If we could prevent child deaths from locking up the children of reckless parents, what are the parameters that would satisfy you that would make this OK? I don't have to define those parameters because I'm not OK with locking children up (and I'm broadly utilitarian, which means I actually would be OK with locking children up to save others, if it could be shown to have that effect and if we could be OK living in a world where that is a normal practice. Thankfully I'm not convinced of either.).
How do you know there are no more boats? How do you know there are no more drownings? Even if you disregard the "alternative" drownings as people smugglers go to different areas instead (which you shouldn't), for "operational security" reasons we are not being told if there are drownings or boats.
The Liberals and Labor share the same policy, I'm being told, in regard to locking up kids, so that can't be why they have been voted in 3 times in a row. Obviously it is a bit more complicated than that. But in regards to "boat people", plenty of people support the policy because they are xenophobic. That doesn't make it good policy, and that doesn't make the people voting for it "correct".
Others may have genuine concern for people drowning at sea. In that case, we need our political parties to be open. They need to share data about the effects of the policy. They need to allow studies to see if it is effective. They need to treat the policy like any other policy that has negative and positive effects and compare them. But they don't (well, no party compares its own policy and finds it failing, but we need the media, NGOs, and other political parties for example, to have access to the data to discuss the policies).
I would have thought that locking up children is a last resort, if used at all. I have not seen any attempts to justify this policy that aren't glib and slogan driven. No serious analysis. No discussion of alternatives. Maybe we could try....not locking children up? But still not allowing boat people to settle if we want a deterrent? Maybe we could process claims more efficiently, so kids don't spend years locked up. Maybe we could allow children to be part of a community, and receive adequate medical care, even as we process the claims of their parents? These are just a few suggestions, I'm sure policy makers not hell bent on scoring political points with racists could think of more.
So what other answers do you want before you lock children up? Surely you get all your ducks in a row, as it were, before you even consider it?
And surely you examine the issues in detail again and again, to check that it is the best policy?
Instead, our PM rants about letting murderers in when we want locked up people to have medical care, while he is busy letting murderers in.
And is it still an issue? Well, it may be. But the reason it was raised in the first place was because our newly elected PM was the champion of that policy (and is supposedly a good Christian man). So if our PM is happy to lock children up to score political points, and people are OK with him doing that, I think that has consequences for the way our society develops in the next few years.
