In recent days, Australian public discourse has found itself covering the latest development in the ongoing ‘debate’ surrounding the arrival of what is variously described as refugees, asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants (the terminology used essentially evidencing your particular take on the matter). The Expert Panel, chaired by the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, a man for whom I have enormous respect, has delivered its report and recommendations on how best to proceed in addressing this issue of refugees, asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants.
Having read the report, and having listened to what passes for political debate, I am left with the distinct impression that nothing has changed and that we will continue to treat these human beings as a problem to be solved rather than as human beings needing care and compassion. The only possible difference is that we have a report from an Expert Panel as the basis from which our nation now works.
Still not good enough!!
Andrew you will know I hope, that I agree totally with your comment but personally I balk at idealism when it is faced with popular reality.Indeed a government is not elected to do what the people might want, but a political party presents its manifesto slanted in that direction and isn’t it that which becomes a chewing rag between government and opposition the latter with future in mind, strenuously seeking to keep the people on side? Why do neither admit the abomination of their plans? I know why, but I do not have a vote here and hence a voice to be heard.
That’s true Tony – to a degree.
Rather than idealism I’d prefer to think of it as ‘keeping the bastards honest’
A lovely turn of phrase he says slinking back into his shell!
Andrew,the political philosopher Michael Sandel, who teaches at Harvard is described by the Guardian and the Observer, two of Britain’s more discriminating newspapers , as one of the world’s most interesting philosophers in his field. He is said to disagree with one of the assumptions of modern public life, that moral and religious notions are private matters that should be kept out of public political debate. As I understand your comment, that is your position too.
With an ideal Christian Democrat government, I would also agree, but in any multi cultural state and Australia is one, doesn’t the government of the day for its own political survival, find itself between a rock and a hard place in deciding whether to apply consequential or categorical moral reasoning to this matter?
Whilst the spokespeople for different faiths may speak out powerfully, they seem to be met by governments’ metaphorical shrug of the shoulders indicating something along the lines of, “ We agree with you all but that is not the people’s view. It is your role to change that, then we might be able to do things your way.”
Now there’s a task Education, Education, Education and of course New Evangelisation.
Yes Tony I assume that it is right and proper for moral and religious notions to be out there in the public political debate, and that keeping them purely private reduces public discourse to mere opinion and majority rule.
The Government is not elected to do whatever the majority of Australians might want them to do – particularly when ‘what Australians want’ is determined more or less by less then credible sources like ‘the commentariat’. The Government of the day, regardless of party, should be about doing what is right and in the best interest of the nation both now and into the future, about ensuring that Australia’s legal and moral obligations are upheld – even in the face of ‘the people’s view’, perhaps especially in the face ‘the people’s view’ – and about ensuring that in the international community Australia can stand with its head high because of the choices it has had to make.
There may well be a call for education and evangelisation of contemporary society, but that include the politicians and bureaucrats who govern and administer that society. I, for one, will be continue to call them to account – along with the entirety of our nation – over the abominable and despicable treatment of those who arrive in Australia seeking protection from persecution.
The latest developments in the ongoing debate are simply not good enough.