imagine being pregnant, with two other young children in tow, fleeing violence and chemical weapons, while you are parched and hungry - telling your children they have to walk kilometres every day because mummy can’t carry you anymore?

Many of these people have little education, especially women. This is a fact.

It is human nature to want to help people like this but we have to be pragmatic. It costs money, lots of money, and then there are the social issues.

You can’t just rollout the welcome mat to Australia and say, “Nice to see you, good luck”.

Any responsible government would have to offer counselling services for a generation of people who will undoubtedly be suffering stress and shock. They will need help to learn English, understand our laws, how to access services, housing and welfare. How could we expect them to get a job straight away?

But once they have settled and are able to find paid work, it creates another challenge.

The unskilled labour market is tight (unless we force them to pick fruit, which you cannot, and that is seasonal any way).

By dramatically increasing the number of people who are unskilled or semi-skilled in Australia, while the economy is transitioning, would be irresponsible. It would mean one of two things. One, the new Australian would be left languishing on welfare or they would compete with someone else for a job.

There aren’t an infinite amount of jobs out there and currently tens of thousands of Australians are under-employed, meaning they want more hours but they can’t get any.

This country has been founded off the back of migrants, and we are richer for it. But the economy isn’t quite there to open the flood gates.

Adhering to that is not unAustralian. It is economically and socially the right thing to do.

Originally published as Federal election 2016: Opinion - the moral equation of Peter Dutton’s outburst