I can't believe this ...

Apparently written by a Labour Party leader - and I agree with every word. It's not so much the asylum seeker bit - more the general thrust of what he says, and his analysis of why working class voters are disaffected. Just as relevant to the UK.

The early leaders of the Labor movement, such as Curtin and Chifley, were not willing to tolerate illegality or irresponsibility. They knew that a just society relies on a certain level of order and cohesiveness. They recognised that one of the pillars of social justice is the shared expectation that people are responsible for their own behaviour.

Curtin and Chifley expressed these values in their public policies and their public dialogue with working class people. At one level, this was simply commonsense. Social justice cannot be neutral about notions of public decency. None of our institutions - whether in the form of schools, communities or the welfare state - can succeed without sanctions against irresponsibility. This would invite chaos and the loss of the shared obligations of a good society.

In recent times, however, our Party has lost this dialogue with its working class constituency. The pervasiveness of the rights agenda has smothered the importance of social responsibility. Too many ALP activists are now willing to excuse or rationalise away bad behaviour, such as juvenile crime, welfare fraud and illegal migration.

This represents an inversion of the Good Samaritan principle. Groups like Labor for Refugees look at atrocities such as the Woomera riots or the payment of money to people smugglers and declare, "the people who did this need help." The first priority for a just society is to help needy people within the collective boundaries of the law. The first priority of your organisation is to find excuses for people who break the law.

In my experience, the strongest supporters of the rights agenda are those who do not have to face the daily consequences of irresponsible behaviour. They have the resources to buy themselves away from social problems, to purchase private security, private education, private health insurance and private transport. This gives them the luxury of being able to talk about human rights without the need for social responsibility.

The best example of this abstract process is Phillip Adams. In his public life he opposes border protection, safe in the knowledge that asylum seekers are unlikely to settle near his Paddington terrace. In his private life, however, he is a strong supporter of laneway protection, even to the point of preventing a 90-year-old woman in a wheelchair from accessing his property so that she might have Christmas lunch with her son.

For those who cannot buy themselves away from social problems, questions of legality and decency are all-important. If the public sector does not foster responsibility and reward effort then the life-chances of working class people will be diminished. These values are well known to people in my electorate. This is why they strongly oppose illegal migration.

People from a poor background may not be asset-rich but they are rich in the dignity of observing the law. In Green Valley, where I grew up in the 1960s and 70s, people who acted irresponsibly and illegally were known as "no-hopers." Many of our traditional supporters are worried that Labor is now on the side of the no-hopers, rather than the responsible working class.

I strongly support an agenda of rights and responsibilities. As a movement we need to recapture the ethical socialism of Curtin and Chifley.

Dangly-corks hat tip - the Dumb One.