EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Doublethink on asylum seekers won't fool anyone

DOUBLETHINK has infected the tortured debate about border protection, an issue that demands straight talking and clear thinking.

Both major political parties say they aim to stem the flow of unauthorised boat arrivals. The Coalition has been happy to champion a hard-headed approach, but the government has promised the same outcome through a "compassionate" policy. Labor promises secure borders, but seeks to appease the Left by distancing itself from the Coalition's previous tough policies.

So we're left with the Orwellian concept of Doublethink: Holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says he will not reactivate offshore processing on Nauru because it won't break the people-smugglers' business model: "If you go to Nauru you would end up in Australia, that's what happened before." Yet in the same breath he says it is too harsh: "There is plenty of evidence and research showing Nauru caused considerable mental damage to people who were there for long periods of time." So Nauru, apparently, is too easy and too harsh. As Orwell wrote: "To know and not to know."

This oxymoronic reasoning will only work on compliant members of the Canberra press gallery and refugee activists who refuse to apply common sense to this difficult issue. Most voters will see, correctly, that the reason the Gillard government won't reactivate Nauru is because it involves Labor admitting it was wrong to close it down.

Faced with increasing boat arrivals from 1999, the Howard government introduced the so-called Pacific Solution, which included offshore processing at Nauru. In 1999, 86 boats arrived carrying 3721 people. In 2000, there were 51 boats and 2939 arrivals. In 2001, there were 5516 people in 43 boats. But Howard's hardline polices worked: no boats arrived in 2002; one in 2003; and an annual average of less than half a dozen over the following five years. When the Rudd government softened the measures and scrapped offshore processing in late 2008, the people-smugglers started up again and we've had more than 220 boats carrying more than 11,000 people since.

Julia Gillard and her ministers have argued the surge in arrivals can be blamed on push factors rather than the softening of our laws, or pull factors. But global refugee numbers of about 10 million mean push factors are constantly high and the conflicts the government has sought to blame, in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Iraq, have fluctuated for decades.

Anyway, the government has shown it doesn't believe its own spin on push factors because its recent attempts to pursue the abandoned East Timor and troubled Malaysian solutions are a tacit admission the lack of deterrence is the problem. Belatedly, it is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Which takes us back to Nauru and doublethink. Initially, Ms Gillard ruled out Nauru because it is not signed up to the UN Refugee Convention, yet it seeks a deal with Malaysia, which also is not a signatory. It is time for the government to be frank. Boat arrivals in Australia are clearly our problem, not Malaysia's, and we should accept responsibility rather than duck-shove the people and the issue.

Nation needs vision, not a poll

FOR more than two years, Australian politics has been close to an election footing.

In late 2009, the threat of a double-dissolution election forced the Coalition to negotiate over emissions trading legislation ahead of the Copenhagen Summit. That rushed timeline triggered Tony Abbott's leadership coup and then Kevin Rudd missed his best opportunity, and sealed the fate of his own leadership, by squibbing an early poll and walking away from carbon pricing. Julia Gillard seized the prime ministership and rushed to the polls to capitalise on her honeymoon. But she lost Labor's majority and entered testy and protracted post-election negotiations. As the independents and Greens flexed their muscles and openly threatened a return to the polls, our political editor, Dennis Shanahan, wrote a comment piece on August 26 last year suggesting if the independents persisted with such threats, the nation might, indeed, be better off with another election. Shanahan's piece was insightful and timely and, of course, Ms Gillard went on to forge her agreements and form government. The Australian has always accepted that because it can command a majority on the floor of the house, the Gillard government is legitimate. But Greens leader Bob Brown continues to assert otherwise, citing Shanahan's excellent commentary as evidence the "hate media" wants an election.

Poll fever continues because the Opposition Leader is demanding the government seek a mandate for its carbon tax, and surveys suggest some public support for that view. For the record, this newspaper believes the proper time for the next election should be, on schedule, in the second half of 2013. Despite its shortcomings and minority status, the Gillard government clearly has the right and the responsibility to seek to govern effectively for a standard term.

In order to do so, it should seek to govern for the nation rather than the MPs on whom it relies for power. Tony Windsor's regional NBN fetish, Andrew Wilkie's poker machine crusade and Adam Bandt's carbon tax push are not the priorities Ms Gillard focused on at the election.

She will win the faith of voters if she puts the government "back on track", as promised, by resolving the mining tax, securing our borders, running the economy prudently and delivering something of a vision for the nation.

Nightmare scenario in Yemen

IN different circumstances, the departure from Yemen of President Ali Abdullah Saleh would be seen as another major achievement for the Arab Spring, with the region's third despot forced to flee a democratic uprising against oppressive and corrupt rule.

Unfortunately, that is a far too simplistic a view of what is happening in this highly strategic country. Yemen has a major al-Qai'da presence and its location at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula is of vital significance to Western security because so much of the world's oil passes through the Red Sea.

Regrettably, in the turmoil that has overtaken Yemen because of Mr Saleh's obduracy and his refusal to cut a deal with the demonstrators, the noble goals of democracy and freedom espoused by the youthful protest movement have been swept aside by the country's always toxic mix of tribal politics and rivalries, and the machinations of al-Qai'da in the Arabian Peninsula, led by the American-born Anwar al-Awlaki.

Mr Saleh, in hospital in Riyadh, seems unlikely to return home. He appears to be out of the picture.

But all the other elements in the volatile mix remain, with members of the president's family, including his eldest son and heir, commanding the loyalty of major army units; the powerful al-Ahmar family's forces doing battle with them in Sanaa; Iran backing the Shia Houthi uprising in the north; a secessionist movement in the south; and al-Qai'da stealthily seeking to exploit the chaos and already claiming control of the town of Zinjibar.

In any circumstance this would be a nightmare scenario. Given Yemen has emerged as the base for several recent international terrorist attacks, including courier packages containing bombs sent to Chicago, the chaos that has overtaken the country could hardly be more portentous. This is the sort of environment in which al-Qai'da thrives.

Mr Saleh has paid the price for intransigence. In his fate lies a lesson for others in the Arab world who fail to deal sensibly with demands for change.

The challenges in Yemen could hardly be greater. Amid the deepening chaos, however, the original demands of the protest movement for democracy and freedom remain as valid now as they have been since the start of the Arab Spring. They must form the basis of a viable, new, post-Saleh political order.