The Albanese Government’s obsessive enthusiasm for matching Coalition and News Corp demands with policy responses was on show twice last week. On both occasions it was enshrined in legislation, the first on immigration detention and the other on laws to restrict social media access.

Last Thursday the High Court ruled that the electronic devices and strict curfews the Government imposed on immigrants released from detention in 2023 were unlawful. The ruling follows the Government’s keenness in November 2023 to take harsh action against 141 released immigration detainees that Peter Dutton described in Trumpian terms as desperate criminals posing a grave threat to Australian citizens.

Rather than taking a firm stand in support of the High Court ruling last year, the Albanese Government’s haste in responding to Dutton’s alarmist claims created the perception that the Coalition was in charge of the agenda, and that the release of immigration detainees was fundamentally different to the release of any other detainees in the Australian community who have served time for their offences.

The Attorney General Mark Dreyfus and the then Home affairs Minister Clare O’Neil had attempted to take a strong stand in support of the High Court decision on 6 December 2023 when they were challenged by Sky News reporter Olivia Caisley with a question implying the Government should apologise to the public for the release of the detainees. Instead of supporting the Attorney General, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reported to Parliament that Dreyfus had apologised to the News Corp reporter for his firm response to her question.

In that context, the then Immigration Minister Andrew Giles responded under pressure from Dutton to make “strict laws stricter”, taking into account the government’s inability to return the detainees to their home country or a third country.

Instead of taking the view that the former Home Affairs Minister Dutton’s hardline preference for ‘set and forget’ indefinite detention of refugees had proved to be unlawful, the Government immediately backed down and admitted fault in complying with the High Court ruling. Coalition ministers falsely claimed the only detainee that should have been released was the one who took the case to the court. The many lawyers in the Coalition were aware that is not how the law works in Australia, yet Albanese decided to put Labor on the back foot by agreeing with Dutton’s indignation and outrage, and in the process assisted the Opposition leader to convey the impression that he was Australia’s prime minister in waiting.

Greens MP Nick McKim was happy to make the point at the time that Labor had “let Dutton pressure them into trampling refugee rights with hasty and xenophobic legislation”, observing that Labor failed in its role of leadership and abandoned principle in its pursuit of bipartisanship with its political adversary. Although the Greens do not come to the refugee issue with clean hands, McKim’s observation contained more than a kernel of truth.

Having bent over backwards to appease Dutton’s fear mongering with draconian restrictions on the movement of released detainees in 2023, the High Court has now ruled those restrictions are also unlawful. Greens Senator David Shoebridge has not resisted the temptation to observe that the proposed legislation to deal with the new ruling “introduces sweeping new powers that will force people who have fled Iran or Russia to choose between indefinite detention or being forced offshore to some unknown country with no protections”.

Labor’s desperation to stoop low on immigration when the Opposition inflames the issue is a reminder that capitulation is neither a satisfactory answer on principle nor in practice. Kim Beazley learnt that lesson in 2001 when he capitulated to John Howard on Tampa. Howard was on the ropes during that election campaign and Beazley did not want to lose votes by standing up to him. Abandoning core Labor values for a short-term political gain loses the respect of its supporter base, earns the contempt of its political adversary, and is a step onto a path to political ruin. Beazley lost that election to Howard but Labor’s successors have forgotten the lesson. Howard did not thank Beazley for his capitulation on Tampa but rather immortalised the Opposition leader as a pretender who lacked “ticker”. The characterisation is a heavy legacy which Beazley has had to bear ever since.

In an attempt to reverse received political wisdom, on Friday last week Albanese actually thanked his political nemesis, News Corp, for running a campaign on restricting children’s access to social media. Dutton had long been complaining that social media is a “sewer”, which is his way of saying that the mainstream media, led by News Corp, tend to say nice things about him and give him positive coverage. However, the unkind voices that speak about Dutton on social media are not voices he can control, and he doesn’t like it.

It’s safe to say the reverse operates with respect to Albanese. Taking their cues from NewsCorp, the mainstream media tend to amplify Albanese’s mistakes and minimise reporting on his achievements. That has been true since his minor misstep during the 2022 election campaign was given saturation media coverage as a “gaffe” for weeks on end. It has continued in government with saturation negative media coverage on stories such as his recent purchase of a home with his future wife and his past acceptance of fight upgrades. By contrast, any positive coverage Albanese receives tends to happen on independent media outlets or social media.

Despite that, Albanese paid tribute to the popular campaign that has been run by media organisations on the issue. Polling results reveal around 60 per cent of voters favour social media restriction for children. “I do want to single out NewsCorp for the campaign that they’ve run, Let Them Be Kids,” Albanese graciously declared.

That would be the campaign that Murdoch is waging against social media companies such as Tik Tok and Twitter (X) to further his own business interests and to eliminate an avenue of positive coverage for Labor. Albanese may as well have thanked the fox for guarding the henhouse or Dracula for being on caretaker duty at the blood bank.

News Corp will be loving Albanese’s own goal on the social media issue but will give him no credit for it. Dutton will be keen to adopt a bipartisan approach with the government as a way of signalling to the electorate that his leadership on the issue is what prompted Albanese into legislative action, and News Corp will amplify that narrative.

In an attempt to sound populist himself, Albanese projected Scott Morrison in saying that “I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online. And I want Australian parents and families to know that government has your back.”

Although Albanese may have spoken to a few advisers who in turn have spoken with focus group leaders and pollsters, he hasn’t spoken to “thousands” of punters and he demeans himself by making such a claim. But when it comes to a chance for bipartisanship with the adversary whose causes he appears to unwittingly promote, he is prepared to pull out all the stops.

https://johnmenadue.com/whatever-dutton-wants-albanese-makes-sure-he-gets/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

“It’s hard to do cartoons without politics…”

         Gus Leonisky