Malaysia, yes

Is there any substance to the charge that Tony Abbott is a wrecker? What does it mean in a democracy when the opposition is accused of opposing too much? Can there be any substance to such a charge?

Mr Abbott is about to be tested. If he passes, he will, in the one-step, help secure Australia’s borders and lose any semblance of being a wrecker.

Government ministers have a script which, no matter the question, directs them back to Abbott as the bogeyman; the indefatigable omnipresent wrecker of our time. For example, in recent interview on ABC radio with Fran Kelly, Wayne Swan blamed Abbott, the mudslinger and wrecker, whether the question was about the Craig Thomson affair or job losses. Abbott lurked behind it all. On this occasion it was so obviously confected that it was amusing. On most occasions it is simply tedious. Is it tedious for everyone? I don’t know. Some public relations guru advising the government must think that it is effective – I suppose.

In general, there is no doubt that oppositions tend to oppose too much. The reason is evident enough. An opposition can hardly claim that the government of the day should be replaced if it consistently supports its legislation. Parliamentary democracy is an adversarial system. So, on balance, oppositions will err on the side of amending and opposing major pieces of legislation rather than passing them. On the whole, this should be seen as a good thing. Major legislation should be hard to pass. It is one way to ensure that national life is not badly afflicted by the whims of the party temporarily in power.

There are people, even politicians, who don’t seem understand the nature of parliamentary democracy and think everyone should get on and work towards reaching a consensus. Rob Oakeshott gives a good impression of that kind of politician. They are either communists at heart or hopeless idealists. Take your pick. Whichever category they fall into, they would be better placed elsewhere in society than in parliament.

Usually it is the government of the day that determines the extent of stridency of the opposition. It acts; the opposition reacts. It is more than a bit rich, for example, for the government to complain that it is being opposed too much, when it proposes to introduce a massive new tax immediately after an election in which it scraped home by promising not to introduce such a tax.

Then it has a mad back-of-the-envelope, untested scheme, to crisscross gardens, streets and suburbs throughout the nation with a colossally expensive, government-owned monopoly, broadband network, while it bludgeons and blackmails private communication carriers into cooperation. My goodness I wonder why the Liberals would oppose that in the socialist state of Australia? Abbott really is a wrecker.

Then, perhaps most serious of all because it goes to national security, the government seems incapable of devising any practicable plan to prevent people from arriving on our shores at will. The latest incarnation – the Malaysian solution – could surely only have been devised by half-wits. Maybe Bob Brown was right (though for other reasons) when he described some unnamed public servants in the Department of Immigration as “turkeys”.

Let’s face it; the list of inept and bad policies has been very long since that election in 2007. It has got worse under Ms Gillard than under Mr Rudd when the government had lost its way. It is almost as though the government has cleverly pushed Abbott into a position of having to oppose everything so he will look like a wrecker. It may be a cunning plan.

It really would be a cunning plan if Abbott were lulled into opposing everything as an instinctive reaction to an incompetent government. I can’t think of anything yet which would reasonable cast Abbott as a wrecker rather than as someone simply doing his job as leader of the opposition. But a test is imminent with the government’s proposed amendments to the Migration Act.

One real measure of whether an opposition is acting inappropriately is its approach to national security. A government’s job above all others is to keep us safe. Part of that is securing national borders. Any government must be given the benefit of the doubt in its quest for powers to do that. We can’t have courts, or irresponsible do-gooders like the Greens, effectively dismantling our defences.

The Malaysian solution will not work. However, the government must have the power to refuse entry to those who come here uninvited. When the Malaysian solution fails; the government must have the option of developing another solution – hopefully with the benefit of more competent advice than in the past. There are 40 million refugees in the world. Exactly how many should we let in? The do-gooders will never answer that question. They will always dissemble while sipping their lattes. Mr Abbott can’t afford to be associated with that company in any way shape or form. He must put away his opposition hat and help the government on this occasion.