Sing_Sling Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Sure accept people have different opinions, thankfully in this topic we are not subjected to abuse from those who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xangsamhua Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present. Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to. Well, short of shooting them, it looks like they're going to come anyway. $5000 - $10,000 doesn't seem a lot, but it would be better paid to the Commonwealth than to the smugglers. I don't know what a reasonable amount to charge would be, but if it's that important for these people to come here, where they're likely to have a support network, find jobs and raise their children well, then I would think a properly researched charge could be levied on them, such that they can come here legally and safely (I don't like seeing babies and children drown) without all the points that are required at present. We don't need to restrict ourselves to well educated and well-off Asians, who are the ones getting through on the current points system. We can handle some Hazari Shi'ites, Iraqi Christians, Sri Lankan Hindus and the like. Perhaps we need to be looking at a policy that recognizes the rights as freedoms of people to cross borders, and to regain some of the openness and generosity of spirit that Australia showed towards the boat people of the 70s and 80s (and many of them weren't really political refugees either). It's a difficult matter, I know. But perhaps Australia is just a bit too picky in regard to whom it welcomes and whom it wants to keep at bay. In the eyes of the world we must look a bit like a continent-sized Trekboer stockade. PS. Letting them come doesn't mean they should be entitled to welfare payments and easy citizenship. Knowing they'll have to get by without these for perhaps 5 - 10 years might put some of them off, but will not deter those who really want to have a go. The problem with your suggested approach is that it would cut out 'real' refugees who have nothing, not even 5-10k for the processing fee. . . . As for the 'well-educated' Asians, nothing wrong with that - we have, unfortunately, created a ghetto-sytem in Australia by taking in fairly well everyone during the 'open doors' stage - not to be confused with the White Australia stage, that created - well, ghettos. I happened to catch an ABC show on Cabramatta the other night and remember driving through there once to search fro some good food and it was made quite clear to me that I wasn't wanted. No big deal, I dn't claim ownership of the country or any suburb, nor do I resent them for wanting to be among themselves - - - everyone has gone through that, the Italians, Greeks etc... Well educated Asians, and other well-educated migrants help build Australia, help create and maintain the environment we are used to as a nation. As for being too picky . . . well, I think we should be and as for well-educated Asians . . . the current flavour of the month by Oz Immigration starts at accounting, goes through to HR and aircraft maintenance and ends with plumbing and printing with many trades in between Yes, we would need to retain a Humanitarian Program to cater for genuine political and religious refugees and displaced people. The fee would not apply to these people. Those who by-pass UNHCR holding centres and make their way to Australia in leaky boats are indeed queue-jumpers, but once having got here they are recognized as asylum-seekers, and "asylum" means protection from persecution. If there's no evidence they need protection then they should be deported to their place of origin or an agreed destination. Displaced people would need to be able to show that their displacement is likely to be permanent or of lengthy duration. With refugees and displaced persons, access to welfare payments should be available, but citizenship only after an extended period, say 5 - 10 years. Re. the well-off and well-educated Asians, it's a cliche, but many of my friends in Oz are these people and I would be diminished if they were not able to live here. Freeing up the criteria for permanent residence (and they were freer, but unfortunately abused, before 1996) and levying a charge won't damage the prospects of the well-off and well-educated. It'll just give more chance to people on a lower rung (not able to meet the points criteria now), but able through their families, or perhaps Australian employer or community sponsorship, to get the money together and get themselves here. I'm surprised, Sing_Sling, at what you said about Cabramatta. I've only been there once, maybe 15 years ago, during the day and didn't sense any hostility. Our builder, who used to hang out with the gangs in Cabramatta as a teenager, says it's much better now. There are still drug dealers, but the streets are safer at night. I know it's anecdotal, but he may be right. Incidentally, I think a good part of the gang scene in Sydney and Melbourne in the late 80s and 90s arose from the numbers of unaccompanied adolescent boys in the boats coming from Vietnam. Although they had access to benefits and schooling, it was too late for most of them to succeed in an English-speaking school or academic program. Strong and unscrupulous mentors took them in hand and introduced them to the drugs and gang scene. There is a potential danger in my argument for freeing up entry requirements without access to benefits if some who get in just can't make the grade and turn to gangs or religious fanaticism. This would have to be considered. We don't want a repetition of what happened with the Vietnamese unaccompanied adolescents. It's all rather complex, but none of the solutions proposed by Libs or Lab or Air Marshal Houston's enquiry seem to be succeeding. Edited July 16, 2013 by Xangsamhua 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Scott Posted July 16, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 16, 2013 I am not sure that the asylum/refugee situation is on-topic, however, it is an important issue for the people and the PM. As long as posters are civil, I am inclined to leave the discussion open and flexible. Your cooperation is appreciated. (I would like to let our Ozzie friends know that this has been one of the more civil threads in a long time -- thanks). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 . PM Kevin Rudd reveals $3.8 billion price tag on decision to 'terminate' carbon tax"Terminating" the carbon tax will cost the budget $3.8 billion over the next four years, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has confirmed. Mr Rudd has released the details of his plan to switch to a European-style floating price system a year early, saying it would lead to a reduction in the cost of living which would save an average family $380 a year from July 1 2014. More article and video here ABC The reality is that he is just bringing forward by 12 months the switch from a 'fixed' carbon price to a 'floating' carbon price. But he's doing a good sales job. Speaking and looking very much like a Prime Minister. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 . But, in my opinion ... this, a few days earlier was simply a farce of the highest order ... Get in line: world pays homage at the court of King Kevin Rudd ... IN the thin Canberra winter sun, the cream of the diplomat corps lined up along the gravel drive of The Lodge to honour its newly restored resident. Crunching forward one by one, the 100-plus ambassadors invited for the informal afternoon tea waited their turn for a moment in the sun with Kevin Rudd and wife Therese Rein. If they were bemused by the extraordinary and unprecedented spectacle, they were too polite to let on, smiles fixed on their faces. With the world once again at his feet, Mr Rudd declared that his residence was "a working house for the Australian people. This is how we would like to see it in future." Credit The Australian . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 . As some wag saw the recent events ... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) I am not sure that the asylum/refugee situation is on-topic, however, it is an important issue for the people and the PM. As long as posters are civil, I am inclined to leave the discussion open and flexible. Your cooperation is appreciated. (I would like to let our Ozzie friends know that this has been one of the more civil threads in a long time -- thanks). unfortunately it is slap bang centre of the public discourse, and one of the reasons Gillard was done over (and Rudd before her, before he came back...) But yes, we are a civil bunch. But maybe I should get my old Paul Keating avatar out just to mix things up a bit? Edited July 16, 2013 by samran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Interesting site this one. Checks the truth or not of claims that politicians make. Been running a coupe of months in OZ, taking its lead from its US site. http://www.politifact.com.au/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 . But, in my opinion ... this, a few days earlier was simply a farce of the highest order ... Get in line: world pays homage at the court of King Kevin Rudd ... IN the thin Canberra winter sun, the cream of the diplomat corps lined up along the gravel drive of The Lodge to honour its newly restored resident. Crunching forward one by one, the 100-plus ambassadors invited for the informal afternoon tea waited their turn for a moment in the sun with Kevin Rudd and wife Therese Rein. If they were bemused by the extraordinary and unprecedented spectacle, they were too polite to let on, smiles fixed on their faces. With the world once again at his feet, Mr Rudd declared that his residence was "a working house for the Australian people. This is how we would like to see it in future." Credit The Australian . One of the best pictures I have seen. There is some talk Rudd wants to delay the election until after some UN show in September? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Interesting site this one. Checks the truth or not of claims that politicians make. Been running a coupe of months in OZ, taking its lead from its US site. http://www.politifact.com.au/ Hey ... great site. Assuming their 'facts' are facts ... a good read. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 New opinion poll shows Turnbull would crush Rudd Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has played down a new opinion poll showing that the Coalition could win an election in a landslide if Malcolm Turnbull was leading the Liberal Party. A ReachTel poll for the Seven Network released on Friday shows the Coalition leading Labor 58 to 42 per cent, on a two-party preferred basis, with Mr Turnbull at the helm. With Mr Abbott in charge, the Coalition lead narrows to 51 to 49 per cent. The poll also shows Mr Turnbull leading Kevin Rudd as preferred prime minister 65 to 35 per cent against the Labor leader's 52 to 48 per cent advantage over Mr Abbott. SydneyMorningHerald article here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantSmith Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 If Turnbull was to do a Rudd on Abbott, there is absolutely no doubt, the Coalition would romp home with the election. If anyone saw the Q&A episode last week with Turny and Albo, one can clearly see the cogs in Turnbull's head ticking over, almost like he's biding his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 New opinion poll shows Turnbull would crush Rudd Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has played down a new opinion poll showing that the Coalition could win an election in a landslide if Malcolm Turnbull was leading the Liberal Party. A ReachTel poll for the Seven Network released on Friday shows the Coalition leading Labor 58 to 42 per cent, on a two-party preferred basis, with Mr Turnbull at the helm. With Mr Abbott in charge, the Coalition lead narrows to 51 to 49 per cent. The poll also shows Mr Turnbull leading Kevin Rudd as preferred prime minister 65 to 35 per cent against the Labor leader's 52 to 48 per cent advantage over Mr Abbott. SydneyMorningHerald article here I don't believe these polls. A great many ALP supporters who don't like Rudd (and there are a few) just put their name into the Turnbull column. They'd never vote Tory come an election, so this is just fantasy football. Having said that, nice that Tony is finally starting to get the blow torch put on him. Being a policy free, three word sloganier for the past 3 years is finally catching up to him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I am not sure that the asylum/refugee situation is on-topic, however, it is an important issue for the people and the PM. As long as posters are civil, I am inclined to leave the discussion open and flexible. Your cooperation is appreciated. (I would like to let our Ozzie friends know that this has been one of the more civil threads in a long time -- thanks). It is an issue that is going to decide who is going to be the New P.M in around 6 weeks. Quite relevant I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Kevin Rudd has just announced that anyone arriving by boat from this day, claiming to be refugees will "NOT" be resettled in Australia. They will be resettled in Papua New Guinea. Hardline and big news and may cause some waves internationally. Something had to be done tho. Edited July 19, 2013 by chooka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Croc Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. It is only for those who arrive by boat via the people smugglers. Refugee applicants who apply via the normal channels can be resettled in Australia. The aim is to stop the boats and the smuggling not to stop genuine refugees. They won't set foot on the Australian mainland straight to PNG. Edited July 19, 2013 by chooka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. if it doesn't, then nothing will. Not that I want to risk people making the dangerous journey, but if they are genuine refugees, then my inclination is to take them. Great nations are made by those who are hungry enough to make a new life for themselves. Refugee's generally fit into this mould for me. But now I'm getting off topic. This is simply a Kevin Rudd special. As Keating once said "All tip and no iceberg". All optics to lock in the western sydney vote. If I had my way, instead of excising Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, I'd excise western sydney. Talk about pandering to a miniority... Edited July 19, 2013 by samran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Kevin Rudd has just announced that anyone arriving by boat from this day, claiming to be refugees will "NOT" be resettled in Australia. They will be resettled in Papua New Guinea. Hardline and big news and may cause some waves internationally. Something had to be done tho. Has it actually been formally agreed by PNG govenment? If so how much will it be costing Australian tax payers to have refugees processed & re-settled in PNG; it will not be for free. Polls have identified the majority of Australian voters support fair & reasonable treatment of refugees, that this move definately contradicts Your right it will impact upon Australia's standing in the international community and possibly impact Australia's influence in it's role for two years as a non-permanent member UN Security Council. In the meantime it was confirmed Indonesia will stop Iranians receiving a visa on arrival in the South-East Asian nation, at the request of Mr Rudd. A better and more sophisticated approach than shipping them to PNG Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/refugees-to-be-resettled-in-third-world/story-e6frfku9-1226681741330#ixzz2ZTJ7RD22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. if it doesn't, then nothing will. Not that I want to risk people making the dangerous journey, but if they are genuine refugees, then my inclination is to take them. Great nations are made by those who are hungry enough to make a new life for themselves. Refugee's generally fit into this mould for me. But now I'm getting off topic. This is simply a Kevin Rudd special. As Keating once said "All tip and no iceberg". All optics to lock in the western sydney vote. If I had my way, instead of excising Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, I'd excise western sydney. Talk about pandering to a miniority... If they come by boat and found to be refugees they still won't get into Australia they will be resettled in PNG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. if it doesn't, then nothing will. Not that I want to risk people making the dangerous journey, but if they are genuine refugees, then my inclination is to take them. Great nations are made by those who are hungry enough to make a new life for themselves. Refugee's generally fit into this mould for me. But now I'm getting off topic. This is simply a Kevin Rudd special. As Keating once said "All tip and no iceberg". All optics to lock in the western sydney vote. If I had my way, instead of excising Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, I'd excise western sydney. Talk about pandering to a miniority... If they come by boat and found to be refugees they still won't get into Australia they will be resettled in PNG. sure, I get that. What I'm saying is that if I ruled the world, if they were found to be refugee's. I'd take them. Contrversial I know, but I'm of the view that Australia needs to protect those who turn up on its shores. Would I rather them come by boat? Of course not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. if it doesn't, then nothing will. Not that I want to risk people making the dangerous journey, but if they are genuine refugees, then my inclination is to take them. Great nations are made by those who are hungry enough to make a new life for themselves. Refugee's generally fit into this mould for me. But now I'm getting off topic. This is simply a Kevin Rudd special. As Keating once said "All tip and no iceberg". All optics to lock in the western sydney vote. If I had my way, instead of excising Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, I'd excise western sydney. Talk about pandering to a miniority... If they come by boat and found to be refugees they still won't get into Australia they will be resettled in PNG. sure, I get that. What I'm saying is that if I ruled the world, if they were found to be refugee's. I'd take them. Contrversial I know, but I'm of the view that Australia needs to protect those who turn up on its shores. Would I rather them come by boat? Of course not. Australia will still take refugees and this is a plan to stop the smugglers profiting and people risking their lives. PNG is still a developing country and can't afford refugees so I guess the Australian tax payers will still be paying their resettlement bill there, they just won't be living in Sydney or Melbourne. The real refugee will just be happy to get another home but the economic refugee will be really pissed off at this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Croc Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 For the boat arrivals, I would like to see a policy of no ID document, no processing. They all had passports when entering Indo. Would stop the pollution of the oceans with floating passports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. If Australia withdrew from the UNHCR convention, it would cause massive damage to Australia's international reputation. Given Rudd put his reputation on the line to gain a seat as a two year non-permanent member UN Security Council I don't believe he would go down that path. Edited July 19, 2013 by simple1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Australia will still take refugees and this is a plan to stop the smugglers profiting and people risking their lives. PNG is still a developing country and can't afford refugees so I guess the Australian tax payers will still be paying their resettlement bill there, they just won't be living in Sydney or Melbourne. The real refugee will just be happy to get another home but the economic refugee will be really pissed off at this move. surely then you just weed out the economic refugees and send them back like we already do? Why bribe a tinpot ex.colony just to the north of us, and pay over the odds for resettling them in a turd hole otherwise known as PNG if they are real refugee's? I'd rather them in Australia contributing frankly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I believe that labor may just move up a few points on the election polls after this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Croc Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 Huge news! Would stop the boats instantly and be an election winner! Not sure if it would be possible to pull off such a move. People are applying in Australia, not PNG, don't know how that would fit into convention guidelines. Australia may have to withdraw from the convention. Awaiting further details. If Australia withdrew from the UNHCR convention, it would cause massive damage to Australia's international reputation. Given Rudd put his reputation on the line to gain a seat as a two year non-permanent member UN Security Council I don't believe he would go down that path. No, I don't really think so either, but pressure will come to bear from the UNHCR and refugee organizations. The clown opposition spokesman for Immigration, Morrison, has stated that the coalition may withdraw from the convention if their turnaround policy doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Croc Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) duplcate Edited July 19, 2013 by Old Croc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 You have certain agreements about the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and this seems like it certainly breaks those agreements. How can you determine who is a refugee without screening them? How can you make PNG take someone who is a refugee? Is PNG a signatory to the UN conventions on Refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Australia will still take refugees and this is a plan to stop the smugglers profiting and people risking their lives. PNG is still a developing country and can't afford refugees so I guess the Australian tax payers will still be paying their resettlement bill there, they just won't be living in Sydney or Melbourne. The real refugee will just be happy to get another home but the economic refugee will be really pissed off at this move. surely then you just weed out the economic refugees and send them back like we already do? Why bribe a tinpot ex.colony just to the north of us, and pay over the odds for resettling them in a turd hole otherwise known as PNG if they are real refugee's? I'd rather them in Australia contributing frankly. I agree with you but this is an election ploy and the boat people issue will / may decide the election. Some how I can see a lot of conflict in say 5 yrs between the refugees and the PNG people. A lot of expat aussies living there live in homes surrounded by high fences with 24/7 security for safety. Not really safe for them to walk the streets alone especially white women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts