Federal election 2016: overreaction reminder of border history

Like a nasty partner in a dysfunctional relationship, the Labor Party seeks to insult and demean the people it claims to love. Vote for us, says Labor, because we think you are a narrow-minded, xenophobic bunch of gullible rednecks. It was at it again in yesterday’s almost maniacal over-reaction to Peter Dutton’s comments about refugees.

Border protection is the trigger for Labor and, no matter all the mistakes and lessons of the past 15 years, it cannot help itself. On this issue, the wild emotion kicks in, overriding carefully considered policy changes, and the default position comes out. It is a position that is not only at odds with the facts but is rooted in an unreasonable, untrue and dismal assessment of voters.

Labor shouts “dog whistle” or talks of “scaremongering” every time the Coalition says something firm or uncomfortable about border protection policy. Labor talks of “fear campaigns” and “xenophobia” and even the “demonising” of refugees. The subtext is clear. We have heard it since Tampa: the Coalition is heartless and cruel on border protection, and is motivated by a political dividend from scaring a racist and easily manipulated electorate.

Former Labor MP Steve Gibbons encapsulated this attitude best on Twitter last year: “The turn-back-the-boats policy will be driven by those gutless western suburbs MPs who let rednecks determine Labor policy!”

But yesterday, as ever, much of the media fell into line — as it has through all of Labor’s twists and turns on border protection. “We’re yet to see how the scare works in this election campaign now that it has escalated from ‘dog whistle’ to ‘foghorn’,’’ Lenore Taylor wrote in The Guardian Australia in a typical example.

You could swear it was 2001. Remember, most of the press gallery opposed the Pacific Solution, backed Labor’s scrapping of it, then when boats started again said they couldn’t be stopped, then said turnbacks wouldn’t work, then praised Labor’s turnaround and now they are back on board for the shrill complaints. Talk about agile.

The pure silliness of the “dog whistle” argument is surely manifest. Federal politics is won from the centre, and the electorate generally has made wise decisions.

Yet the absurdity of this kneejerk criticism in 2016 takes the idiocy to a new level. There cannot be a person of functioning intelligence in this country who is not aware that an experiment was conducted. Under Kevin Rudd in 2008 the tough measures were abandoned. Compassion ruled. And chaos, trauma and tragedy ensued.

While the Coalition railed against this irresponsibility all along, it was, in the end, Labor that relented. Julia Gillard and Rudd reopened Nauru and Manus Island in desperate, ill-conceived and belated moves to stem the flow of asylum-seekers in the lead-up to the 2013 election.

Then last year, among stupendous levels of theatre and emotional grandstanding, Labor finally put practical sense above moral and political vanity by voting at its national conference to adopt boat turnbacks. This often has been portrayed as a transactional political deal — a cynical tidy-up — and, given what we saw yesterday, perhaps that is true.

But let me express what that backflip should mean. It should mean that Labor accepts it was wrong on border protection all along; that tough measures are needed to prevent illegal people-smugglers from taking advantage of desperate people and putting their lives at risk as they destroy the integrity of our immigration system.

Moreover, it should mean Labor accepts most Australian voters were right. While Labor accused voters of being played for fools by the evil “dog whistling” of people such as John Howard and Philip Ruddock (and later Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison), it was the mainstream voters of the nation who understood this issue earlier and more clearly than Labor. Voters innately understood that to preserve a tolerant multicultural society, high immigration levels and generous humanitarian program, we needed an orderly system, controlled not by people-smugglers but the government.

While Labor was prepared to outsource our immigration program to the people-smugglers, voters preferred a contract with government.

Instead of being contrite on this issue — perhaps joining Dutton in pointing out the folly of the Greens’ approach — and recognising that sensible mainstream voters comprehend all of this, Labor has doubled down on the insults. It says the government is trying to appeal to voters’ darker angels again. This tells us Labor has learned little, if anything, on this topic.

So what did the Immigration Minister say that Bill Shorten says insulted refugees?

He said suddenly increasing our humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 50,000 would be irresponsible. He said many refugees were not even literate or numerate in their own languages, let alone English. He pointed out they would add to the pool of unemployed and unskilled labour that was dependent on welfare.

Blunt and confronting as his words were, they were factual. An Australian Institute of Family Studies earlier this year found that among adult refugees resettled here, more than 10 per cent of the men and almost 20 per cent of the women had not attended school. A further 34 per cent had less than 10 years of schooling, almost half had never undertaken paid work and a quarter had long-term illnesses or disabilities. Only 7 per cent had worked in the previous week. This is not to insult refugees but to be frank about the challenges they face. Voters know this. And strange as it may seem, being over the age of 18, they generally like to be treated like adults.

It seems Labor may have deliberately stoked this fire to distract from the David Feeney forgotten house scandal. If so, it was a grave miscalculation.

Shorten needs to convince the electorate he can be trusted to keep our borders secure. That was always going to be difficult but will be nigh on impossible after yesterday’s rush of blood.