An end to the blame game

Asylum seekers policy

IT'S pretty obvious that the public would like to see our main party leaders come together to find a compromise solution to the refugee impasse following the recent tragedies at sea.

That is not happening because the opposition refuses to do so, despite increasing calls for compromise from sections of its backbench.

As a result of a failure to find a compromise solution to boat arrivals, in the final sitting week before the parliamentary recess the Liberal partyroom is starting to fracture. It is a significant break in what has been a remarkably disciplined opposition approach in recent months, keeping the pressure on the government ahead of next week's introduction of the carbon price.

Yesterday senior moderate Liberal MP Russell Broadbent joined colleagues Mal Washer and Judi Moylan in calling for an entirely new approach to processing and policing asylum arrivals.

The trio reject the Coalition's use of temporary protection visas and the government proposal of a so-called Malaysia Solution, which involves offloading up to 800 asylum-seekers to a nation not signed up to the UN Convention on Refugees in a five-for-one swap arrangement for verified refugees who would come to our shores.

But it is Liberals speaking out against Liberal policy that is most interesting.

"My problem with Nauru is, fine, Nauru works in the short term, what do we do in the long term and how damaged will they be when we receive them back in Australia?" Broadbent argues. He says in the past most of those processed on Nauru ended up in Australia and New Zealand anyway.

Washer, a trained medical doctor, has concerns about the mental health effects of TPVs. Broadbent worries that they encourage women and children to board dangerous boats because visa reunions are not permitted.

Plus the data suggests the overwhelming majority of TPV holders end up getting permanent residency anyway. More than 95 per cent of TPV holders who were irregular maritime arrivals went on to get a permanent visa to live in Australia.

Moylan has zeroed in on the need for some sort of compromise, and fast: "We have to stop the blame game," she said yesterday. "Let's stop blaming each other over this."

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott has called for parliament to continue sitting until a compromise can be reached: "If we can't resolve it by the end of the week I'd certainly be calling for the parliament to continue to sit until this can be resolved," he said.

However, Tony Abbott says there is no point embracing "compromise for compromise's sake". But there may be good reason to compromise if it makes a bad situation better, albeit not entirely perfect. If the opposition believes that its policy has merit, surely seeing some of it put in place under a compromise solution is better than none? Surely seeing some of it legislated would save lives at sea? Abbott would get much of what he wants under the compromise Labor is offering. And as is often the case in negotiations, the government may have more to give if the opposition showed signs of engaging in discussions.

That was the Prime Minster's message yesterday. Following the outbreak of division within the Coalition's ranks, Julia Gillard sought to contrast the government further with Abbott's refusal to look at new ways to reach a compromise.

She told reporters: "We did put a compromise forward out of a set of earlier discussions. That is certainly there for the opposition to agree to, and I'm certainly open to further discussions."

It sent a clear message to Broadbent, Washer and Moylan that if they didn't like the Malaysia Solution as well as the Nauru package, Labor just might consider a third way. The contrast of reasonableness with Abbott's intransigence was obvious, and in the political contest it was meant for the wider audience of the voting public watching on.

One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Perhaps Abbott thinks such tragedies reflect more badly on Labor than his own side because the government appears responsible for the mess courtesy of changing John Howard's asylum-seekers policies in the first place.

The government is certainly to blame for failures during its time in office. That is a truism of government self-accountability. But the Coalition may be to blame for the failure of our parliament to find a working asylum-seeker compromise in the wake of government policy failures.

Compromise according to the dictionary is defined as: "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions."

So far only the government has shown a willingness to make concessions. It came to office pledging to end offshore processing. The immigration minister at the time, Chris Evans, described ending the Pacific Solution as his proudest moment in politics.

That stance has changed. The incumbent Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, put forward the Malaysia Solution but can't win support for the policy in the parliament. An unholy alliance between the Coalition and the Greens has thwarted the proposal.

Some Labor MPs wonder why the government didn't put the Malaysia Solution to the parliament for a formal vote, forcing the Coalition to vote it down. "It would have put much more pressure on them, that's for sure," one backbencher notes.

Bowen believes if given the chance, the Malaysia Solution will act as a deterrent to boat arrivals. He points to a decline in arrivals on the mere announcement of the policy. Perhaps Abbott fears that Bowen is right.

In a black-and-white world, voters probably favour the Coalition's solution of returning to Nauru, the use of TPVs and tow-backs over introducing the Malaysia Solution, whatever the problems with it. Opinion polls consistently show that the electorate trusts the Coalition far more than it trusts Labor to manage this delicate issue.

If Abbott wins the next election he should therefore have the right to implement his policy and be judged on its effectiveness (or otherwise). But compromise in the present minority parliament to stop deaths at sea means needing to find a solution right now, requiring both sides to give a little ground. The Coalition has given none whatsoever, and its leadership team has said that it will not, expecting the government to adopt in its entirety the Coalition's policy of Nauru, TPVs and even the widely panned notion of towing boats back out to sea.

In complete contrast, Labor has already offered to enact the Malaysia Solution and Nauru, in tandem. It has made adjustments to the way the Malaysia Solution would operate in a bid to accommodate concerns. It has even suggested an independent bipartisan inquiry into TPVs, and if that inquiry found TPVs work Labor would look at supporting their introduction.

Gillard said yesterday that it was regrettable that the Opposition Leader ruled out a compromise on the weekend. "I think it is a time where people are looking to us to put the politics to one side," she said

The only part of the Coalition's policy script the government won't countenance is the towing policy. Labor is in good company on this score. Even the Australian navy opposes a tow-back policy. Navy chief Ray Griggs told a Senate estimates hearing on October 19 last year "there are risks involved in this whole endeavour".

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, told the ABC's 7.30 program on February 13 this year: "We have clearly opposed push backs in the Italian case in the Mediterranean in the recent past before the Libyan crisis, and we think that that is clearly a violation in relation to the 51 Convention."

For tow backs to work the Indonesian government would need to co-operate. However, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said on March 8, 2010, "simply pushing back boats to where they have come from would be a backward step". He made similar comments to a delegation of Australian editors in May this year.

On the 10th anniversary of his 1996 election victory Howard reflected: "It's better to be 90 per cent pure in government than 126 per cent pure in opposition." Right now on the issue of boat arrivals and what to do about them, it is Abbott who is being pure, albeit from opposition.

In his 2009 book Battlelines, Abbott wrote: "Oppositions can change their mind, but they can't change the country."

Now Abbott is refusing to change his mind when he has a chance to change the country by changing the tone of the asylum-seeker debate. He might even save a few lives in the process.

Soon after Abbott took over the leadership Howard privately advised him that his most important task was to ensure unity, after which he must focus attention on discrediting the government. They were, Howard said, the two most important tasks for an opposition leader to fulfil.

It now appears that Abbott's bid to relentlessly do the latter may have opened up divisions in a policy space in which the Coalition has always enjoyed a healthy advantage over the government.

And it has happened right on the eve of the winter recess, when yesterday's poor Newspoll for Labor should have been putting pressure on the Prime Minister.