Solutions, anyone? Time to move on from offshore processing

I thought I’d get in early since I expect the debate surrounding Australia’s treatment/processing/whatever other pseudonym you fancy regarding the detainment of people-whose-refugee-status-is-yet-to-be-determined-but-let’s-hope-the-voters-forget-about-them-up-here-on-the-islands-of-the-Pacific-then-we-can-send-them-to-an-impoverished-third-country, will soon shift from dehumanising asylum seekers to taking responsibility—more likely avoiding it—and seeking an alternative solution.

I think—albeit wishfully—that the call for more government transparency about its military operations against the heavily armed and dangerous—just joking—asylum seekers trying to overrun ‘our’ country is finally gaining some traction. Perhaps it was the death of Reza Berati on Manus that finally woke many Aussies up to the reality of what the Coalition was doing in the name of, well, Australia and its national security.

Surely the governments of nations around the world are laughing at Australia’s expense. I mean, if we get so worked up about a handful of poor people on leaky boats, what chance have we got in the real world, where there are issues serious enough to warrant concern. Pretty embarrassing to make a big deal out of such a trifling matter; trifling in terms of a threat to national security, far from trifling for the people on the receiving end of our policies however.

Now I’m not interested in starting a petty debate between the political parties of ‘they started it!’, ‘yes, but you went too far by hiding the facts’, ‘but, but...’ The shrillness of this debate would soon tire the average Australian and ultimately not help the detainees for whom the government, and by extension we, are responsible. So it’s time for a new debate, it’s time to work out what we are going to do.

Offshore processing has been tried—unfortunately not in a legal sense by the International Criminal Court—and been found wanting; sure, there are less boats coming, but does the harsh treatment of their cargo justify that end? My position is obvious so I won’t bore you with more diatribes, but think about it.

Governments derive their power from us, the voters. They represent us, the voters, at least in theory. While I enjoy criticising Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott about their treatment of asylum seekers, I don’t think it will get us far. So let’s move on to what we are going to do next. Let’s take the lead away from Canberra—they have failed to lead us in a direction many support, so let’s change the debate from one about politics, to one about people.

Let’s assess ‘boat people’s’ claims in a safe place, free from rogue guards who have the freedom to ‘control’ a riot as they see fit. Let’s not be a weak nation that can’t look after its own problems and instead shares them with struggling countries who have domestic problems enough to deal with. Stop people smuggling? Sure, but go after the criminals, not their cargo of asylum seekers. Since when has Australia been a country that supports oppression? When did that happen? Why did it happen?

‘A ‘fair go’? Sorry mate, we ditched that policy in the interest of...I forgot what but there must be a good reason—at least, there’d better be or we’re up creek.’