Promises, promises: what's in a promise?

We will stop the boats ... stop the boats ... stop the boats ... stop the boats ... (Tony Abbott 2013)

It was the Liberal/National Party (LNP) launch to the 2001 federal election campaign. The packed auditorium of true believers was abuzz in an air of expectancy. Then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was poised to address an aggravating issue in Australian politics.

Howard had chosen this event to vent his resentment and frustration at what he saw as the continuing stream of "illegal/unauthorized", "queue-jumping" "boat people" arriving on Australian shores through the back door. In the wake of the controversial "Tampa affair", he stood defiantly behind a lectern, on national television, and announced the Coalition's tougher policies on boarder control. With arms flailing in righteous indignation, he commanded:

We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.

The "commandment" received resounding support from the partisan crowd, giving it the green light and making it an election issue.

As the election campaign got under way, Howard proceeded to demonize asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat in a most prejudicial way―as unwelcome illegal/unauthorized arrivals who could harbour terrorists, and seriously disrupt the social and economic fabric of Australia. He made no mention of them as desperate fleeing human beings, or of their human rights as asylum seekers under the UN Refugee Convention―of which Australia is a signatory.

Predictably the human rights community was outraged. Human rights defenders claimed that Australia's Prime Minister was creating an image of Australia as a mean spirited country, lacking in compassion. They accused him of resorting to politics of fear in the way he shepherded the electorate to support his "cruel and inhumane" approach to offshore detention of people desperately attempting to seek asylum in Australia. It gave rise to questions about our moral/humanitarian values, principles and obligations; questions such as, what happened to our traditional belief in the Good Samaritan? and, is the second verse of our proudly proclaimed National Anthem mere platitude?

Then, in order to deter the so called "boat people" from setting foot in Australia, the Howard Government excised the mainland from the migration zone. This denied them landing rights on the Australian mainland, and at the same time access to Australian justice.

Accusations of neo-colonial imperialism followed, to explain the politically expedient and exploitative manner Howard lured impoverished ex-colonies, PNG and Nauru, into doing Australia's detention work for rich remuneration―PNG's dubious human rights record notwithstanding. It was an irresistible offer PNG and Nauru could not afford to refuse. The controversial scheme became known as the "Pacific Solution". To achieve his ends, Howard brushed aside the human rights declared in the UN Refugee Convention, which applied to "boat people" seeking asylum in Australia. In doing so he simply ignored Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. As Dr Daniel Webb, Human Rights Law Centre expert puts it:

Article 31provides that states are prohibited from penalizing asylum seekers on the basis of their 'illegal entry or presence'.

Continuing, Dr Webb advised that, "By singling out boat arrivals for offshore processing and mandatory, indefinite detention and also by removing their right to apply for an Australian visa, our current law and policy does precisely what Article 31 says it can't." (Email, 28 October 2013)

In the same vein, respected expert on international refugee and asylum law, Professor James Hathaway―professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne―took umbrage with the "Pacific Solution", also arguing that it was in breach of the United Nation's Convention relating to the status of refugees:

... The Convention itself says that you can't penalise refugees for arriving without authorization". (ABC Radio National, 22 July 2013)

Howard stuck to his guns. His slogan, "We will decide..." got through to the majority of the Australian people, and contributed significantly to his re-election as Prime Minister. As it turned out the flow of boats slowed after the election―due to a range of national and international push/pull factors― and Howard was quick to proclaim the "success" of the "Pacific Solution". But in the process, the policy sent out mixed messages, and Australia's integrity as a standard bearer for human rights was seriously questioned nationally and internationally.

Fast forward to 2013.

Before losing the election in 2013, during its six years in government, Labor remained in a quandary over asylum seekers arriving by boat. Following backflips and contradictions, eventually, in desperation, Labor capitulated to the Coalition's "Pacific Solution", which it had previously condemned outright. As part of Australia's new deal with PNG and Nauru, both countries dutifully signed up to the UN Refugees Convention to draw attention away from PNG's questionable human rights record. Grasping the opportunity, Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, seized on Labor's equivocation over six years, repeatedly talking up the "deficit of trust" which had built up against the Labor Government on the matter. In back-to-the-future fashion Abbott resurrected the policy of the Howard Government, asserting that only his party (LNP) had the right policies, and the track record to "stop the boats". The LNP had done it once (under Howard), and he promised to follow the Howard script this time round. According to Abbott, only an LNP Government could be trusted to resolve this refractory issue once and for all.

I'll keep my word

the front page headline of The Sydney Morning Herald (6 September 2013) quoted Abbott as saying. In an adjacent column the paper made its own editorial contribution:

Australians deserve a government they can trust.

Thus the three-word slogan, "stop the boats", became a core promise and political mantra for the LNP a second time. "We will stop the boats.... stop the boats ... stop the boats... stop the boats..." echoed throughout the 2013 federal election campaign. By this time Abbott had shifted the focus from "illegal/unauthorized arrivals", ... to exploitative and unconscionable "people smugglers", "economic migrants", and tragic deaths at sea. It won support in the electorate and played a key role in the Abbott Government's electoral victory. Soon after, the "Pacific Solution" was refashioned as the "no advantage", "Third Country Processing Regimen", aka "Operation Sovereign Borders". In effect this meant indeterminate detention on Manus Island (PNG), or Nauru, with no prospect of processing or settlement in Australia―nor access to Australian justice.

Political agendas soon collided. Former Prime Minister and recipient of the Human Rights Medal, Malcolm Fraser, weighed in, calling the "Pacific Solution" an "abdication of Australia's responsibilities to our basic humanity." Meanwhile, Dr Daniel Webb, (Human Rights Law Centre) added a warning, that "the policy is the continuation of a really concerning trend of a deterrent-based approach to a difficult humanitarian issue." (Sydney Morning Herald, 15 August 2013)

However, the newly anointed Prime Minister soon found himself facing his own "deficit of trust" in relation to his core promise to stop the boats. The question being asked was: Are we seeing Tony Abbott retreating from his dogmatic rhetoric of opposition?

During an interview on Channel 10 (12 September 2013), Dr David McRae of the Lowy Institute for International Policy was asked to comment on Abbott's constantly repeated promise to stop the boats. He responded, saying:

These are the kind of things the Coalition would say to win an election rather than policies an Australian Government would implement when in office.

Now it remains to be seen if the Coalition puts these things aside as things that were said purely to win political office, and pursues a more cooperative asylum-seeker policy.

In framing his reply, Dr Mc Crae was acutely aware of a recent statement reported in the Jakarta Post by Indonesian Foreign Minister, Marty Natalegawa, about the manner by which Tony Abbott promised to "stop the boats". The Foreign Minister's retort was scathing, and drew a line in the sand:

We will reject his [Tony Abbott's] policy on asylum-seekers, and any other policy, because it is not in the spirit of partnership. ... We are not accepting this for sure.

As well, Abbott's unilateral pre-election rhetoric did not go down well with at least one Indonesian Cabinet Minister and other high public officials. They rejected the Abbott modus operandi as "unfriendly and derogatory" towards other stakeholders (in particular Indonesia).

Barely one month in office, the new Prime Minister set off for Indonesia on what opponents derided as "Abbott's grovel tour", to apologise to the Indonesian President for things that were said in the heat of politics during the 2013 election campaign. It was an interesting back down because, throughout his time as Opposition Leader, and particularly during the election campaign, Abbott was so adamant about engaging the defence force (navy) to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers (if it was considered safe to do so).

He also planned to buy boats in Indonesia which were likely to be used for "people smuggling". Furthermore, he proposed to offer rewards for intelligence information on likely boat departures from Indonesia destined for Australia. Courier Mail commentator, Frances Whiting (5 October 2013), drew attention to Abbott's tangled web as he was faced with reconciling his impulsive pre-election promise in opposition, with the complex post-election reality in government:

When he got there and faced the Indonesian President face to face, the incredible delicacies and complexities of this problem became far more apparent to him in government than it was in opposition. The reality of being in government has forced him to take a far more cooperative approach. They're still giving the line that they are going to stop the boats but have become more quiet about saying they will be turning them around. We should watch this space...

Other commentators have suggested that in ignoring the dignity and respect of Indonesia's sovereignty, Abbott overlooked the sensibilities of a country previously colonized by a Western overlord. In Indonesia the distrust engendered by Tony Abbott's switch gave rise to a credibility gap between what he actually preached then and what he professes now. While Indonesia may diplomatically agree to negotiate, it is unlikely that country will readily forgive and forget the brash unilateral approach that characterized Abbott's pre-election promises to "stop the boats". It remains to be seen if the Indonesians will transcend the "deficit of trust" on this issue in future negotiations with the Abbott Government.

Despite Abbott's new-found conciliatory approach, his Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, is apparently still fixed firmly on the previous page. Ramping up his hardline stand on border control, Morrison has directed his Department to change the nomenclature for asylum seekers arriving by boat. Henceforth, they are to be referred to officially as "illegal maritime arrivals" and "detainees" despite the UN Refugee Convention. Human rights advocates perceive that such language only serves to inflame this difficult humanitarian issue by further dehumanizing asylum seekers. It is also claimed that in the renaming, the Government is trying to give the impression that refugees do not exist or have rights. Thus Morrison is accused of politicizing the issue, driven by motives of political self-interest. Predictably the Greens were quick to remind the Government that, "People seeking asylum ... are human beings."

The question being asked now in many quarters is: At the end of this term as Prime Minister what will we make of Tony Abbott's pre-election core promise and unilateral approach to "stop the boats" by:

• turning them back,
• buying them in Indonesia,
• offering Indonesian citizens rewards for intelligence information about likely boat departures for Australia,
• guaranteeing offshore detention in PNG and Nauru with no prospect of processing or settlement in Australia, or access to Australian justice, and
• considering that he changed roles so rapidly and markedly from pre- to post-election?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Marmion, Sir Walter Scott