Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[Will27]

@will27.

An expert commission last year full of people much smarter than me suggested an humanitarian intake of 20K or so as part of our overall immigration intake of 180,000 or permanent migrants (which doesn't include the tens and tens of thousands on 457 and working holiday visa's). So if that is their recomendation then that is the target number.

I don't like Rudd and am not voting for him. He did change the rules cause people were being bunged up in Naru and people were suffering on TPV's. You seem to forget he had a mandate to do that as by 2007 people were finding howard's policies too much. So it wasn't as if the Australian people didn't vote for it (see my previous comments on the Nats wanting the refugee's in country towns).

But also remember I don't believe prohibition works. Had we kept howards pacific solution, the smugglers would have worked out that 99percent of them were eventually resettled in OZ or NZ anyway, and they just would have made that fact public and the boats would have started again.

I'd like to think that if we can stop the boats, then we can increase the intake to 30 000.

At least under Howard, the boats had stopped and IMO, it was effective border control.

Rudd said Howard's policy was too tough and inhumane and destroyed it. Got rid of offshore

processing and TPV's which started the tsunami of arrivals. Now he loves offshore processing

and no visa whatsoever. He's a walking contradiction.

I don't agree with you about the fact that the boats would've started up again. The long times in

detention and TPV's were deterrent enough.

Regardless, under Howard's policy, the boats had stopped. Anything else is guesswork.

[Will27]

Ps. And do I think the current situation is untennable? Depends where you are coming from. What I find deplorable is spending billions and billions more than we need to building camps in far off places and then staffing them with Australians who have to be flown in and out (not to mention the bribes -er sorry aid money - we give to the host countries to house them) basically just so we can pander western sydney at the next election.

So I turn the question around. Are you happy the government is pissing tax payer dollars up the wall just to please marginal seat voters is Western Sydney?

I'm not happy that my money is being urinated up against the wall.

Rudd says the PNG solution will be budget neutral which is a crock

of poo.

Either way, billions of dollars are being spent when that money could

be spent in much better ways.

[samran]

@will27.

An expert commission last year full of people much smarter than me suggested an humanitarian intake of 20K or so as part of our overall immigration intake of 180,000 or permanent migrants (which doesn't include the tens and tens of thousands on 457 and working holiday visa's). So if that is their recomendation then that is the target number.

I don't like Rudd and am not voting for him. He did change the rules cause people were being bunged up in Naru and people were suffering on TPV's. You seem to forget he had a mandate to do that as by 2007 people were finding howard's policies too much. So it wasn't as if the Australian people didn't vote for it (see my previous comments on the Nats wanting the refugee's in country towns).

But also remember I don't believe prohibition works. Had we kept howards pacific solution, the smugglers would have worked out that 99percent of them were eventually resettled in OZ or NZ anyway, and they just would have made that fact public and the boats would have started again.

I'd like to think that if we can stop the boats, then we can increase the intake to 30 000.

At least under Howard, the boats had stopped and IMO, it was effective border control.

Rudd said Howard's policy was too tough and inhumane and destroyed it. Got rid of offshore

processing and TPV's which started the tsunami of arrivals. Now he loves offshore processing

and no visa whatsoever. He's a walking contradiction.

I don't agree with you about the fact that the boats would've started up again. The long times in

detention and TPV's were deterrent enough.

Regardless, under Howard's policy, the boats had stopped. Anything else is guesswork.

I don't think it is guesswork as the current regieme is already much stricter and yet the boats still come.

- No advantage test under Gillard - ie your refugee and settlement application will not be processed any faster than the average refugee who turns up in a refugee camp in say Thailand or Sudan.(Howard didn't have this, and as said, most were quietly settled in Australia/NZ)

- Offshore processing (both did this)

- No work rights in Australia (Howard gave temporary protection visa's which included work rights, but no rights to family reunion)

- And now, you go straight to PNG? (as said, the new regieme means you don't get to come to OZ. Howard's boat arrivals still had that chance, albeit via a detention camp in Naru)

So with this sticter regieme, what is the result? They keep coming.

Why? Cause it is easy for the people smugglers to sell a lie - the promise of the safety, and yes, the prosperity of Australia - to desperate people.

And that is my problem with the raft of 'solutions' given by either side of politics. Prohibition stops nothing. The only way Australia can beat the people smugglers is to provide a better product. Malcolm Fraser has been in the papers today saying that the only way to beat the issue is to have co-ordinated processing offshore before they jump on a boat. It has to provide a more certain outcome than the people smugglers will ever be able to give.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/vietnamese-refugees-were-a-boon-not-a-burden-20130728-2qsh4.html

His opinion should carry some weight, he handled Vietnamese boat arrivals in this way, and there was an effective resettlment process in place. If people can be given hope, they won't jump on the boats. But if the only hope a refugee gets is from a people smuggler, guess what they will do?

As mentioned, I have no love for Rudd, but I think it is a bit rich to say it is 'his fault'. Remember, he was elected on a platform of changing the system. Distaste for his refugee policy was one of the key factors as to why Maxine McKew beat John Howard in his own seat. A majority of the Australian people found the system repugnant given they had a chance to see the hardship it was causing, and they voted to get rid of it.

I really wish Australian's stopped blaming politicans for all the problems, and take a look at themselves from time to time. They asked for it, they got it, but now are chucking a massive tanty.

Edited July 29, 2013 by samran

[Will27]

@will27.

An expert commission last year full of people much smarter than me suggested an humanitarian intake of 20K or so as part of our overall immigration intake of 180,000 or permanent migrants (which doesn't include the tens and tens of thousands on 457 and working holiday visa's). So if that is their recomendation then that is the target number.

I don't like Rudd and am not voting for him. He did change the rules cause people were being bunged up in Naru and people were suffering on TPV's. You seem to forget he had a mandate to do that as by 2007 people were finding howard's policies too much. So it wasn't as if the Australian people didn't vote for it (see my previous comments on the Nats wanting the refugee's in country towns).

But also remember I don't believe prohibition works. Had we kept howards pacific solution, the smugglers would have worked out that 99percent of them were eventually resettled in OZ or NZ anyway, and they just would have made that fact public and the boats would have started again.

I'd like to think that if we can stop the boats, then we can increase the intake to 30 000.

At least under Howard, the boats had stopped and IMO, it was effective border control.

Rudd said Howard's policy was too tough and inhumane and destroyed it. Got rid of offshore

processing and TPV's which started the tsunami of arrivals. Now he loves offshore processing

and no visa whatsoever. He's a walking contradiction.

I don't agree with you about the fact that the boats would've started up again. The long times in

detention and TPV's were deterrent enough.

Regardless, under Howard's policy, the boats had stopped. Anything else is guesswork.

I don't think it is guesswork as the current regieme is already much stricter and yet the boats still come.

- No advantage test under Gillard - ie your refugee and settlement application will not be processed any faster than the average refugee who turns up in a refugee camp in say Thailand or Sudan.(Howard didn't have this, and as said, most were quietly settled in Australia/NZ)

- Offshore processing (both did this)

- No work rights in Australia (Howard gave temporary protection visa's which included work rights, but no rights to family reunion)

- And now, you go straight to PNG? (as said, the new regieme means you don't get to come to OZ. Howard's boat arrivals still had that chance, albeit via a detention camp in Naru)

So with this sticter regieme, what is the result? They keep coming.

Why? Cause it is easy for the people smugglers to sell a lie - the promise of the safety, and yes, the prosperity of Australia - to desperate people.

And that is my problem with the raft of 'solutions' given by either side of politics. Prohibition stops nothing. The only way Australia can beat the people smugglers is to provide a better product. Malcolm Fraser has been in the papers today saying that the only way to beat the issue is to have co-ordinated processing offshore before they jump on a boat. It has to provide a more certain outcome than the people smugglers will ever be able to give.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/vietnamese-refugees-were-a-boon-not-a-burden-20130728-2qsh4.html

His opinion should carry some weight, he handled Vietnamese boat arrivals in this way, and there was an effective resettlment process in place. If people can be given hope, they won't jump on the boats. But if the only hope a refugee gets is from a people smuggler, guess what they will do?

As mentioned, I have no love for Rudd, but I think it is a bit rich to say it is 'his fault'. Remember, he was elected on a platform of changing the system. Distaste for his refugee policy was one of the key factors as to why Maxine McKew beat John Howard in his own seat. A majority of the Australian people found the system repugnant given they had a chance to see the hardship it was causing, and they voted to get rid of it.

I really wish Australian's stopped blaming politicans for all the problems, and take a look at themselves from time to time. They asked for it, they got it, but now are chucking a massive tanty.

Well, the boats had stopped under Howard, full stop. What would've happened after that is purely hypothetical and so is guesswork.

You say it's a stricter regime but it's not, it's all talk. The smugglers know the "No Advantage" test is bullshit as people are still being sent to the mainland. And they're just testing this "No One Will Be Settled In Australia" to see how long it lasts. The people smugglers don't care as they still get paid.

With the TPV's, there was still a chance of people being sent back home and others sitting in detention centre's for years. It was a genuine disincentive to come to Australia. Which ever way you want to dress it up, Rudd and his govt abolished offshore processing and TPV's which created the tsunami. Having said that, he wasn't the Lone Ranger but he was in charge.

Of course Australians have a right to "chuck a tanty", because we had a system that was working only for it to be torn down. And now it's costing us billions. Not everyone voted for Rudd.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Scott
formatting

[samran]

@will27.

An expert commission last year full of people much smarter than me suggested an humanitarian intake of 20K or so as part of our overall immigration intake of 180,000 or permanent migrants (which doesn't include the tens and tens of thousands on 457 and working holiday visa's). So if that is their recomendation then that is the target number.

I don't like Rudd and am not voting for him. He did change the rules cause people were being bunged up in Naru and people were suffering on TPV's. You seem to forget he had a mandate to do that as by 2007 people were finding howard's policies too much. So it wasn't as if the Australian people didn't vote for it (see my previous comments on the Nats wanting the refugee's in country towns).

But also remember I don't believe prohibition works. Had we kept howards pacific solution, the smugglers would have worked out that 99percent of them were eventually resettled in OZ or NZ anyway, and they just would have made that fact public and the boats would have started again.

I'd like to think that if we can stop the boats, then we can increase the intake to 30 000.

At least under Howard, the boats had stopped and IMO, it was effective border control.

Rudd said Howard's policy was too tough and inhumane and destroyed it. Got rid of offshore

processing and TPV's which started the tsunami of arrivals. Now he loves offshore processing

and no visa whatsoever. He's a walking contradiction.

I don't agree with you about the fact that the boats would've started up again. The long times in

detention and TPV's were deterrent enough.

Regardless, under Howard's policy, the boats had stopped. Anything else is guesswork.

I don't think it is guesswork as the current regieme is already much stricter and yet the boats still come.

- No advantage test under Gillard - ie your refugee and settlement application will not be processed any faster than the average refugee who turns up in a refugee camp in say Thailand or Sudan.(Howard didn't have this, and as said, most were quietly settled in Australia/NZ)

- Offshore processing (both did this)

- No work rights in Australia (Howard gave temporary protection visa's which included work rights, but no rights to family reunion)

- And now, you go straight to PNG? (as said, the new regieme means you don't get to come to OZ. Howard's boat arrivals still had that chance, albeit via a detention camp in Naru)

So with this sticter regieme, what is the result? They keep coming.

Why? Cause it is easy for the people smugglers to sell a lie - the promise of the safety, and yes, the prosperity of Australia - to desperate people.

And that is my problem with the raft of 'solutions' given by either side of politics. Prohibition stops nothing. The only way Australia can beat the people smugglers is to provide a better product. Malcolm Fraser has been in the papers today saying that the only way to beat the issue is to have co-ordinated processing offshore before they jump on a boat. It has to provide a more certain outcome than the people smugglers will ever be able to give.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/vietnamese-refugees-were-a-boon-not-a-burden-20130728-2qsh4.html

His opinion should carry some weight, he handled Vietnamese boat arrivals in this way, and there was an effective resettlment process in place. If people can be given hope, they won't jump on the boats. But if the only hope a refugee gets is from a people smuggler, guess what they will do?

As mentioned, I have no love for Rudd, but I think it is a bit rich to say it is 'his fault'. Remember, he was elected on a platform of changing the system. Distaste for his refugee policy was one of the key factors as to why Maxine McKew beat John Howard in his own seat. A majority of the Australian people found the system repugnant given they had a chance to see the hardship it was causing, and they voted to get rid of it.

I really wish Australian's stopped blaming politicans for all the problems, and take a look at themselves from time to time. They asked for it, they got it, but now are chucking a massive tanty.

Well, the boats had stopped under Howard, full stop. What would've happened after that is purely hypothetical and so is guesswork.

You say it's a stricter regime but it's not, it's all talk. The smugglers know the "No Advantage" test is bullshit as people are still being sent to the mainland. And they're just testing this "No One Will Be Settled In Australia" to see how long it lasts. The people smugglers don't care as they still get paid.

With the TPV's, there was still a chance of people being sent back home and others sitting in detention centre's for years. It was a genuine disincentive to come to Australia. Which ever way you want to dress it up, Rudd and his govt abolished offshore processing and TPV's which created the tsunami. Having said that, he wasn't the Lone Ranger but he was in charge.

Of course Australians have a right to "chuck a tanty", because we had a system that was working only for it to be torn down. And now it's costing us billions. Not everyone voted for Rudd.

...but enough did vote for Rudd...to tear down Howard's system. If there is anything that the past 5 years of Rudd has taught us, the bloke is a populist and won't do anything unless it played well with the Sunrise/Today tonight/A Current Affair demographic. So it says alot that he had it in him to change the policy. People wanted it, they got it. If there was even a whiff of controversey about it, he would have squibbed it like he did on the emmissions trading scheme, mining tax, Henry Tax review etc etc.

I'm not saying that the boats didn't stop under howard. But I think it is pretty naive to think that things would have remained static. Like everything in life people find a way around things. And as you say yourself, the people smugglers don't care as they still get paid. There will always be people wanting to pay for the dream, regardless of the policies, so the boat will come.

I'm far from convinced going back to the Howard policies would work now. They worked then (I'll given them that), but things have changed and there is no going back.

Edited July 29, 2013 by samran

[chooka]

The Fijian Foreign Minister gave a scathing attack on the Australian Government. He has said that the refugees are solely Australia's problem and it is dumping them in their area and they are not Polynesian.

[tw25rw]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

[harrry]

The Fijian Foreign Minister gave a scathing attack on the Australian Government. He has said that the refugees are solely Australia's problem and it is dumping them in their area and they are not Polynesian.

Well people of PNG are not Polynesian.

[samran]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

This is one of those bang your head against the wall moments.

You know tw25rw that neither of those countries actually accept settlement of refugee's? What makes you think those places will even take them?

[simple1]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

Neither Indonesia or Malaysia are signatories to the UN Conventions for refugees. In both countries the Rohingya do not have any legal protection or access to education, health services and limited access to low paid jobs. UNHCR's job is made even more difficult as the Myanmar government cancelled Rohingya's citizenship in the early 1980s so they are stateless.

EDIT: Just saw Samran's post, so sorry for any duplication, but astounded that anyone who is interested in the refugee issue does not know the basic issues.

Edited July 29, 2013 by simple1

[harrry]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

Neither Indonesia or Malaysia are signatories to the UN Conventions for refugees. In both countries the Rohingya do have any legal protection or access to education, health services or jobs.

Possibly instead of criticising Australia which takes a good number of refugees it may be fairer and possibly more productive to keep the crititicism for these countries.

[simple1]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

Neither Indonesia or Malaysia are signatories to the UN Conventions for refugees. In both countries the Rohingya do have any legal protection or access to education, health services or jobs.

Possibly instead of criticising Australia which takes a good number of refugees it may be fairer and possibly more productive to keep the crititicism for these countries.

As Labor spent $32 million (plus God knows how much in promises for additional aid money) on the campaign to obtain a two year seat on the UN Security Council, may be they can get some bang for their bucks by applying more pressure on regional governments to ratify & sign the UN Refugee Conventions.

[chooka]

The Fijian Foreign Minister gave a scathing attack on the Australian Government. He has said that the refugees are solely Australia's problem and it is dumping them in their area and they are not Polynesian.

Well people of PNG are not Polynesian.

My mistake I meant Melanesian.

He accused Australia of using its economic muscle to persuade a Melanesian country to accept thousands of people who are not Pacific Islanders into the region

Fiji has accused an "arrogant" Australia of dumping its asylum seeker problem on Pacific nations, as the Rudd government prepares to send the first group of boat arrivals to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/29/10/05/people-smugglers-test-govt-resolve-burke

[tw25rw]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

Personally, I say no, not in the case of the Rohingyas. There are plenty o places more suitable for them to settle, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

This is one of those bang your head against the wall moments.

You know tw25rw that neither of those countries actually accept settlement of refugee's? What makes you think those places will even take them?

That really isn't our problem.

[samran]

Kind of is, given they can't stay there and under threat of arrest and deportation to Myanmar, they flow through there and end up in OZ.

[theblether]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

[samran]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

But that has never been the point. Common sense dictates that if you arrive seeking asylum, you are entitled to arrive without preclearence.

Now, it is entirely another matter how you process their applications and where they go after that, and where they are held.

This debate, for me at least, has always been about the efficacy of the increasing hysterical policy responses to boat arrivals. I don't think they work as they do nothing to help people before they make it to Australia. And there are plenty of reasons for that. Most of the interim countries won't even accept them.

Thailand has a similar issue with North Korean refugees. Despite china being a signatory to the refugee convention, none of them stop there as china will deport them back to long prison terms and in some cases, death. Instead they make their way through china, past Laos (which does the same) until they finally enter Thailand and claim asylum. They then get locked up, but they do so in full knowledge that they'll get repatriated to South Korea.

Australia needs to organise something similar in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. They are assessed there but they know they'll be eventually settled in places like Australia, nz, North America or the EU. They may have to wait for a umber of years do they either need to be provided for (not ideal) or they need to be granted work rights while they are waiting to be resettled.

This approach was done in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war and during the reign of pol pot. It has been the only approach in the Asia pacific which has any long term chance of working.

But these solutions which actually work don't easily fit into three word election slogans nor the minds of the compliant masses who easily fall for simple Simon approaches to policy making.

Edited July 30, 2013 by samran

[Berkshire]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Let's be truthful here. Australia doesn't really care where these refugees end up--even adrift at sea--so long as they don't end up in Australia. It's political-speak to suggest otherwise.

[simple1]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Under the UN Conventions that Australia has ratified & signed, Australia is not entitled to automatic denial of entry. Australia is obliged to assess, process & take the relevant decisions, guided by the conventions, for all asylum seeker/refugee arrivals no matter the means of arriving on Australian terroritory.

[harrry]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Under the UN Conventions that Australia has ratified & signed, Australia is not entitled to automatic denial of entry. Australia is obliged to assess, process & take the relevant decisions, guided by the conventions, for all asylum seeker/refugee arrivals no matter the means of arriving on Australian terroritory.

If it was me I would de ratifify it. How Australia treats refugees when they are accepted is way above other countries and many are accepted that other countries would not. WIthdrawal from the convention seems the answer if others will not take part and just criticise because australia is a signatory.

[simple1]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Under the UN Conventions that Australia has ratified & signed, Australia is not entitled to automatic denial of entry. Australia is obliged to assess, process & take the relevant decisions, guided by the conventions, for all asylum seeker/refugee arrivals no matter the means of arriving on Australian terroritory.

If it was me I would de ratifify it. How Australia treats refugees when they are accepted is way above other countries and many are accepted that other countries would not. WIthdrawal from the convention seems the answer if others will not take part and just criticise because australia is a signatory.

As I have already posted their should be a referendum to decide whether the majority of Australians wish the government to abide or not to the applicable UN Conventions. The upcoming general election, whereby the two major parties are "racing to the bottom" is not an appropriate method for making a policy decision that will a major impact, one way or the other, on Australia's international reputation.

[Scott]

Perhaps it is time for the UN to review the Conventions and set forth new guidelines as to how they are enforced.

[samran]

Perhaps it is time for the UN to review the Conventions and set forth new guidelines as to how they are enforced.

Money would be better spent making sure there weren't refugee's in the first place, rather than worry about a piece of paper that, has been pointed out, many countries have signed up to, but have no intention or ability to enforce.

All the rest is just optics.

[harrry]

Perhaps it is time for the UN to review the Conventions and set forth new guidelines as to how they are enforced.

Money would be better spent making sure there weren't refugee's in the first place, rather than worry about a piece of paper that, has been pointed out, many countries have signed up to, but have no intention or ability to enforce.

All the rest is just optics.

Maybe that would stop the refugees but it would do nothing about the economic migrants among the boat people.

[samran]

Perhaps it is time for the UN to review the Conventions and set forth new guidelines as to how they are enforced.

Money would be better spent making sure there weren't refugee's in the first place, rather than worry about a piece of paper that, has been pointed out, many countries have signed up to, but have no intention or ability to enforce.

All the rest is just optics.

Maybe that would stop the refugees but it would do nothing about the economic migrants among the boat people.

economic migrants posing as refugees already get sent back, so your point isn't really a valid one.

And they are only a small proportion. 90+% of people who apply for refugee status are found to be genuine refugees anyway, so you help them further down the line, you solve the problems with boat arrivals and people risking their lives that way.

Not that I have a problem with economic migrants per se. About 180,000 permanenet, and around the same again non-permenent arrivals come each year. All of the economic migrants.

[Will27]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Under the UN Conventions that Australia has ratified & signed, Australia is not entitled to automatic denial of entry. Australia is obliged to assess, process & take the relevant decisions, guided by the conventions, for all asylum seeker/refugee arrivals no matter the means of arriving on Australian terroritory.

If it was me I would de ratifify it. How Australia treats refugees when they are accepted is way above other countries and many are accepted that other countries would not. WIthdrawal from the convention seems the answer if others will not take part and just criticise because australia is a signatory.

As I have already posted their should be a referendum to decide whether the majority of Australians wish the government to abide or not to the applicable UN Conventions. The upcoming general election, whereby the two major parties are "racing to the bottom" is not an appropriate method for making a policy decision that will a major impact, one way or the other, on Australia's international reputation.

Simple1, you're in La La Land if you think a referendum is needed on a topic such as this.

Both Rudd and Abbott are pitching these "extreme" measures as they know that's what the majority

of the people want. As Samran has said, they're aimed at the "compliant masses".

Do you really think that Joe Average, working in Perth, which is the 10th priciest city to live in the world,

gives a rodents bottom to what Australia's international reputation is?

Of course they don't. There's people out there working 70 hours a week with a family and kids

struggling to makes ends meet.

Do you think they really care about Oz's reputation or are more concerned about paying their mortgage,

medical bills etc?

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Will27

[tw25rw]

I fail to see why merely arriving in a country should entitle you to stay in the country. Australia is entitled to deny entry and unlike Thailand, at least they are making provision for an onward port, not merely towing the boats out to sea and casting them adrift.

Let's be truthful here. Australia doesn't really care where these refugees end up--even adrift at sea--so long as they don't end up in Australia. It's political-speak to suggest otherwise.

If they keep going they can get to NZ..

[tw25rw]

Kind of is, given they can't stay there and under threat of arrest and deportation to Myanmar, they flow through there and end up in OZ.

It becomes something we have to deal with, but that doesn't mean we have to give these people a home, just because someone else won't.

They could head north to Bangladesh where they already form part of the indigenous population, but someone has told them Australia is big, rich and empty and waiting for them.

[samran]

Kind of is, given they can't stay there and under threat of arrest and deportation to Myanmar, they flow through there and end up in OZ.

It becomes something we have to deal with, but that doesn't mean we have to give these people a home, just because someone else won't.

They could head north to Bangladesh where they already form part of the indigenous population, but someone has told them Australia is big, rich and empty and waiting for them.

You sound like the Burmese junta PR spokesperson.

Bangladesh refuses to recognise them, and won't give them any legal status there. It is a bit like saying, well, that most Australian's came out from Ireland or the UK back in the 19th and 20th centuries, so they should be able to go back and live in the Britain and Ireland any time they like.

And yep, someone has probably told them that if they get to Australia they won't have to put up with government harrassment despite living having lived in the same country for generations. They might even be given legal status in the country, cause they haven't had much luck in the country where they, their parents and their grand parents were born. And they won't get towed back out to sea to their likely deaths like the Thai navy does.

Edited July 30, 2013 by samran

[simple1]

Under the UN Conventions that Australia has ratified & signed, Australia is not entitled to automatic denial of entry. Australia is obliged to assess, process & take the relevant decisions, guided by the conventions, for all asylum seeker/refugee arrivals no matter the means of arriving on Australian terroritory.

If it was me I would de ratifify it. How Australia treats refugees when they are accepted is way above other countries and many are accepted that other countries would not. WIthdrawal from the convention seems the answer if others will not take part and just criticise because australia is a signatory.

As I have already posted their should be a referendum to decide whether the majority of Australians wish the government to abide or not to the applicable UN Conventions. The upcoming general election, whereby the two major parties are "racing to the bottom" is not an appropriate method for making a policy decision that will a major impact, one way or the other, on Australia's international reputation.

Simple1, you're in La La Land if you think a referendum is needed on a topic such as this.

Both Rudd and Abbott are pitching these "extreme" measures as they know that's what the majority

of the people want. As Samran has said, they're aimed at the "compliant masses".

Do you really think that Joe Average, working in Perth, which is the 10th priciest city to live in the world,

gives a rodents bottom to what Australia's international reputation is?

Of course they don't. There's people out there working 70 hours a week with a family and kids

struggling to makes ends meet.

Do you think they really care about Oz's reputation or are more concerned about paying their mortgage,

medical bills etc?

Do you maybe think that Joe Average also gets annoyed when he see's the hand-outs and benefits given

to a lot of these arrivals that he cannot get?

Keep it real.

Yes I do believe a referendum is required as the refugee is issue is divisive and there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Could be utterly wrong, but I also believe Australia's compliance to its international agreements on human rights/refugees would be of concern to the majority of Australian citizens who take pride in being Australian. Will it ever happen, more than likely not, but I would love to see Australian politicians step up to the mark to find out the truth of the matter from the Australian people.

As to the myth of refugees receiving more benefits from welfare than existing Australian citizens please go to the URL below. The only extra benefit they receive is some goods to initially establish a home; if some Australians are resentful of this support just shows how small minded they are.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/98services.htm

Edited July 30, 2013 by simple1