Well folks, the Federal election has been demanding our attention these past 4 weeks, and despite feeling like they are avoiding the serious stuff too much I still hang in there hoping to hear them say something serious.
There seems to me to have been a lot of time spent by "should-be" probing reporters focussing on trivialities such as "Did you actually discuss this in Cabinet?" when Cabinet does not meet iin caretaker mode; or "Did you apoligise to Kevin Rudd?" Similarly, many of the politicians have been happy to be deflected from serious discussion of policy issues by trivial matters as well.
So often, it seems to me, a failure to engage in a serious policy issue is based on a willingness to argue over semantics - quibbling about words rather than dealing with the actual issue. Tony Abbot, for example, would have us believe that a comprehensive strategy to deal with our excessive use of fossil fuels and their emmissions is just a "great big new TAX on everything." Julia Gillard's contribution to the boat-people debate seems to be most concerned about avoiding any reference to one another as "rednecks" just because we espouse xenophobic views about refugees.
There are two policy areas in which I believe there is a significant resort to semantics to disguise the underlying prejudice and discrimination present one the positions.
BOAT PEOPLE
Firstly, in the area of boat people and their claims for asylum, both major parties have resorted to a focus on "People Smugglers" and "Border Protection." Every country has the right to determine how people visit or come to stay within its borders - who could argue against that proposition? And people smugglers are certainly preying on vulnerable people.
Both these issues are what I call "Motherhood Issues" - noone can really argue against them. But they are not at the heart of the issue of asylum seekers coming to our shores and seeking our protection. They represent a semantic triviality that is intended to deflect attention from the real issue - our fear of the other.
The first outcome of this fear has been an abrogation of our responsibilities as a nation towards people of our region - very often from countries in which our military intervention has been at the heart of the turmoil that has caused people to flee for their lives. We seem to think that the Convention on Refugees only applies if it suits us. The law of the sea in respect to vessels in peril only seems to apply to us if it suits us. I could go on.
The second outcome of this fear is the proposition of fundamentally unfair solutions such as the excision of our islands from the Australian migration zone, the establishment of off-shore processing of claims to deny people access to the rule of law, and perhaps even more absurdly the proposal that we set up a "regional processing centre" for refugee claimants in a third world country. If we are going to pay for it we might as well do it here in our place rather than impose such a burden on countries that already do not have the resource for their own, let alone an influx of refugees.
The reality in this policy area is that we don't want such extremely poor people knocking on our doors and asking for our protection. We don't mind Migrants who come with their money and skills. We don't even mind Refugees who come from other places so long as they agree to behave - to "join the team" as Tony Abbott is want to say.
The prophetic voice of God calls us to do justice and show mercy. I weep when our political leaders don't get that.
GAY MARRIAGE
In this most sensitive area of human relationships, again the politicians seem to be content to rabbit on about the meaning of words rather than the discrimination that results from their unwillingness to deal with it.
"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman"
Ipso Facto
a man cannot be "married" to another man nor a woman "married" to another woman. But this is not about semantics. If it were, then it would be possible to create another form of legal relationship between same-sex couples using a different name.
Regardless of the fact that Gay couples see that in itself as discriminatory, when the ACT Government sought to do just that - to get around the semantic issue - both parties supported action to strike down the territory's legislation. So it is not a semantic issue - it is actually a matter of prejudice and discrimination.
I have yet to hear any meaningful argument demonstrating the so-called threat gay marriage poses for the traditional family. I just wish they would get away from the semantics and the oprejudice and deal with it - most Australians are so over it. Just do it.
Julia Gillard is still the Prime Minister and to that extent she holds the trump card over Tony Abbott. She can afford to allow as long as it takes to get a commitment from the cross-benches not to support a no-confidence motion. We are all left wondering what inducements she might be able to offer as pursuasion to make this commitment. Wayne Swan has ruled out the option of offering ministerial responsibility to any; and I doubt any of them would relinquish their right to vote on the things they are passionate about by offering to become Speaker - despite the huge salary that goes with it.
Tony Abbott on the other hand has the unenviable task of enticing back into the fold people who have already left conservative ranks, generally burnuing bridges behind them. The evidence of these burnt bridges is no further away than the daily allegations of some member of Tony's team making a call to abuse an independent in some way or another. Declarations that they were joking or meant to say another word don't ring true because of the previous form of the utterers.
