<< We will decide who enters Australia and the circumstances in which they come. >>

I am fascinated that such a simple and obvious and totally correct assertion from our former PM has earnt him utter loathing from some quarters.

Of COURSE we, the Australian people and our government, should be totally in control of who comes here.

<< People such as the author need to recognise that there are two, and only two alternatives that we can pursue:

1. To permit an unlimited number of these people to enter Australia.

2. To place a limit on the number allowed to enter. >>

Yes Plerdsus, it is as simple as that.

The first option is the hopeless current state of affairs. The second option is the way it would be if things happened entirely according to our immigration program, with its refugee category of 20 000 pa.

I agree that we need to stop beating around the bush and act decisively. Declaring a date in the very near future after which no boats will be accepted and all arrivals will be quickly returned without processing, is what we need to do.

But I wouldn’t go as far as firing on boats.

Isn’t it the most amazing thing that this enormous debacle was directly caused by the utter stupidity of one KRudd, who is again our PM and is set to win the next election! How is this possible?? It is absolutely flabbergasting!

If ever there was someone who should absolute NOT be in the position that he is in, nor anywhere remotely near it, it is him!

onthebeach - SPQR - Good to see others pointing out the bias in some peoples articles and the fact that IMPORTANT facts like the boat was turned around after the threats and intimidation by the so called refugees.

The intimidation and threats are increasing to ship captains, to which our Government does nothing, charge the instigators with something then deport them. It will get to the point where commercial ships will not go to there rescue.

When will our Government wake up we go 250 to 300 KM's into Indonesian waters to pick up people 42 Km's of Java then have to bring them to Australia. This one needs to be stopped let Indonesia get them or tell them if we pick them up in Indonesian waters they will be returned to Indonesia. As SPQR stated "Indonesia has 150 naval vessels but NOT A SINGLE ONE of them is positioned in the south"

It is blatantly obvious Indonesia do not want them but does nothing much to stop them getting to Indonesia in the first place. The only way to stop that attitude is if we stop the boats and they see they will be stuck with any that arrive in Indonesia.

It is depressing to read most of the above comments because they betray an almost complete inability to see things as they really are. Australia signed and later ratified the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.

that Convention imposes certain obligations on all signatory states. To adopt the majority of the solutions posed by the above commenters would require as a minimum step for Australia to withdraw from the Convention. No Australian government is likely to do that in the foreseeable future.

Those obligations are not limited to Australia's territorial waters, but include the high seas. The territorial waters concept is limited to 12 nautical miles, so the fact that potential refugees are picked up closer to, say, Indonesia than Australia is irrelevant.

Most of the above commenters also completely fail to acknowledge the distinction between those who seek refugee status and those entitled to it.

The so-called boat people are entitled as a matter of law to have their claim for protection examined. That requires a fair, effective and speedy mechanism for determining the validity of their claims. If those claims are found not to be valid or justified then they can be and are deported. In fact, more than 90% of claimants have been found to have valid claims.

(To be continued)

(continued)

If the claims come within the provisions of Articles 1 or 33 of the Convention, then there is an absolute prohibition on them being expelled or returned to their country of origin.

It is irrelevant whether the would-be refugee arrives by sea, land or air, and whether they arrive legally or illegally. The right to have a claim properly evaluated exists irrespective of the mode of arrival.

It is obvious most of the above commenters do not like to face these facts. Half baked political slogans always have a greater measure of comfort for the ignorant and ill-informed. They are however, no substitute for a properly thought out and executed policy consistent with our international obligations. To succumb to anything else would be a travesty.

By way of addendum I would make two further brief points.

The first is that a significant proportion of recent refugees originate from countries where Australia's foreign policy has been no small factor in creating "push" factors. The second is that notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing the refugees arriving in Australia are a tiny fraction of the total refugees created in the world each and every year.

These people are actually seeking asylum from Indonesia. By accepting them we are saying that the conditions are so poor in Indonesia that their survival is in jeopardy. The reality is that welfare and other economic conditions in Australia are far more favourable and attractive.

True asylum seekers mostly end up in neighbouring countries, not countries half a world away.

John Howard broke every law in the world to turn away the TAMPA after asking them to rescue the passengers.

Australian racists seem to have this delusion that we own the oceans and all who travel on them, we don't .

Howard knew he was breaking the law before he did it, Indonesia had already told Downer the TAMPA could not go to Merak, why are cowards here still trying to re-write history?