Let me explain how Labor can never win on asylum seeker policy and therefore why the Liberals (and to an extent the Greens) use it as a potent wedge. Keep this wedge politics in mind when you yourself are reacting to Labor's position. A thread.

The Liberals say Labor's previous onshore processing policy is bad because borders are not secure. Labor is also blamed for drowning deaths amongst asylum seekers who pay people smugglers. Therefore, Labor are framed by Liberals as TOO SOFT to manage national security.

A key part of this LABOR IS TOO SOFT frame is that if Labor can't secure the border, they can't be trusted to manage any element of Australia's national security. It doesn't matter what the reality is. This is what the public have been told forever, and therefore many believe it.

Greens and some disaffected Labor voters say that any Labor asylum seeker policy which isn't onshore processing is TOO HARD on asylum seekers. Any thing that deviates from 'let them come on boats' is seen as Labor trying to emulate Liberals by showing no compassion.

A key part of this LABOR IS TOO HARD wedge is the simplistic notion that if Labor does anything that even smells a bit like Liberal policy, their policy is exactly the same as Liberals and therefore Labor is basically the Liberals, so what is the point of voting for them.

The LABOR IS TOO HARD wedge which says Labor is same as Liberals simplifies further to accuse Labor of being the same as Liberals in EVERY policy area. I'm not going to waste space in my thread arguing against this ridiculous notion, but will just say clearly this is not reality.

This means that no matter what Labor does in the asylum seeker policy area, they are wedged between the rock of 'LABOR IS TOO SOFT' and the hard place of 'LABOR IS TOO HARD' - and no matter what they say, their policies are oversimplied, misrepresented, and cost them votes.

This wedge also means Labor gets zero credit for the good things they do in asylum seeker policy - from the right or the left. For instance, before passing the medevac bill with some amendments, much media accused Labor of 'caving in' by consulting on national security.

'Caving in' is code for 'going soft'. A note on national security. In reality, Greens don't have to worry about national security because it's never going to be their responsibility. Greens also don't have to worry about, nor get blamed, for asylum seekers drowning. Labor do.

I'll never forget Julia Gillard responding to Q at event after she was PM from a Green who accused her of being too hard on asylum seekers. She said perhaps this girl might feel differently if she had names of the missing, feared drowned, people across her desk in the hundreds.

Back to medevac. In fact Labor did support the bill - there is no sign they waivered from this plan - and have emphasised the importance of the right of asylum seekers to proper medical care. Their support of this bill started a wave of fear campaigning from Liberals - TOO SOFT!

It's interesting to note that I didn't see a single known-Green applauding Labor's support of the bill. They almost seemed disappointed Labor had done the right thing, because it blunted their TOO HARD wedge. This wedge is crucial to Green's very existence. Keep that in mind.

So, in middle of a scare campaign s*@t storm, with the Australian literally called out by ASIO for lying on front page about security advice that said boats would return, what were Labor to do when they received advice from chief of Dept Home Affairs that said boats would return?

Morrison re-opened Christmas Island as a LABOR IS TOO SOFT wedge. What was Labor meant to do when faced with security advice about boats returning because of them being TOO SOFT? I will possibly have a nervous breakdown if Labor lose this election over this policy. How about you?

Us politically engaged tweeps know Dept Home Affairs advice is politically tainted (to put it lightly), however the general voting public don't know that. This is why Labor chose to respond to the LABOR IS TOO SOFT wedge from Liberals with a counter-wedge.

The only reason Labor has said 'if refugees can be made well on Christmas Island they can go there' is because they now have put the responsibility for this policy implementation back in the Liberal's court. Guess who is in government. THE LIBERALS.

The Liberals, working with doctors, now have the challenge of doing what has been legislated - treating seriously unwell refugees. If they can't do that on Christmas Island (which they can't), it is now the Liberal's responsibility to wear the consequences of their decisions.

Labor aren't doing this to harm refugees. The knee jerk reaction from many tweeps left me shaking my head. LABOR IS JUST THE SAME AS LIBERALS!!! they screamed in unison. Labor is in opposition. Why are Labor blamed for everything that happens in a policy area they don't control?

Might be useful to remind you at this point that Labor's asylum seeker policy has never been the same as Liberals. A key differentiator is that Labor has never supported indefinite detention. Labor will also accept many thousand more refugees than Liberals.

These differences are not small. The reason so many refugees are unwell is because they have lost hope after being left for years in horrible conditions indefintely. That won't happen under Labor. They will be processed and resettled as quickly as possible.

No, Labor doesn't support onshore processing because it leads to too many boat arrivals which puts asylum seekers in an unsafe environment. The onshore processing policy failed. Labor can't go back to it. Pragamatism and compromise is the business of government. That's reality.

There is no such thing as a simple policy solution for asylum seekers. Currently those who can afford to fly, and previously those who could afford to pay a people smuggler many thousands to come by boat, are doing whatever they can to escape desperate unsafe circumstances.

But what about the hundreds of thousands who can't afford to escape their circumstances and are languishing in refugee camps with no way out? What happens to them if refugee movement is limited by market forces - those who can afford to get out survive? That's not fair.

My experience of wedge politics makes open and constructive discussion about asylum seeker policy frought with yelling, accusations and simplified arguments that don't account for complexity of reality in this policy area. Until people stop doing that, nothing will change. End.

You can follow @Vic_Rollison.

Share this thread

Bookmark

____

Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.



Enjoy Threader? Sign up.



Since you’re here...



... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.



Download Threader on iOS.