This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/can-bill-shorten-win-government-without-a-boat-free-policy-its-unlikely

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Can Bill Shorten win government without a boat-free policy? It's unlikely Can Bill Shorten win government without a boat-free policy? It's unlikely
(about 1 hour later)
From the Tampa to the Pacific Viking and beyond, “the boats” haunt progressive politics with a particular menace. For a decade or longer, asylum seeker politics has driven a wedge between well-intentioned pragmatists and idealists, and has often left members of the Labor party savaging their own policies. From the Tampa to the Oceanic Viking and beyond, “the boats” haunt progressive politics with a particular menace. For a decade or longer, asylum seeker politics has driven a wedge between well-intentioned pragmatists and idealists, and has often left members of the Labor party savaging their own policies.
The policy vacuum created by this division is why Tony Abbott was willing to allow last month’s allegations (that he paid people smugglers to return to Indonesia) to drag. Such is the primacy the Coalition enjoys on boats that it can survive the hairiest of harebrained schemes. Conversely, Labor don’t seem to know where they stand.The policy vacuum created by this division is why Tony Abbott was willing to allow last month’s allegations (that he paid people smugglers to return to Indonesia) to drag. Such is the primacy the Coalition enjoys on boats that it can survive the hairiest of harebrained schemes. Conversely, Labor don’t seem to know where they stand.
Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon recently called for his party to adopt boat turn-backs. Activists and members of the party subsequently attacked his position – but such criticism is short-sighted.Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon recently called for his party to adopt boat turn-backs. Activists and members of the party subsequently attacked his position – but such criticism is short-sighted.
The inarguable truth that far more can be achieved for human rights from the government side of the chamber has taken root in the confusion of the ALP refugee narrative.The inarguable truth that far more can be achieved for human rights from the government side of the chamber has taken root in the confusion of the ALP refugee narrative.
The question then becomes one of both volume and ethics; what do they have to give up and how far to the right must they go to get there? For too many in the party, it is met with rage and brutal opposition. Negotiation is viewed as acquiescence, stubbornness lauded as a virtue.The question then becomes one of both volume and ethics; what do they have to give up and how far to the right must they go to get there? For too many in the party, it is met with rage and brutal opposition. Negotiation is viewed as acquiescence, stubbornness lauded as a virtue.
Related: Gillian Triggs: offshore detention centre secrecy laws are worrying for democracyRelated: Gillian Triggs: offshore detention centre secrecy laws are worrying for democracy
While this fortitude is admirable, and while its manifestations in mass rallies are cathartic, it is not necessarily helpful. Few issues have damaged Labor’s electoral prospects quite like the boats. On policy, they remain next to powerless; as their numbers have grown, our refugee intake has decreased by thousands. Detention and deterrence are still the bedrock of our response.While this fortitude is admirable, and while its manifestations in mass rallies are cathartic, it is not necessarily helpful. Few issues have damaged Labor’s electoral prospects quite like the boats. On policy, they remain next to powerless; as their numbers have grown, our refugee intake has decreased by thousands. Detention and deterrence are still the bedrock of our response.
Bill Shorten has so far attempted an awkward neutrality – acknowledging that detention is damaging, while comfortably slipping into an Abbott-esque rhetoric on pull-factors and deterrence. But the prevalence of the issue electorally, and Fitzgibbon’s interjection, will demand a policy. Whether or not the growing core of refugee activists will have a say in it depends largely on how reasonable they are prepared to be.Bill Shorten has so far attempted an awkward neutrality – acknowledging that detention is damaging, while comfortably slipping into an Abbott-esque rhetoric on pull-factors and deterrence. But the prevalence of the issue electorally, and Fitzgibbon’s interjection, will demand a policy. Whether or not the growing core of refugee activists will have a say in it depends largely on how reasonable they are prepared to be.
It is in this spirit that Brad Chilcott, the South Australian pastor and founder of refugee support organisation Welcome to Australia, posted a controversial opinion piece on the website of the Labor-funded Chifley Institute. The column, titled Possibility before Protest, urged Labor party refugee advocates to avoid “providing the politics of prejudice and division with new impetus, by authoring a perfect platform chapter that will never become government policy”.It is in this spirit that Brad Chilcott, the South Australian pastor and founder of refugee support organisation Welcome to Australia, posted a controversial opinion piece on the website of the Labor-funded Chifley Institute. The column, titled Possibility before Protest, urged Labor party refugee advocates to avoid “providing the politics of prejudice and division with new impetus, by authoring a perfect platform chapter that will never become government policy”.
Most controversial is Chilcott’s call for a safer, rather than a dismantled, detention network. It’s an uncomfortable position for any human rights advocate to occupy, and has attracted the ire of many within the party and the refugee sector.Most controversial is Chilcott’s call for a safer, rather than a dismantled, detention network. It’s an uncomfortable position for any human rights advocate to occupy, and has attracted the ire of many within the party and the refugee sector.
“The public will not countenance any policy or proposition that appears to reopen the boat journey from Java to Christmas Island,” said Chilcott, “this socio-political reality creates difficulties for any opposition and requires that Labor is strategic in its approach.”“The public will not countenance any policy or proposition that appears to reopen the boat journey from Java to Christmas Island,” said Chilcott, “this socio-political reality creates difficulties for any opposition and requires that Labor is strategic in its approach.”
The Refugee Action Collective (RAC) called Chilcott’s advice “tragic” and “absurd”, accusing him of stalling the “building pressure” that is on the ALP to oppose mandatory detention in all of its forms; in the words of RAC, “let them land, let them stay”. Protest is at the core of what the RAC do, and it is inherently myopic, but if attacking Labor means another term of progressive opposition, the question of practical effectiveness must be considered.The Refugee Action Collective (RAC) called Chilcott’s advice “tragic” and “absurd”, accusing him of stalling the “building pressure” that is on the ALP to oppose mandatory detention in all of its forms; in the words of RAC, “let them land, let them stay”. Protest is at the core of what the RAC do, and it is inherently myopic, but if attacking Labor means another term of progressive opposition, the question of practical effectiveness must be considered.
Chilcott’s end game is the July Labor national conference where an interesting battle looms over the ALP’s immigration policy. Because the resolutions of the Labor conference do not bind the federal caucus, there is a fear the policy will be an irrelevant document due an unwillingness to factor political reality into the platform. If it will cost the party too many seats, it will be simply ignored.Chilcott’s end game is the July Labor national conference where an interesting battle looms over the ALP’s immigration policy. Because the resolutions of the Labor conference do not bind the federal caucus, there is a fear the policy will be an irrelevant document due an unwillingness to factor political reality into the platform. If it will cost the party too many seats, it will be simply ignored.
Related: Time to tell the truth before I'm gagged: Australia's detention centres ruin livesRelated: Time to tell the truth before I'm gagged: Australia's detention centres ruin lives
The other risk of an ultra-left policy is it makes perfect the enemy of good. It reframes the debate in a way that makes the feasible incremental improvements look less like progress and more like a betrayal of the party faithful. For Shorten, who took the leadership despite the majority of ALP members preferring Anthony Albanese, this is dangerous ground.The other risk of an ultra-left policy is it makes perfect the enemy of good. It reframes the debate in a way that makes the feasible incremental improvements look less like progress and more like a betrayal of the party faithful. For Shorten, who took the leadership despite the majority of ALP members preferring Anthony Albanese, this is dangerous ground.
The question for Labor’s refugee activists is one of moral purity versus stubborn ideology. It is too easy to discuss the ideal, too easy to disparage those who stray from it. It is more prescient to shift the comparison from a utopian vision to the present reality. The question for the pragmatists is how much ground can you afford to cede before it becomes capitulation.The question for Labor’s refugee activists is one of moral purity versus stubborn ideology. It is too easy to discuss the ideal, too easy to disparage those who stray from it. It is more prescient to shift the comparison from a utopian vision to the present reality. The question for the pragmatists is how much ground can you afford to cede before it becomes capitulation.
And then there is the one that frames the whole debate: can Bill Shorten win government without a boat-free guarantee? If history is a guide, it seems unlikely.And then there is the one that frames the whole debate: can Bill Shorten win government without a boat-free guarantee? If history is a guide, it seems unlikely.