One policy, two narratives

Thursday, 08 July 2010 07:34

At Comeon we don't necessarily agree with a lot of what the media say about issues of the day. The lack of analysis of the mining tax and its MRRT replacement in the early days, with a gushing acceptance of Gillard's false rhetoric that she had reached a consensus with little loss in revenue is one such example. So too, the ludicrous pandering in some sectors over Gillards so-called action on illegal immigration and people smuggling which is now unravelling.

Take Channel Nine's decision to give free to air coverage of Gillard's entire scripted speech to the Lowy Institute, and the 7.30 Report's sycophantic coverage that gilded the lillee not on the basis of the quality of the policy but the quality of the speech.

Surely, after 2.5 years of Rudd spin over substance, the substance of the Gillard announcement warranted a bit more scrutiny.

Todays Editorial in The Australian, although self serving, goes some way in explaining the political environment that also prompted the ComeOn team to start this new on-line advocacy group. A forum where issues are assessed and acted upon their merits rather than through the pink tinted glasses of the commentariat.

But, on the matter at hand, just why - at first - was the Pacific solution bad and the Timor solution good according to the elite commentariat? At ComeOn we think it is more to do with who proposed each of them, not what they actually did. To the commentariat, anything the former Government did is bad and anything the current Government does is good - where the only question was 'how well they communicate it".

It is indisputable that in the face of rising unauthoried boat arrivals, the former Howard Government's policies stopped the boats. On the other hand, if media reports are to now be believed, the Timor solution looks about as dead as Rudd's ETS unless Gillard bribes Timor with more money than the BER program. Even then, setting up a Centre even closer to Australia than Christmas Island or Indonesia would seem to encourage queue jumping rather than deter it. Why wouldn't people seek to avoid other nations and get to Gillard's proposed centre that offers a better chance of rapid assessment and increased pressure for Australia to accept them, then the hundreds of other holding camps around the world?

That, of course assumes that Timor welcomes and can accommodate the proposal that many Timorese first heard of from a foreign leader whose motivation was less about sensible policy than clearing the political decks before an election.

Whether you agree with the Pacific Solution or not, doesn't it make far more sense to use exisiting facilties in Nauru where the Government is willing, than Timor where the reception is more equivocal. Or will Gillard pay any price to avoid the obvious charge that Labor was wrong and Howard was right?

If anything, the Gillard solution shows a concerning trend continuing from the Rudd era - announce first then wonder if you can implement later.

ComeOn Editor