Not in my name Mr Morrison: compassion and public policy, a case study of Australia and asylum seekers

The oxymoron of political ethics?

As a student of political ethics, I am not naïve about the inevitability of moral ambiguity in political practice. Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam correctly surmised: "Only the impotent are pure". My mentor of decades past, Reinhold Niebuhr, the American Christian ethicist, concluded that politics is "an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises". To Minister Morrison, and his colleagues, I freely concede that governing requires actions at times which are morally disagreeable.

The excellent Labor for Refugees publication, The Drownings Argument, launched in mid-July, outlines sound and instructive policy principles which are necessary to good refugee policy. The Introduction asserts that moral sentiment in public policy can be problematic. So it can. For instance, the treatment of the First Australians from the first British Governor, Arthur Phillip, onward has been littered with good, moral intentions which resulted in severely damaging outcomes. As with Aboriginal Australians, moral intentions in public policy are often nullified as compassion and charity become paternalism and pity. This observation is very pertinent to the argument used to defend the Australian policy of "stopping the boats". Briefly that argument is: by stopping the boats we have stopped "boat people" from drowning. Ipso facto, the policy is justified on the moral grounds that the lives of men, women and children have been saved. But that moral justification is both short-sighted and self-serving. It may result in people being pushed back to even more horrendous circumstances. Rather than a possible future where human rights are assured, they face a probable future where human rights are denied, whether that be in their country of origin, a transit country or in Australia's detention camps.

Moreover, the moral justification for preventing drownings cannot be held as a trump card over the consequential appalling treatment being meted out to those who have come here "via the back door" as a way of sending a message to prospective arrivals and smugglers. The claim that one compassionate good is achieved (stopping drownings) should not come at the cost other unjustified practices.

Politics is the art of the possible; but not of any possibility surely. Political practice that is morally defensible aims for the best possible outcome. The criteria for "the best possible" are various. In this case much is heard of "the national interest", a slippery criterion if ever there was, and surely subject to considerations of international and humanitarian responsibility. For a start, rather than merely following public opinion and feeding xenophobia, humanitarian leadership would challenge and inspire public opinion beyond a narrow view of "the national interest". In my view a justifiable policy has the character of "responsible utilitarianism". Our approach to ethics in public policy ought to reflect a sense of the common good, and responsiveness to the most disadvantaged. In this case, that involves social justice action for the human community beyond our borders.

The responsibility of citizenry in a democracy is to apply pressure to improve political performance; in this case to say emphatically in as many ways as we can "NOT IN MY NAME MR MORRISON – we have had enough – our reasons are multiple but, at the core they are fuelled by our disgust at how the Abbott Government and the previous Labor Government have thrown compassion out of the cabinet room". Of course, Australia alone cannot save the 45 million or more displaced persons in our world but, as a rich nation claiming that we are a culture of "the fair go", we can do a lot, lot better!

What place is there for compassion?

In his maiden speech the future Minister Morrison used the term "compassion" more than once, hardly a word one associates with the action of his government in returning Tamil asylum seekers to the Sri Lankan navy on the high seas or with the Manus Island riots which led to manslaughter in early 2014. My contention is that the virtue of compassion has a key role to play in public policy, in a hard headed sense, not in a "warm, fuzzy" sense. Moreover, it is fundamental to both the substance and demeanour of good political leadership.

But what is "compassion"?

Morrison links "compassion" to his religious faith. It is certainly a central characteristic of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and also the Buddha. But it would be spurious to contend that being compassionate depends on following any religion. Compassion is the first among secular/sacred virtues. As such, it ought to be central to the communal life of our nation as a global citizen. According to The Charter of Compassion (www.charterforcompassion.org), compassion is "born of our deep interdependence...essential to human relationships and a fulfilled humanity...indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community". Literally, from the Latin, "compassion" means "the act of suffering with". Its companion is "empathy". Compassion requires entering into another's reality with empathy, putting aside presumptions and waiting to hear the other's story. In public policy terms, compassion is the antidote to paternalism, public pity or narrow nationalism.

The United Nations' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, are born of the international awareness of human suffering, and of compassion as the catalyst for humanity's global hopes – and we, Australia, to our shame are thumbing our collective nose at this aspiration, either by flouting the convention or regarding it in mean, minimalist terms.

Earlier I drew some parallel between Australia's current treatment of asylum seekers and that of Aboriginal Australians, particularly how moral sentiment can undermine policy intentions. This parallel question brings to mind a memorable speech by Prime Minister Keating in Redfern Park on International Human Rights Day 1992. It was delivered in the context of Australia's debate about legislation to follow the High Court Mabo decision – a matter of human rights and public reconciliation.