 |
| Mandatory Detention shown in bad light | |
Little Johnny had to take a step backwards to make way for some revolting
backbenchers led by maverick Petro Georgiou, who wanted to see an end to
mandatory detention. Displaying a lack of insight worthy of an ALP True Believer, the
mavericks insisted that there should be a maximum 'detention' time for
detainees, and a compromise was reached to avoid an embarrassing parliamentary
showdown in front of the opposition parties. Howard has been pretty successful
at avoiding showing off his party's dirty laundry, and he wasn't about to hang up
his long-johns now. With skilled politicians working both sides of the debate it was easy to lose
the true argument in hand-wringing 'but what about the little
children?' and hysterical cries of young innocents, it does come down a
single philosophical issue: Should there be a maximum time that someone spends in a 'detention' center? Those who argue yes, are effectively saying that if someone is willing to spend
X amount of time in a detention center, they automatically gain the right to
indefinite Australian residency. All that you need to do is to turn up, and
refuse to cooperate with officials who try to determine your identity. The whole philosophy behind the government's mandatory detention
policy is that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. If you refuse to
cooperate with Australian authorities, they will just out-wait you, and you can
spend the rest of your life in a detention center. No land of milk and
honey. No future. No Australian welfare payments. Bad
detainee. No banana. If there is a time limit on detention, then the entire philosophy changes. It
doesn't matter if the time limit is 10 hours of 10 years - when there is
light at the end of the tunnel, and the decision to come to Australia illegally
once again becomes a decision on investment. As for the maverick backbenchers - the next party pre-selection may see them
enjoying releases of their own.
| 
