It seems that Labor is determined to jettison its responsibility to asylum seekers in no uncertain terms - talk about changing your stance....even Mr Abbott thinks their draft legislation strips away all rights of those seeking asylum.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-16/abbott-vriefed-on-migration-amendments/2903700

That just about takes the cake for me regarding Labor's hypocrisy after their long-running criticism of Howard's solution.

Poirot,

For once I agree with you. I am never happy with the state having unfettered power, and I would call this a bill too far.

Having been critical of the coalition's refugee policy this is the ultimate irony:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bowen-chased-by-refugee-advocates/story-fn59niix-1226139790764

SM,

"...a bill too far..."

I agree. This sort of proposal is dangerous. Power over crucial matters left entirely to the discretion of individual government ministers - with no recourse to legal challenge - could set a dangerous precedent for Australians in general.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-17/lawyers-raise-migration-changes-concerns/2904494

Poirot

Even when/if we vote out the Labor party, as it most assuredly deserves, we will still have off-shore asylum seekers assessment with an Abbott lead coalition as our next federal government - the Libs are not going to give up Nauru. Or will there be enough Independents and Greens to veto?

What a race to the moral depths on all our politicians.

Ammonite,

The reality is that both parties are merely reflecting their situation in being tethered to popular sentiment toward asylum seekers. Any party's ascendancy to Government is dependent on their winning a popularity poll....so they adjust their policies accordingly. Labor, it seems, is no more interested in the moral implications of these amendments than the Liberals are on the question of offshore processing in general.

It's not about morals, it's about acquiescing to the insular fears of an small island nation that jealously guards its prosperity and doesn't want anything to alter the status quo.

The media is central to the whole sordid arrangement between the parties and the electorate - each feeds off the other, and further distances "ethics" from the equation.

Poirot

I believe that "acquiescing to the insular fears of an small island nation" AKA appealing to the lowest common denominator as indicative of a complete lack of moral fibre. In the past governments have acted in opposition to public sentiment. I recall being one of John Howard's "rabble" during the anti-war protests in the early 2000's.

http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=135&intversion=59

A country does not need to be an island nation to be manipulated by fear - as the "Coalition of the Willing" demonstrated, of course it does help. The irony is that Australia's island nation having kilometres of uninhabitable coastline in addition to being difficult to reach means we receive far less of the influx of refugees as other countries.

Since 9/11 I feel I have been living a nightmare from which I have yet to wake.