Politics, Bloody Politics !!

Labor advertising is attacking Tony Abbott for rejecting the Government’s proposed migration law changes.

Radio adverts, paid for by the ALP, have been saying things like:

• Don’t the Liberals support offshore processing?
• First Tony Abbott supported offshore processing, now he’s opposing it.

And Julia Gillard has said that this problem is all Tony Abbotts fault, because he wouldn’t vote with what she wanted.

Labor Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor, told reporters in Canberra that Mr Abbott’s blocking of migration laws, had sent a signal to people-smugglers. “He is telling them to come on down and they are coming on down”.

Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard said: “If Mr Abbott denies the national interest and denies the government, this government and future governments, the power to process offshore, then he will have to take the responsibility for the onshore detention network and processing expanding.”

We must remember that Julia Gillard first blamed the Chief Justice of the High Court for this problem, because he didn’t do what she wanted. ( I am sensing a pattern)

Liberal leader Tony Abbott is fully in favour of Offshore Processing and says that the Liberals will back Labor’s migration law changes, provided offshore processing is limited to third countries that have signed up to the UN refugee convention. Malaysia (The ALP choice of offshore processing) is not a signatory to the convention.

• The Liberals DO support offshore processing, contrary to what the ALP are saying.
• Tony Abbott is NOT opposing offshore processing, contrary to what the ALP saying.

The funny, or stupid bit, is that when Liberal were in power, their choice of offshore processing, Nauru, was also NOT a signatory to the convention, a point that was used by the ALP against Offshore processing at the time.

The situation with Nauru however, has changed, and they are now a signatory to the convention.

Also, if Australia fully operates the facility, in the opinion of Four of the High Court’s judges, Australia, not the Nauru authorities, would be guaranteeing their processing and the protection of the refugees. This would appear to solve any of the earlier legal difficulties from the recent court case, with Australia being legally bound to protect the refugees there.

The High Court’s full bench agreed 6 to 1 that the (ALP) Mr Bowen’s declaration that Malaysia was an appropriate place to asylum seekers was invalid because the country is not legally bound to protect them.

Why can’t Julia Gillard take the easy route, and re-open the existing facilities at Naura.

The answer: Politics, Bloody Politics !!