Commentators out of touch on refugees

There were two reactions to the Government's handling of the Tampa incident. One was the overwhelming support of the public. The other was the overwhelming condemnation of opinion leaders.

Rather than this dichotomy, the nation is better served by consensus. Self-government, federation, the world wars and postwar immigration are examples.

It is, of course, in the nature of any elite that they believe themselves endowed with greater wisdom. This is not always so, as the infatuation of many with Marx proved.

In France in the 1960s, there was an extraordinary adulation of Mao's Little Red Book. Australia's elites were at their best in the 1980s in achieving economic reform. The government and opposition were in agreement and the nation accepted their leaderships, at times reluctantly. But when a part of the elite tried to impose a cultural agenda - new flag, reconciliation beyond the practical, and a republic - they failed.

And the public got it right on East Timor, while the elites were in denial.

More recently, almost all of the opinion leaders were motivated by compassion for the unauthorised entrants. But the public believed those already in the queue, in the refugee camps, living in fear of persecution and who had observed all the proper rules should have priority.

This is not "playing the race card". It is confirming the obvious - that Australia decides the rules about who comes into this country. Those rules are fair and generous and not at all discriminatory.

Most critics did not accept the popular fear that what was a trickle could easily have become a flood. Australia is an attractive country, and the chances of a favourable assessment were - at least until Parliament finally acted - very high.

Without the Government drawing the line, the influx would have grown until the number of unauthorised entrants would have been substantial. The charge on the Budget would have been in the billions.

At some point, some of the opinion leaders who are now so critical of John Howard would have begun to think the unthinkable - that is, that the flow of ships from Indonesia must stop. Would that point have been at 100,000 people, 200,000, 500,000? At what stage would the opinion leaders decide that open entry was no longer viable?

At some stage, the flow would have led to significant and serious social instability. It is not hard to think of examples in other countries.

So when would Howard's critics have drawn the line? Most were unusually coy about indicating the number of unauthorised arrivals they would propose.

Pressed on this, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja indicated she would increase the quota by the amount of 4,000. That wouldn't put a dent in the trade. I do not know what quota Senator Bob Brown and the Greens propose, but given his and the Democrats opposition to the Government's actions, you must begin to wonder what happened to "zero population growth".

A few critics opt for virtually open entry. Republican leader Greg Barns says Australia must "lift its refugee intake massively". He approves of the free movement of people as an extension of globalisation. And he thinks there is no need for Australians to be consulted on this.

In any event, a clear signal has now gone out to the smugglers that they will no longer be able to deliver what they have promised - free entry to Australia where there would be a strong likelihood that a generously funded refugee status would be granted, whether or not the client is a genuine refugee.

It is estimated that there are about 4,000 or 5,000 clients in the pipeline - people they have induced to come to Indonesia or possibly Malaysia with the promise of easy entry into Australia with generous assistance from Australian taxpayers.

The smugglers are under enormous pressure to test Australia's resolve before the monsoons. It is patently ridiculous to say that because of movement from this pipeline, the policy has failed. And it is defamation bordering on the criminal to suggest that because an unseaworthy vessel sinks in Indonesian waters with a tragic loss of life, and with possible Indonesian police involvement, this is the fault of the Australian Government - or of the Australian people.