Anthony Albanese has finally said something by which he will be remembered - far beyond his feat of winning office, and then of triumphantly securing re-election last year, or of any aspiration.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

Regardless of how long he stays in the Lodge, or the circumstances of his leaving it, he will, for many people, be defined by his statements refusing any help or assistance to Australian women and children in Syrian refugee camps.

It will be mentioned in most of his obituaries, in mentions in history books and be recognised in contemporary literature as a feature of a dull and colourless time. A Thatcherism, perhaps.

No reference to it will be to his honour. It will not be praised as evidence of earthy common sense, empathy with popular feeling, or instinct for social justice. But it will be seen to define his character and his meanness of spirit. A mirror to his political and moral instincts, the limitations of his vision and leadership and his incapacity to take the broad view and to see in events what the circumstances and the times require, rather than the political short-term.

He could reverse himself tomorrow, but the references to it would not disappear simply because he changed his mind. His announcement was just so typically him. Not even Scott Morrison had so deficient a sense of what might have been expected of a great leader at a moment of history.

No Curtin, no Chifley, no Whitlam, no Keating and no Rudd - each in their way blind to opportunity - would not have missed this occasion, least of all by appealing to the base, the cruel and the unkind. No Menzies, no Holt, no Gorton, no Fraser and no Howard left Australians to die unprotected as a punishment for their mistakes.

Suppose that it is true - and provable - that all or most of the women involved gave practical aid to extreme terrorism. Albanese was not called to reach out and cuddle them. He could be holding his nose and preparing for a reception in Australia which held them to account.

But he should not be abandoning them, even in the name of promoting greater safety for the rest of the population, assuming (and I do not believe this for a second) this were true.

Most of the women followed their men, with varying degrees of willingness and naivety. None are portrayed as those who pulled the men, most now presumed dead, into their doomed campaign. Many had married very young, and had limited autonomy, particularly among camps of fanatics.

Albanese and the government have not been called upon to forgive them on behalf of the nation for any individual misjudgements they had made in getting there or for any signs of enthusiasm for the Islamic State cause.

Some actions may yet draw accountability, and this had already been promised, regardless of Australian assistance in securing the women's return. Even if each were childless, they should be repatriated because they are ours.

The children are wholly innocent and that is something more than an unfortunate consequence we cannot do anything about

But they are not childless, and their 20 or so children are not "guilty" of anything simply because of the actions of their fathers, or even of their mothers. Albanese cannot dismiss their plight, or their future, as an "unfortunate" but automatic consequence of their current location with their impliedly guilty mothers.

They are Australian citizens, and Australia has obligations and duties to them. I would argue that we may even have moral obligations towards them even if they were not Australians, in the same sense that Australia has acquired moral obligations to people in Iraq, or Afghanistan simply because of the war there. But I do not have to argue that.

These children are innocents by any standard. Their rights, and........

© Canberra Times