Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[BookMan]

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

It is not Democracy. It is majoritarian parliamentary politics. The same system that gave Mahathir to Malaysia for so long. What you call Democracy is actually crude populism and demagoguery. What you call Democracy is merely enables bigotry. This bigotry has been expressed often in this and other similar discussions including the dehumanising reference to 'illegals'. As mentioned by others, bilateral and preferably multilateral engagement with neighbouring countries and selected other countries is the sensible, humane and democratic way of addressing the issues.

Democracy gives a group the ability to be as bigoted as the majority group wants to be. That is why it is a democracy.

[samran]

People bang on about democracy as if it gives them the right to be absolute pricks. Another element of a mature democracy is justice, due process and fairness. There is nothing just and fair locking up innocent children indefinitely in detention.

Without those elements present, all you get is knee jerk mob rule. Which is what many here seem to be advocating. Frigging shameful if you ask me. I hope none of you are ever in the situation where you need a helping had from total strangers.

[Credo]

Most countries operate within some type of framework, whether it is a constitution or some rendition of the Magna Carta. Even one of the holy books can set forth the parameters. How we treat people falls within those parameters. Democracies have parameters. Anarchy probably doesn't.

Refugee laws and regulations about seeking asylum should fall within the law.

[nedkellylives]

What seems to have been lost here, is that Australia is trying to prevent arrival by boat to stop the death of people at sea. If they were against illegal entry per se, they would also send illegals entering by AIR to PNG, but they do not and have not said that they will.

Will those that support the right of boat arrivals to remain in Oz please explain how they would stop people dying at sea in unseaworthy boats.

One reply deleted to allow posting.

I personally think that the line of 'preventing people dying at sea' is a soothing line to cover up (from both sides of politics) the real intention of 'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'.

If they were serious about people not getting on boats, they'd be working with other 'developed countries', like they did post Vietnam war and Cambodia, camps and refugee processing centres in places like Malaysia and Indonesia to house and process asylum seekers. You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.

But that is hard work, requires lots of diplomacy and doesn't fit well into a three line slogan which seems to work on the more feeble minded amongst us. And when you do get something up (again see Malaysia solution) you get opposition to that cause having something which might work stopping boats is less perferable than actually having the boats come, cause you can't cause a scare campaign when no boats are coming.

'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'. Translation for the non-antipodean's:

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

Got no problem with democracy. I'm hardly some sort of lefty kumbaya singer, given I work in mining, oil and gas, and am probably more of an economic hard head than those who claim to be on the 'right', but are basically social conservatives who like their government gravy middle class welfare as much as the next dole bludger.

What I do have issues with is mispreresenting policy so it is suitable for the consumption of the feeble minded. And I do have problems locking up otherwise innocent men, women and children for indefinete periods of time just cause they chose a boat, rather than plane to arrive. Massively inconsistent.

You need a visa to arrive by plane

[simple1]

I remember having a discussion here about the various policies of the political parties vying for election in the recent Federal campaign.

One of the main issues was the 'Boat People'.

Some here said that both major parties have reprehensible policies.

May I point out that the only major political party who had a strong stance to increase the refugee intake, have 'on-shore' processing ... a policy really of not turning anyone way was the Green Party.

Greens Policy

How did the Greens go in the recent Federal Election? ...

There was a nationwide swing of 3.34% against the Greens in the House of Representatives, with their primary vote falling to 8.42%. A little over half a million voters who had supported the Greens at the previous election deserted them.

Swings were registered against the Greens in every state and territory. Some of the severest were recorded in Green strongholds, such as Tasmania (8.73%) and the ACT (5.95%).

There was also little joy to be found in the Greens' Senate vote. Across every state and territory, the Greens' primary vote took a battering (-4.39%). In Tasmania, the Greens recorded an 8.64% swing against them, while in South Australia its primary vote was almost halved (7.07% in 2013 compared to 13.30% in 2010).

Here

Australia Voted ... Australians chose to decline the Greens policy.

simple1 ... may I ask you a direct question?

Do you think that you represent what the majority of Australians desire for their Refugee solution?

EDIT ... forgot the reference.

Firstly your comment in post 391, it is not a strawman's reference, the poster was indicating that refugees are waived through to Australia en masse and by inference countries in the region are not hosting them, which is patently not the case. If you are so interested in this topic why not go to the UNHCR website to check my numbers.

The race to the bottom by the main political parties regarding the refugee/asylum seeker issue for votes during the last election was, to be blunt, vile. If I am in the minority with this view, so be it.

BTW I do not concur with your opinion on why the Greens lost ground in the last election, there were much deeper issues with the Greens policies whilst they held influence with Labor that contributed to their downfall.

Edited November 1, 2013 by simple1

[thaibeachlovers]

Article 31 keeps getting quoted here.

What i find interesting in the article 31 blurb is the following

when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened,

Note the word directly

Apart from a few Sri Lankans and possibly an Indonesian or 2 I can't see how the rest can claim they came direct to Australia without stopping off in another counry.

True. Unfortunately every other country in the region just waves them on with a smile saying" Australia, that way". about time a few other countries ie Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand opened there arms to some of these people. And one thing for sure, Singapore has far better infrastucture than Australia has.

<about time a few other countries ie Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand opened there arms to some of these people>

They aren't as stupid as Oz appears to be. About time Australia withdrew from the convention on refugees if it doesn't want to be swamped by an alien culture.

[thaibeachlovers]

I remember having a discussion here about the various policies of the political parties vying for election in the recent Federal campaign.

One of the main issues was the 'Boat People'.

Some here said that both major parties have reprehensible policies.

May I point out that the only major political party who had a strong stance to increase the refugee intake, have 'on-shore' processing ... a policy really of not turning anyone way was the Green Party.

Greens Policy

How did the Greens go in the recent Federal Election? ...

There was a nationwide swing of 3.34% against the Greens in the House of Representatives, with their primary vote falling to 8.42%. A little over half a million voters who had supported the Greens at the previous election deserted them.

Swings were registered against the Greens in every state and territory. Some of the severest were recorded in Green strongholds, such as Tasmania (8.73%) and the ACT (5.95%).

There was also little joy to be found in the Greens' Senate vote. Across every state and territory, the Greens' primary vote took a battering (-4.39%). In Tasmania, the Greens recorded an 8.64% swing against them, while in South Australia its primary vote was almost halved (7.07% in 2013 compared to 13.30% in 2010).

Here

Australia Voted ... Australians chose to decline the Greens policy.

simple1 ... may I ask you a direct question?

Do you think that you represent what the majority of Australians desire for their Refugee solution?

EDIT ... forgot the reference.

IMO the biggest problem the Greens have is Christine Milne. Every time she appears on telly, I'm sure many previous supporters desert the party.

Under her, it's no longer an environmental party, but the raving loony left party.

[thaibeachlovers]

<You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.>

Like it's Australia's responsibility to help them when they haven't even arrived in Oz, LOL.

you asked what is going to 'stop people dying at sea?'

I gave you a serious answer. One which as worked during the Vietnam war era and beyond. You pooh-pooh the suggestion with a typical bogan like response where Australia's national interests somehow mysteriously stop at the border.

Unless you engage your neighbours, all they are going to do is say 'look guys, Australia is that way...keep moving and we won't arrest you'. Which has what has been happening.

So we do something to make it less our problem, before they get on the boat. Probably a bit hard for some to understand this though.

In my opinion, which is as valid as yours, Australia does not HAVE to do anything to help refugees outside the country. The government has chosen to allow a number of GENUINE refugees settle in Oz, and no doubt contributes to the UN support for efugees in other countries. That is the extent of what they have to do.

However, the government also has an obligation to it's people to prevent people ILLEGALLY entering the country, and they are well withing their rights and obligations to do so.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[samran]

<You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.>

Like it's Australia's responsibility to help them when they haven't even arrived in Oz, LOL.

you asked what is going to 'stop people dying at sea?'

I gave you a serious answer. One which as worked during the Vietnam war era and beyond. You pooh-pooh the suggestion with a typical bogan like response where Australia's national interests somehow mysteriously stop at the border.

Unless you engage your neighbours, all they are going to do is say 'look guys, Australia is that way...keep moving and we won't arrest you'. Which has what has been happening.

So we do something to make it less our problem, before they get on the boat. Probably a bit hard for some to understand this though.

In my opinion, which is as valid as yours, Australia does not HAVE to do anything to help refugees outside the country. The government has chosen to allow a number of GENUINE refugees settle in Oz, and no doubt contributes to the UN support for efugees in other countries. That is the extent of what they have to do.

However, the government also has an obligation to it's people to prevent people ILLEGALLY entering the country, and they are well withing their rights and obligations to do so.

And I don't actually disagree with what you write. Australia doesn't 'have' to do anything. As to whether is 'should' and to 'how many' and 'how' is where we probably differ.

Again, you asked 'how do you stop them dying at sea'. Your snide response suggested that Australia's responsiblities to managing its own national interests stopped at the border. Making sure Australia's interests are well looked after, means if at all possible, having prevention further up the food chain, so that people don't get on boats in the first place.

Sounds like you prefer sending out the navy each time there is a boat. I'd prefer making sure that if they got to Malaysia, they had work rights so they didn't have to live in poverty and there would be less incentive to move down to Indonesia get on a boat while their humanitarian claims were assesed. For me, the latter costs Australia nothing, so it is in every way Australia's interests to have regional partners helping us.

[simple1]

I personally think that the line of 'preventing people dying at sea' is a soothing line to cover up (from both sides of politics) the real intention of 'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'.

If they were serious about people not getting on boats, they'd be working with other 'developed countries', like they did post Vietnam war and Cambodia, camps and refugee processing centres in places like Malaysia and Indonesia to house and process asylum seekers. You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.

But that is hard work, requires lots of diplomacy and doesn't fit well into a three line slogan which seems to work on the more feeble minded amongst us. And when you do get something up (again see Malaysia solution) you get opposition to that cause having something which might work stopping boats is less perferable than actually having the boats come, cause you can't cause a scare campaign when no boats are coming.

'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'. Translation for the non-antipodean's:

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

Got no problem with democracy. I'm hardly some sort of lefty kumbaya singer, given I work in mining, oil and gas, and am probably more of an economic hard head than those who claim to be on the 'right', but are basically social conservatives who like their government gravy middle class welfare as much as the next dole bludger.

What I do have issues with is mispreresenting policy so it is suitable for the consumption of the feeble minded. And I do have problems locking up otherwise innocent men, women and children for indefinete periods of time just cause they chose a boat, rather than plane to arrive. Massively inconsistent.

You need a visa to arrive by plane

Correct, but when presenting to Immigration at border control declare themselves to by asylum seekers, therefore the inconsistent in treatment.

previous post deleted to allow posting.

[BookMan]

Mid-ocean stand-off as Australian customs vessel tries to turn back asylum seeker boat to Indonesia

Australia and Indonesia were involved in a mid-ocean stand-off in the early hours of Friday morning as a customs vessel tried unsuccessfully to return a boatload of rescued asylum seekers to a reluctant Indonesia.

Up to 56 asylum seekers were rescued from their wooden boat in Indonesia’s search and rescue zone by an Australian ship on Thursday and, rather than taking them to Christmas Island, the crew sought to return them to Indonesia.

Australian authorities are liaising with their Indonesian counterparts in relation to a vessel that has requested assistance as the vessel is within Indonesia's Search and Rescue zone

A number of boatloads of asylum seekers have been returned in similar circumstances since the election of the Abbott government.

But late on Thursday night a spokesman for Djoko Suyanto, the Indonesian co-ordinating minister for Legal, Political and Security Affairs, told Fairfax Media: “At least for the time being we will not accept them, since we consider them to be asylum seekers”

Read Full Article Here

[tw25rw]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

[samran]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

Indonesia is rich enough not to need the money.

The aid money, while not insignificant, is basically an act of good will between neighbours, and yes, in some cases, buys cooperation.

So take it away, like the average bogan would want, basically guarantees more boats, not less. But then again, that's what the 'I'm alright, Jack' mentality gets you. I suppose they voted for it, they should get it, if that what's make them feel superior.

[BookMan]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

For myself, I'd like to see Australia maintain a good constructive relationship with Indonesia.

Abbott's tough talk soundbites on turning back boats is doing Australia no favours in its relationship with Indonesia.

Seems to me like a case of politicians trying to blame anyone but ourselves for a complicated issue

[David48]

For myself, I'd like to see Australia maintain a good constructive relationship with Indonesia.

+1 ... have ran out of likes ...

[simple1]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

For myself, I'd like to see Australia maintain a good constructive relationship with Indonesia.

Abbott's tough talk soundbites on turning back boats is doing Australia no favours in its relationship with Indonesia.

Seems to me like a case of politicians trying to blame anyone but ourselves for a complicated issue

+1

Interesting to see that Abbott has already announced significant cuts to overseas aid. "Abbott had announced plans to cut Australia's aid budget by A$4.5 bn (£2.6bn) in the next four years, reneging on promises to increase aid spending to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI)". Articles reviewing this this decision at

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/09/australia-new-pm-foreign-aid-cuts-tony-abbott

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/18/australia-aid-foreign-policy

Edited November 9, 2013 by simple1

[BookMan]

Asylum seekers to be transferred to Christmas Island after 'standoff' between Australia and Indonesia

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has instructed Australian authorities to take a group of asylum seekers rescued at sea off the Indonesian coast to Christmas Island.

Indonesia says roughly 60 asylum seekers were on board a boat which ran into trouble off Java on Thursday.

Mr Morrison says the Government asked Jakarta to transfer them to Indonesia given their boat ran into trouble in Indonesia's search and rescue zone.

He says Indonesia is reviewing the request.

However, it is understood Indonesia yesterday refused Australia's attempt to convince Jakarta to take the group back.

See Full ABC News Article Here

Edited November 9, 2013 by BookMan

[David48]

IMHO ... the recently elected Government and Scott Morrison have been winning the PR Battle BUT ...

But, this is a quite a considerable loss of face.

I wonder what spin they will put on this decision?

[thaibeachlovers]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

For myself, I'd like to see Australia maintain a good constructive relationship with Indonesia.

Abbott's tough talk soundbites on turning back boats is doing Australia no favours in its relationship with Indonesia.

Seems to me like a case of politicians trying to blame anyone but ourselves for a complicated issue

+1

Interesting to see that Abbott has already announced significant cuts to overseas aid. "Abbott had announced plans to cut Australia's aid budget by A$4.5 bn (£2.6bn) in the next four years, reneging on promises to increase aid spending to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI)". Articles reviewing this this decision at

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/09/australia-new-pm-foreign-aid-cuts-tony-abbott

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/18/australia-aid-foreign-policy

If Indonesia won't take back so called refugees rescued in Indonesian waters, not only would I cut all aid to that country, I'd stop Ausssie boats going into Indo waters to carry out rescues.

If Indonesia doesn't want them back, they should stop allowing them into Indo in the first place. I gather that they stopped the ones from Iran simply by stopping Iranians getting on planes to Indo without visas.

Saw a tv news item about how a Lebanese man lost his wife and 8 children when their boat sank. He was saying that military officers were making them get on the boat, even though it was obviously dangerous.

Now he's back in Lebanon, and OBVIOUSLY was an ECONOMIC MIGRANT, NOT a genuine refugee.

Time for Oz to get tough on these frauds trying to get the good life.

Edited November 9, 2013 by thaibeachlovers

[Will27]

Seeing as the boat was in Indonesia's search and rescue zone, I wonder if there will be

a reluctance to go and help the next one in distress?

[BookMan]

Time to directly link this issue with development aid to Indonesia. According to wikipedia, " Indonesia received $541.6 million of Australian development aid in 201213.".

We should deduct the cost of processing each unauthorised arrival from Indonesia from the aid donation.

For myself, I'd like to see Australia maintain a good constructive relationship with Indonesia.

Abbott's tough talk soundbites on turning back boats is doing Australia no favours in its relationship with Indonesia.

Seems to me like a case of politicians trying to blame anyone but ourselves for a complicated issue

+1

Interesting to see that Abbott has already announced significant cuts to overseas aid. "Abbott had announced plans to cut Australia's aid budget by A$4.5 bn (£2.6bn) in the next four years, reneging on promises to increase aid spending to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI)". Articles reviewing this this decision at

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/09/australia-new-pm-foreign-aid-cuts-tony-abbott

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/18/australia-aid-foreign-policy

An interesting article in the Guardian that you linked Simple1.

Foreign aid is a thread in itself.

[David48]

Seeing as the boat was in Indonesia's search and rescue zone, I wonder if there will be

a reluctance to go and help the next one in distress?

+1

and a great post.

Indeed, the vessel was in 'International Waters' but in the agreed Indonesia's Rescue zone.

Must admit, I'd defer to the Indonesia's Rescue ships.

[David48]

Interesting to see that Abbott has already announced significant cuts to overseas aid. "Abbott had announced plans to cut Australia's aid budget by A$4.5 bn (£2.6bn) in the next four years, reneging on promises to increase aid spending to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI)". Articles reviewing this this decision at

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/09/australia-new-pm-foreign-aid-cuts-tony-abbott

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/18/australia-aid-foreign-policy

An interesting article in the Guardian that you linked Simple1.

Foreign aid is a thread in itself.

+1

Indeed ... naught to do with the OP at hand.

An interesting subject in itself ... but remotely related.

.

[simple1]

Seeing as the boat was in Indonesia's search and rescue zone, I wonder if there will be a reluctance to go and help the next one in distress?

Whilst within this topic I disagree with aspects of Australia's asylum seeker policy, I have to say that I do not believe there would be any reluctance to deploy Australian naval assets close enough to be first responders within reach of Indonesia's search and rescue zone.

Edited November 9, 2013 by simple1

[David48]

Seeing as the boat was in Indonesia's search and rescue zone, I wonder if there will be a reluctance to go and help the next one in distress?

Whilst within this topic I disagree with aspects of Australia's asylum seeker policy, I have to say that I do not believe there would be any reluctance to deploy Australian naval assets close enough to be first responders within reach of Indonesia's search and rescue zone.

"I do not believe there would be any reluctance to deploy Australian naval assets close enough to be first responders within reach of Indonesia's search and rescue zone."

Well ... I'm a moderate.

It's their Zone ... their responsibility.

Their Onus.

Any evidence of them coming into 'our' agreed "search and rescue zone" ... no ... I thought not.

No-one wants to see loss of life at sea.

But the Asylum Seekers are taking the Piss.

They have the Australian Navy/Rescue on speed dial.

BS I say.

If they are in trouble ... and in the agreed "Indonesia's search and rescue zone" ... let Indonesia take care of the issue.

We continue to agree to disagree ...

.

[simple1]

Seeing as the boat was in Indonesia's search and rescue zone, I wonder if there will be a reluctance to go and help the next one in distress?

Whilst within this topic I disagree with aspects of Australia's asylum seeker policy, I have to say that I do not believe there would be any reluctance to deploy Australian naval assets close enough to be first responders within reach of Indonesia's search and rescue zone.

"I do not believe there would be any reluctance to deploy Australian naval assets close enough to be first responders within reach of Indonesia's search and rescue zone."

Well ... I'm a moderate.

It's their Zone ... their responsibility.

Their Onus.

Any evidence of them coming into 'our' agreed "search and rescue zone" ... no ... I thought not.

No-one wants to see loss of life at sea.

But the Asylum Seekers are taking the Piss.

They have the Australian Navy/Rescue on speed dial.

BS I say.

If they are in trouble ... and in the agreed "Indonesia's search and rescue zone" ... let Indonesia take care of the issue.

We continue to agree to disagree ...

.

So if Australian naval vessel/s are close enough to be first responders it's OK by you not to respond & put people at risk of drowning?

[Farma]

simple1 lets get back to basics. These people coming on boats are nothing but illegal entries. Economic migrants, call them what you want.

If they were genuine refugees they would apply for asylum at the nearest country to the one they left. These boat people are taking the p1ss.

There are plenty of genuine refugees sitting in camps waiting for their turn. The boat people are denying the legitimate refugees a place. Not only that, they are delaying genuine refugees from being resettled.

And before you start throwing the racist or whatever card at me. I have family members..genuine refugees who followed the correct asylum proceedure to get to Australia.

[David48]

^^ +1 ... have ran out of likes ...

[simple1]

simple1 lets get back to basics. These people coming on boats are nothing but illegal entries. Economic migrants, call them what you want.

If they were genuine refugees they would apply for asylum at the nearest country to the one they left. These boat people are taking the p1ss.

There are plenty of genuine refugees sitting in camps waiting for their turn. The boat people are denying the legitimate refugees a place. Not only that, they are delaying genuine refugees from being resettled.

And before you start throwing the racist or whatever card at me. I have family members..genuine refugees who followed the correct asylum proceedure to get to Australia.

You did not answer my question.

EDIT: In answer to your comments are mainly defined as myths & answered in a factual manner at:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#queue

In response to Farma, whilst I am not a lawyer, I understand the definition of first country of arrival is it must provide asylum seeker/refugee protection under the UN Conventions. For further info you may like to read the content at the URL above.

Edited November 9, 2013 by simple1