An excellent and very interesting analysis Graham.

Yes, Graham Young. The asylum seeker scandal is a huge vote loser for Labor. The question you should be asking yourself, is how is it that a political party which claimed to represent working and disadvantaged class Australians, could be so stupid as to implement a policy of open borders which was most vehemently opposed by the very voters it claimed to represent?

Hi Graham,

This is an interesting analysis and it confirms two issues. Firstly, that your respondents view the issue through a political/ideological perspective, which was its purpose.

The second is that because of this perspective, respondents seem to discount the common definition of the word (PNG) “solution”. Which is “An action or process of solving a problem”.

When the politics is removed a solution is something that solves the “causes” of a problem and not its “symptoms”.

When the focus is on symptoms, your solution inevitably becomes demand driven, the more and bigger the symptoms, the more and bigger your response has to be.

The nature of the ALP response and the diabolical dilemma into which they have driven themselves is best highlighted by Tony Burke who had this to say about the PNG Solution.

<< That the number of arrivals would “completely define” the scale of the accommodation. “And it completely defines the cost associated with it”>>
Source: The Australian, July 26 2013.

It’s quite simple, if the solution is demand driven it can never be a solution, just a source of more waste and indecision.

The problem is “boat arrivals” and not where to put the passengers after they arrive. We are yet to see what direct impact the PNG Solution will have on “the problem”. What we can observe is that this policy is already seen as having huge potential for negative and unintended consequences.

Risk of more deaths at sea, impact on stretched border security resources, social impacts on PNG and existing detention facilities, stressed relations with regional neighbors and socio-economic costs to Australians.

The negative responses from the commentariat to the Abbott proposals focus entirely on the political perspectives and yet, it is the only proposal on offer that tackles the source of the problem.

Eliminate some 15 departments/agencies to eliminate NGO/Activist/political/bureaucratic obfuscation, streamline the chain of command, issue TPV’s and turn back the boats where applicable.

Each aspect focuses entirely on targeting the problem and the ability to deliver the solution. No symptoms but a huge mess to clear up.

If women and children are not to be sent to Manus, then can we expect an increase in families coming by boat?
This has all the markings of a hugely expensive exercise in spin from Captain Chaos. I can imagine the ALP hierarchy (1) hoping that Rudd does manage to stem the wipe-out promised under Gillard and (2) that they will waste no time in sending him to the back bench as soon as the first post-election meetings are held.
Or perhaps an incoming Abbott government could offer him a job. Say as ambassador to PNG?

The problem facing Rudd is that people who want a tough approach to border control (the majority of sensible, hardworking Ozzies) don't trust that he will have the wherewithal to carry it through.

And people who want a soft approach (a small but vocal minority --backed to the hilt by a crusading ABC & SBS) will only vote for it as a lesser of two "evils".

This cartoon says it all.

http://media.stylespress.com/2013/07-2013/zeg-king-kevnute-1000x714.jpg

Big Kev's PNG solution is a joke, Having crowned himself Labor emperor, all he has is ego and couldn't organise a plss up in a brewery.

This is Dudd's version of the East Timor smoke and mirror election solution.

I thought only Gypsies had crystal balls Graham?
I've got an interesting new idea. Why don't we set aside the endless rhetoric and give this idea a try.
The Malaysian solution was rejected, only because, we were told, it was not a UNHR signatory.
And we were informed, all labour needed to get the coalition on side, was a signatory country.
Reinstate the pacific solution bellowed the coalition, even though credible expert opinion advised it would't work!
As events have unfolded, the expert opinion has been thoroughly validated!
And that is all down to the Labour party.
Why?
Well, they did roll over and beg for a tummy rub from the coalition on this one, and that's why they are responsible for current outcomes, including all subsequent drowning.
I can't see towing the boats back being even well thought through let alone workable policy?
I mean, you'd need to very big ships to tow back sinking or sunken boats.
And we can't unload rescued people back in transit countries, once they are on board, under our flag and therefore our sole legal responsibility!
It's not a military problem, (women armed only with suckling infants and very young children) and therefore, it doesn't require a military solution, or scarce military resources tied up, in work more appropriately handled by humanitarian means/political dialogue, and civilian service personal/customs.
All around the world signatory nations are honouring their obligations, with tent accommodation and very basic services.
We owe asylum seekers no more that that!
And therefore, a more developed Mannus Island, is all the safe sanctuary we are obliged to provide.
If that then causes people to change their travel plans or intending destinations, that would probably self identify them as genuine economic migrants seeking economic outcomes; as opposed to those fleeing for their lives, and only seeking sanctuary!
Rhrosty

Oh for thoughtful right wing thought or is that an oxymoron for this site.
If they’re not pulling the no true Scotsman argument, they just being plain racist.
Labour is treading a hard path. Dr no is always going to have an easy path on this.
One he doesn't actual have to do anything
Two he knows there is no centre right votes up for grabs at the moment.
Where will be Tony’s fanboys if he lies his way into government and can’t fix anything.

Kenny, I would have thought people of the left would be avoiding that word "lie" in all it's forms, for about the next ten years.

The moment any hears it they immediately think Gillard [no carbon tax}, & Rudd [I will not challenge for the leadership] & then of course, Labor.

It's not border protection as some here think, it is destroying the lives of innocent people who need protection. Are people here aware that while we spend billions trading, trafficking and jailing refugees and guarding the tiny coast of Christmas Island there is no surveillance whatsoever on 60,000 km of mainland coast.

That means every navy in the world could sail in and we couldn't do a thing about it.

It is not people smuggling, surely to god after all these years with only Australia conflating seeking asylum with the method of transport with seeking asylum there are some dimwits in our media who could be bothered with facts.

And this incessant bleating and whinging over a few thousand people in the face of 6.5 million extra refugees and displaced people last year alone is deranged beyond measure.

What on earth is wrong with you ridiculous people and why do ridiculous pollsters treat refugees as an issue in the first place?

They are not a tax dodge or tax raising measure, they are human beings with the same rights as you.

Now just grow the hell up and shut up.

Maybe I'm as thick as two planks, or maybe I've missed something on the news, but I am puzzled why one option isn't ever mentioned:

'Boat-people' from Indonesia have left Indonesia intending to enter another country, Australia, but without filling out all the usual exit papers, or submitted all the usual entry papers for Australia. Technically they are still 'in' Indonesia.

If a boat is intercepted on the high seas, with the clear intention of making landfall on Australian territory, then they have left Indonesia in an irregular fashion.

Negotiations with Indonesian authorities would therefore be vital to organise the return of people who have tried to exit Indonesia with incomplete papers, back to Indonesia, and it would be appropriate to compensate Indonesia for the time and trouble that this may cause them.

So, if 'boat-people' are temporarily taken to Christmas Island, given thorough health checks, etc., made comfortable, and then flown back to their point of departure in Indonesia, no-one has to be disadvantaged.

The costs of the time and trouble caused to Indonesian authorities may amount to, say, one hundred thousand dollars per person, or ten or twenty million dollars per plane-load. The people concerned would simply be restored to the situation from which they left, no recriminations, and with the right to apply for entry into Australia in the standard way. And to go to the back of the queue, behind all those in 300,000-strong desert tent-camps in Kenya, etc., who have been waiting for ten years or more.

And if people realised that there was no point going to Indonesia, in order to get to Australia, the flow of people TO Indonesia would dry up: after all, once one has applied to come to Australia and joined the queue, it probably doesn't matter where one was in the world.

Or am I missing something ?

Joe

Yes Loudmouth, you are missing commonsense, brains, logic and heart. ASylum seekers don't have to fill out reams of paper work and even if they did have to we would not let them and as Indonesia has no refugee laws what papers would they be?

You live in a fat, selfish country ruled by papers, Afhgans and Iraqis in particular have had their lives and countries blown to bits by us, how many papers do you think they have left?

It's not about paperwork, it's about protecting people and we just can't be bothered to do it but expect that everyone else will.

Hi Marilyn,

Nobody is fleeing Afghanistan or Pakistan and coming directly by boat to Australia - they have to go through a second country, Afghanistan to Pakistan or Iran, or a third country, Indonesia, to get on a leaky boat. But, once in Indonesia, they are not fleeing from direct persecution or the threat of death.

So what is an 'acceptable' annual level of refugee intake, in your view ? Thirty thousand ? Fifty thousand ? Stop me when it all appears too ridiculous. One hundred thousand ? Half a million ? A million ?

So what's your 'acceptable level', Marilyn ? We all have one.

Right, that's established then.

Now: as we can be fairly certain that there are more people who have applied than can be 'absorbed' - even in terms of your own 'acceptable level', Marilyn, I'm sure - then there is a queue. People waiting their turn. People around the world who have done the right thing, submitted themselves for assessment, filled out the right papers, and waited. Probably millions in Africa alone, too destitute to afford any boat-rides.

So there's a queue. We can all understand why many people would want - out of misery and desperation - to jump the queue by hopping on a boat. But doesn't this simply put others further back in the queue, forced to wait even longer ? People who are at least as entitled to come to Australia in an annual quota, if not more so by virtue of having applied earlier ?

Some problems have no easy solutions, Marilyn :)

Or is it that I really am thick as two planks ? I can't see the obvious ?

Cheers,

Joe

You live in a fat, selfish country ruled by papers, Afhgans and Iraqis in particular have had their lives and countries blown to bits by us, how many papers do you think they have left?
Marylin,
They were blowing each other up in case you forgot why the outside forces interfered. They were blowing their country apart AND the oil supply to the rest of the world including thankless you.
Just so to show us that you can do without oil post a comment without using an oil-based utensil. Moron !

Loudmouth, they still don't need papers and as there is no country of protection between here and Afghanistan they are coming directly. The last bit of the journey is by sea because they cannot be protected in Indonesia.

I swear Australián's who write on the internet just blurt because they are too lazy to use the internet to see if there is any truth to what they are saying.

I fail to see what oil has to do with anything I wrote.

Loudmouth: there is nothing in any legal definition of a refugee that says they have to stop running as soon as they cross the boarder of the country where they are most at risk. If they find themselves in a place where they still aren't safe, they are entitled to keep running. Try it yourself one day. Relocate to a country where speaking the wrong language, being the wrong colour or having the wrong opinion can get you killed.

Once you've done queuing and working out what paperwork to fill out, let us all know how much you enjoyed the experience.

And maybe after all that, sit down and think through why so many refugees originate in war zones, and which countries participated in those wars. Iraq, Afghanistan: heard of those? Know anyone who was involved in screwing those conflicts up?

Marilyn says "I swear Australian's who write on the internet just blurt because they are too lazy to use the internet to see if there is any truth to what they are saying."

Excuse me... didn't you just post a comment on the Internet? Or don't your blurts count? Are you not Australian too? If not then perhaps you don't fully understand the potential threat to Australian cultural and social values in the long term if you follow your desire to throw open the doors to one and all.

Marilyn, how would you react if you were standing in a long line, almost there and 500 others pushed in front of you? I seriously doubt, given the stroppy nature you appear to possess, you'd just smile and accept it without a fuss.

Hi PhilipM,

Welcome to OLO.

Now, I'm not expecting to convert you - Just give you something to think about.

Below is a little snippet for ABC RN (a suitably kosher source, for those of your persuasion?). It was embedded in one the ABC's reports talking about unaccompanied minors wanting to proceed to OZ

<<GEORGE ROBERTS: Water trickles through the picturesque paddy fields of Puncak, south of Jakarta, where hundreds of villas are rented out to thousands of asylum seekers>> RN AM --Tuesday, July 23, 2013 08:03:00

Here it is again:

<GEORGE ROBERTS: Water trickles through the picturesque paddy fields of Puncak, south of Jakarta, where hundreds of villas are rented out to thousands of asylum seekers>>.

In one of your more reflective moments try and reconcile it with the generic poor-fellow-refugee story you fed Loudmouth.

Cheers!

Abbott's proposed inappropriate use of the military is a small taste of how he concerns me over keeping the military at arms length from government. If democracy is ever going to be tested in this country, it has to start somewhere. IYGYKHN.

Rudd correctly ended the turnback/tow-back policy because it was wrong to "process" asylum-seekers upon encounter at sea (i.e. deem them to be seeking illegal entry), both ethically and under the UN refugee convention. Furthermore, it didn't work anyway once boats were scuttled to invoke maritime distress provisions, and it won't work again.

The PNG solution avoids this. If it does not proceed or succeed at least in very largely (90%)reducing arrivals and refugee deaths at sea, we have no shots left in the locker.

Marilyn,
Guess who wrote this in 2006?

"Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst. That is why the government's proposal to excise the Australian mainland from the entire Australian migration zone and to rely almost exclusively on the so-called Pacific Solution should be the cause of great ethical concern to all the Christian churches. We should never forget that the reason we have a UN convention on the protection of refugees is in large part because of the horror of the Holocaust, when the West (including Australia) turned its back on the Jewish people of Germany and the other occupied countries of Europe who sought asylum during the '30s".

It was Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and he was also mentioning Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a source of inspiration.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2006/october/1330040298/kevin-rudd/faith-politics

Bonhoeffer also said "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act".

It was Howard who let this genie out of the bottle and the conservatives have been playing the same card ever since and encouraging the worst aspects of society for their political ends.
Rudd is just trying to beat them at their own evil game.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to convince those who twist reality in order to support their own prejudices, but at least you know that you are standing up for what you know is the truth.

Marilyn, for every refugee arriving by boat one waiting for resettlement elsewhere in the world misses out. Our total immigration number is capped.

Joe's question, "So what's your 'acceptable level', Marilyn ? We all have one." deserves an answer from you, or one of your ilk, but there is only silence and vacuous sentiment in the face of the growing flood of boats and deaths that takes no account of the equity issue for those elsewhere in the world awaiting resettlement.

If you believe we should dissolve the immigration cap and throw open Australia to anyone who can get here, via any mode of transport, just say so. But no, you and your ilk are silent on that to avoid defending your position.

Australia will raise its cap to resettle more refugees and has arranged for our neighbour, PNG ( and possibly others), to do likewise. So stop telling us what horrible people we are and take your own advice, just grow the hell up and shut up.

Well said Luciferase.

Forget PNG, it's just a distraction, a sideshow. When I left PNG at the end of '76 (post Independence) it was already sliding into an a-hole, and has been on the skids ever since. Lovely people mind you, but suffering a bad case of 'future shock'. It can't look after its own affairs (yet), let alone help-out good old colonial Oz.
(And, Indonesian interests are hovering, just over a 'constructed' border. Lovely, hospitable, caring Indonesia.)

This whole issue is just so NOT black-and-white. There is a massive global diaspora going on, of oppressed or demonized minorities from all over, with Oz as a prime destination - good old stable, sparsely populated Great South Land, the Terra Nullius of old. They're 50 thousand years or so late, but the pathway remains for the bold, the strong, the determined.

Have we a right to block this age-old transmission of human occupation, just because we have it so good and we just don't want to share?

Maybe it would be great to take some minorities from here and there (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc), and maybe the 'boaties' would be a good place to start - since they would seem to be made of the 'right stuff'? But, how to manage an organised and manageable flow, without inducing a flood?

I think most of we freedom-loving, sun-loving, good old bronzed Aussies are heartily sick of the whole 'detention' approach, the 'off-shore' slight of hand, the psychological distress, self-harm, inmate abuse, rioting (from sheer desperation), the suicides and the deaths at sea.

We need a new, inclusive and comprehensive approach. No long term detention - approve bridging visas quickly, or return to sender, also quickly. Orderly arrangements with Indonesia. Foreign aid on a global scale to all displaced persons' or 'refugee' camps; massive determined diplomatic pressure on oppressive regimes - at risk of being deemed 'pariah' states, with whom no developed country would henceforth do business. Isolate, blockade, and undertake covert action to aid oppressed minorities to escape to safe harbour.

This problem is not going to go away; a new global 21st Century is emerging, a new kaleidoscope of 'culture'. Who are we (the developed world) to stand in the way of this new 'evolution' in human affairs?

Luciferase,

Did you read this buy Labor immigration minister circa 2008?

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/speeches/2008/ce081117.htm

Why, if it was right Labor policy then, is it not right now?

Seeing that we have Mr Burke back now as Immigration minister.

I'm talking about "principles".

A couple of things wrong with what Hasbeen writes.

1. Labor are not “people of the left”'

2. A political promise that later gets broken in new circumstances is at worst a “political false promise”. Pollies do it all the time. Does anyone imagine Abbott has been telling the truth about his intentions?

3. A really treasonable lie would be to lie our country into war by bellowing a story that Blind Freddy could see was lies. Labor has never done that. Whenever the Libs bleat about “Labor lies” people need to be reminded it was Hitler, not Labor, that lied his country into invading Poland and (guess what party), not Labor, that lied OUR country into invading Iraq. That’s lying big time and no-one should be allowed to forget it.

Emperor Julian,

I'd call myself a lefty.

What do you reckon about 24 carat hypocrisy?

Here's a few quotes from Burke in 2008 - having wrested immigration fromthe LNP.

".....In the area of refugee policy the key themes running through the Labor platform are humanity, fairness, integrity and public confidence."

"Labor committed to abolishing the Pacific Solution and this was one the first things the Rudd Labor Government did on taking office. It was also one of my greatest pleasures in politics. Neither humane nor fair, the Pacific Solution was also ineffective and wasteful."

(My personal favourite)

"....the Howard government sought to outsource our international protection obligations to less developed countries when we should have been shouldering them ourselves."

" When we came to office there were people found to be refugees left rotting on Nauru because of a political decision taken by the former government to keep them there. I must say I was pleased to discover that the department were very keen to bring them to Australia quickly, and we did this in less than two months."

"......The Pacific Solution was not about maintaining integrity or public confidence in Australia’s arrangements. It was about the cynical politics of punishing refugees for domestic political purposes."

Principles?

If we let all of the Muslim population into Australia with their Sharia law via leaky boats then people like Marylin Shepherd may be in for a shock, having just returned from Dubai I was impressed with how Western they seemed to have become on the surface, but the Sharia laws are well and truly entrenched in the Emirates, men cannot swim at the beach on certain days with woman, never mention HIV-Aids deportation immediately if found out, women raped can lead to jail sentences for the women Marylin may like her husband having four or five wives and being subordinate to him, human rights are missing, don''t show affection in public, don't sleep in the same hotel if not married, and the list goes on, don' t think this came off the Internet Marylin we were told.
If Marylin wants Sharia law introduced dramatically, then I for one don't, all refugees must accept our way of life, why leave a country to get away from Sharia laws and create the same laws in Australia from the country you are escaping from.

Poirot, EJ,

On illegal immigrants, the coalition has had a consistent policy for a decade. Labor has not had one for a month.

With boat arrivals reaching new records since Dudd announced the PNG solution and now that Indonesia is initiating talks on towing back boats, so the last scrap of credibility that Labor has fallen away.

It is time this bunch of clowns labor calls government is swept away and a responsible government is installed.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst.
Wobbles,
That suggests that those people who stuck to one or two principles & built up a nation should therefore simply accommodate anyone who has no such principles to live with each other ?
Are you saying that only western nations are/should be good samaritans ? Are you also suggesting that those who come here because they can't get on with each other back home should just be taken in & supported ? Are you suggesting that Australians should be good samaritans to the extent where they have to tighten their own belts to accommodate those who will never contribute for the benefit of Australia ? Are you suggesting Australia should just give & not expect a thanks but a decline in it's society due to such invaders ?
May I suggest people who want to help should do so with their resources & go to those countries & prevent people from becoming refugees. Then there wouldn't be refugees & Australia could save billions some of which could be given as aid. Ah I see, to go & help these people to have a better live in their own country would be an illegal invasion but for them to invade us is not illegal. Great mentality indeed Ostrich !

Shadow Minister,

So are you saying that the Coalition had the bottom of the barrel all to itself for all these years, and is now rather miffed that Labor is reaching in as well?

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html?selectedImage=0

@Poriot,

<<So are you saying that the Coalition had the bottom of the barrel all to itself for all these years, and is now rather miffed that Labor is reaching in as well>>

What a strange mindset to equate attempts to *manage* who enters the country with "scrapping the bottom of the barrel"!

And ,apparently, not only will it be portrayed as immoral, but if you persist with the "bottom of the barrel" idea that you might control immigration SBS , the ABC & 10,000 lawyers, advocates, and all the other holders of first class gravy train tickets will beat up on you!

I was particularly amused ---no I was absolutely floored!--to last night hear the chief UNHCR honcho in OZ express grave concern about the PNG deal because PNG's Melanesian society would find it hard to accept outsiders (LOL)!

Whatever happen to the jackboot approach --much used in OZ -- to impress upon such narrow minded bogans that like it or lump it they will take refugees --and they will just have to learn to live with diversity and the joys of multiculturalism.

SPQR,

I completely understand where you are coming from.

Those Papua New Guineans enjoy all that advanced infrastructure, luxuriate in the all the wealth inherent in an advanced, modern industrial consumer state.

And the UN is rattling on about integration.

Sheeesh!

Makes you wonder how they'd react if PNG was still a developing county with its own serious issues.

Nice try Poirot BUT...

1) The Refugee Convention is not intended to supply "refugees" with five star services. Although, I would be the first to acknowledge no one seems to have told the (shop & shift from country to country till you land in an affluent country) "asylum seekers" about this --nor you, apparently!, AND

2) The UNHCR honcho spoke SPECIFICALLY of their *acceptance* into/by Melanesian society.

So Sorry that little spin wont work!

But of even more import, I've just picked up on something --a bit slow of me, I know

So, now that Tony Abbott has released his border control policy --he can't wear Mr No or Mr Negative.
And, Kevin Rudd has released his, so ditto him

But guess who has sat on the sidelines --without any alternatives --and poo-pooed both houses?

YOU!

It seems that you are now our NEW Ms No --Ms Negativity
And no more fitting holder of the title has there every been!

Cheers, Ms N

Okay, someone (Poirot maybe) please take me around the back of the shed and knock me on the head with a lump of wood.

WHY ?

Why isn't it possible, with Indonesian concurrence, to take boat-people to Christmas Island, make sure they are okay and healthy, and then fly them back to the airport of their choice in Indonesia, where they can fill out all the right papers and wait ? Like those poor buggers in Kenya ?

Why this Wallace-and-Grummit non-solution of shipping people off to PNG, and from there to Saibai and Daru, and from there to Thursday Island, and from there to Cairns or Darwin ?

Think about it: IF refugees travel to Indonesia, the only reason, more or less, being to get to Australia, then if they were resigned to the fact that, unless they are in the queue, that would not happen, then why would they pay to travel to Indonesia, let alone pay even more to people-smugglers to get on a leaky boat ?

And if they were in the queue* (see below), then they might as well be anywhere, waiting their turn.

* Queue - if person A applied and filled out all the right papers ten years, ago, and person B did the same nine years ago, and person C did the same eight years ago, then there is a queue: A, B, C, ........

By all means increase the intake to, say, thirty thousand per year, capped, on the condition that people have to be in the queue to be considered for entry to Australia as refugees.

Otherwise, we have two possible, untenable, situations:

a) no cap, and whoever can jump the queue and come by boat will be accepted;

OR

b) all those coming by boat are accepted as part of the annual intake, and those in the queue are pushed back, to wait another year. And another. Pity about all those people in Kenya, SHY :(

Okay, Poirot, here's the lump of wood, let's get this over with.

Joe

The only case for moving to a massive increase in humanitarian immigration (say a five-fold increase on our most recently adjusted figure) lies in the answer to Burke's 2008 question regarding its value:

"We need to make the economic as well as the humanitarian case for an increase in numbers. Part of the economic case is that our migration program, considered as a whole, has a positive nett impact on the economy. Even considering the humanitarian program on its own, there is after time a positive economic contribution."

This last sentence is a presupposition, as Burke then goes on:

"What we need is a more comprehensive understanding of the contributions that Humanitarian entrants make to Australia. At the moment they are too often seen only as a cost".

Australia still needs to populate (sustainably)or perish, especially given our age demographic. If there is to be a massive increase in the humanitarian cap and hence the total cap, a massive reason must be given. Much comment on this forum goes against it, attributing a theocratic and poor employment mindset to new arrivals. However, this forum does not represent a fair cross-section of anecdotal public opinion and hard data is what's needed.

I raise the above because this is where Greens should attack the problem rather than from its narrow, emotive base. Give Australia an incontrovertible economic case for wedging its door wider. None of it will stop the boats, however, as 45 million displaced is too massive to dent.

Regarding comparing Burke's 2013 principles with those he held in 2008, he has clearly grown "the hell up".

humanitarian immigration
Lucy,
Is that what they call it now ? Why didn't they use that word for the Allies going into Iraq instead of illegal war ? If the silent invaders can be called humanitarian immigrants then why can't we be called humanitarian defenders of this country to protect it ?

Ask yourselves what is it these refugees are running from?
Millions & Millions of them.

Most often persecution from other tribes, religious tribes, included.

Why do you believe that that could never happen here, in future generations?

Why do you want to set big tribes up in this country seeing what occurs in places where big tribes exist?
The holocaust included.

Graham Young-- makes the following observation:-

<This shows itself in the fact that the policy is a net vote loser for Labor. Given that both the major parties are a long way short of 50% of the vote the next election is about preferences. So, while Liberal voters are more turned-off by the policy than Labor voters are turned-on, the real electoral pain comes from the fact that Greens voters are a net 50% less likely to vote Labor and the other minor parties net 26%.>

I think Graham is absolutely correct in this assessment. There is a big chance that Labour will lose the election because they have a situation where if they don’t deal with the boats they lose their grass roots supporters and if they do try to deal with the boats re: this PNG solution, they lose the votes of the Greens and minor parties which will cost them the election anyway.

As a Labour voter, who was angry when the Howard boat solution was overturned, I have begun to think that I would rather vote Liberal in the hope that they will have enough seats to govern without a hung parliament. So the country won’t be at the mercy of the Greens and minor parties again.

This would free the Liberals up to actually make some tough decisions about the boat arrivals. I have been mulling this change of vote for Rudd over in the past few days because of the above thinking, so I immediately understood what Graham was saying as true, in my case anyway.

I still haven’t forgotten the Oliver Twist, “Work Choices” though.

However, this boat people thing and the thought of a hung parliament again, may cause me to swing to the Liberals this time,
just to get this boat problem sorted again by an unfettered parliament. Hopefully.

I must say I have been very favourably impressed by many of the successful asylum seekers who have been resettled in Oz (as seen in TV interviews); and I have also been greatly dismayed by the accounts some have given both of the conditions they experienced in their 'home' countries and, perhaps even more so, of the conditions they suffered in detention (at 'our' hands) and the psychological problems they now suffer in direct consequence of that detention.
It would appear that as bad as conditions were 'at home', they could be accepted, for they were 'the norm'; but the conditions they experienced in detention were totally unexpected, and to their thinking, irrational and inexplicable - thus, akin to prolonged and unaccountable torture.

Where does this lead me? I think we fear these people unnecessarily (just because they are 'different'), and fear 'invasion' by them irrationally. I can see them being assimilated and integrated without any great problem, with many of them becoming fairly quickly a contributory asset to our nation and our society.
But, prolonged detention mitigates directly AGAINST their potential for assimilation as contributory members of our society. So, prolonged detention must cease, as it creates many more problems than it can ever hope to solve.

Rather than focusing on stopping the boats, or turning them around, I think we would be far better served by assisting Indonesia to accommodate, educate and find constructive employment for these refugees, whilst they are being 'processed', and perhaps even for the long term. (And this would certainly cost us less than our 'detention' non-solution.) At present it would appear that Indonesia treats such refugees harshly, with the obvious result that they attempt to 'flee' to Oz - by any means available. We could stem this, by cooperation.
TBC>

>Cont'd>
With a more 'managed' and manageable approach, we would have far better opportunity to select genuine refugees for resettlement in Oz, and without causing the high levels of stress, distress and financial burden associated with our present unsatisfactory arrangements.

We are not about to be 'overrun', and we are in a position to both assist in easing the plight of refugees in camps around the world as part of multinational endeavours, and in building our societal strength and diversity by assimilating reasonable numbers of various minorities who have escaped persecution in their former homes.
We can be a better Oz, if we choose to do so.

However, our 'resettlement' program in Oz must include constructive education from day one, in language and in skills suitable both to the individual and to our employment needs, and this program must lead to constructive paid employment as quickly as possible.
Idle hands make for mischief, as has been amply demonstrated by our piecemeal and, may I say, lousy, present approach.

Whether it's Abbott or Rudd, what we need is jobs, industry, housing and education, with resultant constructive and meaningful employment for every capable individual.
A million worthy new immigrants can help to build a stronger and more resilient and diversified Oz - if we can get off our butts to make it happen in the right way.

Saltpetre,
You're another one who thinks all these invaders will be paying tax tp support your pension ?
I know a few bureaucrats who think that too. I say let them think, the outcome will be not at all favourable.

Totally agree with SPQR on the comment on melanesian society. I was also stunned to here the ABC spewing forward such racist views on behalf of PNG society.
Suddenly it was totally acceptable for a society to proclaim that these Asylum seekers should not come to their country because they would not be able to fit in there.
Also the UNHCR proclaiming they should go to Australia because from the UN's experience it was often difficult to mix melanesian and non-melanesian people together.
Other views clearly put forward on ABC TV were that the Asylum seekers would place untold stress on health services already stretched in PNG.
Yet if any of these issues are expressed by Australians there is the cry of racist from the left.

While there are a few diamonds among the illegal immigrants, the record is that years after getting residence, most are still on welfare.

There is no shortage of welfare bludgers in Aus already, why do we have to import them.

I just read that societies have a responsibility to look after their vulnerable. Well, how about taking those societies who shun their responsibility & send their supposedly vulnerable to us in boats , to task. Ah, I see, that'd be an illegal invasion. Remember the Howard -US bashers when the forces went into Iraq to stop that country from producing refugees ?
The morons of the left just can not open their eyes/minds to reality. We don't have to let Australia get overrun, all we need to do is help them sort out their problems in their countries. Ah damn, that'd be an illegal invasion again. Just can't win can we ?

What interesting times we live in.
And how things have changed over the decades.
Back in the 1970s and early 1980s up to 30,000
refugees a year came by boat to Australia.
There was little public fuss. There was
bi-partisan political support both from Malcolm
Fraser and Gough Whitlam.

These days we have bi-partisan support for punitive
measures to "stem the tide of boat people."
Hysteria decades later has well and truly gripped us.

You don't have to be an expert in political analysis
to see what is going on here. The government is framing
the asylum seeker issue in terms of organised crime.
People smugglers are the real villains here. "Absolute
scum of the earth." "Merchants of Death." And so on.
The Coalition is wanting to stop the deaths at sea
with their "tow back the leaky boats," mantra by the
military in stormy seas. Taking advice from a retired general
who wanted to bring tanks into Afghanistan. And rthe Coaliton
sends a message out to all people smugglers not to take
any notice of the government's PNG solution. It won't work.
Thus encouraging the boats to keep on coming.

All this is more than just rhetoric. It represents the
established public policy frameworks for asylum seeker
arrivals in Australia.

What we seem to forget that 30,000 to 40,000 people a year
should not be an issue. It never was in the past. We used
to think it was just a trickle of humkanity. So what's
happened now? Why can't the refugee dog-whistle politics
stop? Why can't both our government and the Coaliton
demonstrate moral leadership?

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/theres-a-paradox-at-the-heart-of-the-png-plan-20130725-2qn7h.html

So what's happened now?
Lexi,
Are you totally oblivious to what's going on around you ? Fist, those 70's refugees actually were refugees. Second, they were/are not religious mindless fanatics like the refugees of 2013.
In the 70's we could afford to take several tens of thousands in. In 2013 we can't afford them anymore. That's what's happened lexi !

"What we seem to forget that 30,000 to 40,000 people a year
should not be an issue."

I don't think the number is an insurmountable issue, Lexi, but nor are boat arrivals, deaths, and the equity issue for refugees awaiting resettlement around the world. All need equal attention.

The difference between now and the 70's is the growth of irregular maritime arrivals and the huge pressure of 45 million behind it.

Luciferase,

"The difference between now and the 70's is the growth of irregular maritime arrivals and the huge pressure of 45 million behind it."

So there's more pressure at the moment.

You don't think that may be the cause of so many taking to the boats?

Remembering that less than 1% of refugees in camps are resettled annually throughout the world.

I'm doubtful that Australia can raise the drawbridge - under the circumstances.

Yes, Lexi,

Whatever opinion one has on asylum seekers....there can be no doubt that both the major parties are engaging in "dog-whistle" politics bigtime!

Moir's cartoon again for those who missed it.

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html?selectedImage=0

Sums it up beautifully.

Getting back to the main topic, do most Australians understand that turning boats back "when it is safe to do so" involves the deployment of military force?

Is what is described below what Australians should support? It takes nearly a fortnight from Indonesia to get to Christmas Island in a crowded unseaworthy vessel, then:

The log of HMAS Adelaide was tabled before a Senate committee on 21 February 2002. Extracts from that log relating to the inception of Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel 4 in October 2001 are below:-

6 October [2001]

1813 First warning given to master of vessel.

7 October [2001]

0153 Second warning issued.

0216 Boarding party ordered by Commanding Officer to prepare to board SIEV-4 when vessel enters Christmas Island Contiguous Zone.

0258 Adelaide made close pass down SIEV-4 starboard side.

0335 Adelaide directed by CJTF to conduct a positive and assertive boarding.

0402 Warning 5.56 mm (cannon) shots fired 50 feet in front of vessel.

0405 Warning 5.56 mm shots fired 75 feet in front of SIEV-4.

0409 Warning 5.56 mm shots fired 50-100 feet in front of SIEV-4.

0414 Boarding party advised by CO that if 50 cal machine gun warning shots do not stop vessel, boarding party is to aggressively board SIEV-4.

0418-0420 Twenty-three rounds of 50 cal (20 rounds of automatic fire) fired in front of SIEV-4.

0430 Close quarters manoeuvering by Adelaide, SIEV passed close astern to Adelaide port quarter and reduced speed/took way off momentarily.

0432 Boarding party issued final warning (to SIEV) indicating that if they did not allow boarding party to board, Adelaide would not let them enter Australian waters.

0442 Boarding party effected a conducted non-compliant boarding of SIEV-4.

0445 Boarding party in control of SIEV-4.[1]

Other SIEV accounts talk of later boats being scuttled and their occupants being collected from the water, which we can assume will again become orthodoxy.

In choosing between approaches to stopping boats, let's understand the true meaning of "....when it is safe to do so." ahead of polling the electorate over the PNG question.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s moral leadership
was demonstrated by the Fraser government assisting
Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees.

There are patterns of global movements of refugees which
explain boat arrivals. People risk their lives to get
to other countries in order to flee persencution and other
dangers. Immigration experts and political commentators
tells us that half
the asylum seekers to Australia in the last 15 years have
been Hazaras fleeing the Taliban.

Our government needs to demonstrate moral leadership.
For a country like Australia, re-settling 30,000 to
40,000 people a year should not be an issue. It never was.
It is as stated earlier only a trickle of humanity.

What I find somewhat puzzling is - the Coalition makes
a a big deal out of having a three star general running the
show (despite admitted problems to be faced with the
chain of command). Yet, the Coalition knocked back the
recommendations of a four star General - Houston, and his
Report under the Gillard government. They wouldn't have
a bar of it. It makes their current move somewhat superficial
and more dog-whistling to out-do the government in punitive
measures. All this seems
like a vote-grabber by both parties. I can't help but wonder
whether the tactics would be any different if this was not an
election year?

Will people who advocate that we should take refugees please get in touch with the Dubai Sheiks in the Emirates running the place, there are thousands of empty flats there, no one to take them, just empty, why on earth are these refugees wanting to come here when accommodation is available there, same religion, so what is the problem.

The problem is that the Sheiks are so oil rich that they do not want the scum to live there, so they raise outragesly high rents to live there, perhaps people like Marylin Sheperd could write to the oil rich Sheiks and persuade them to accept refugees.

Perhaps when people wake up to the fact that untold wealth is not being distributed in the correct manner to the less fortunate, as an example, the press had two pictures on the front of the Sunday mail this morning, one of a refugee child, and one born into the wealthiest family on earth, so there's the problem.

It is time people woke up to the fact that adulation of the extreme wealth is not the way to go, but most of these people think they are God's gift to earth, but they definately are not.

The politics of this issue is that a vast majority of Australians will vote for a party that believes boats can be stopped and has a policy to achieve it. That excludes the Greens.

The Greens position is the boats can't be stopped and even if they could they'd oppose it and Australia should accept the consequences.

the Greens have made the boats issue pivotal because Labor can not gain a ruling majority and the LNP can. Only a vote for the LNP will stop the boats.

Instead of opposing, why don't the greens enunciate a policy to open the border to all-comers (so they can arrive safely by air) and pour huge money into processing while removing any cap on humanitarian immigration. Answer, because they'd get more smashed than they're already going to be in the next election.

All the Greens ever wanted was to oppose, not to take a mature role in government. There'll be few left after the next election and fewer after the next Senate election to enjoy the luxury. It will be interesting to see where their voters go with their preferences, but to donkey vote would seem appropriate

Great point, Ojnab.

<<Will people who advocate that we should take refugees please get in touch with the Dubai Sheiks in the Emirates running the place, there are thousands of empty flats there, no one to take them, just empty, why on earth are these refugees wanting to come here when accommodation is available there, same religion>>

And even more reasonable when the following is added:

"We believe that the Arab world is one human body...it prospers if all of its parts are prosperous" [Shiek Hamad Bin Khalifa-Al-Thani--recently retired ruler of Qatar] As quote in Time July 8 -July 15 2013

[Yes, I know that Sri Lankans & Iranians aren't Arab's --but the left is biting at the bit to sign us up for a Syrian intake --and the Syrians are most certainly Arab]

Here's two more links that are worth a read:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-copycat-towback-plan-wont-stop-the-boats-2013070714-2pxyg.html

And:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/23/png-solution-wont-stop-deaths-sea

What is needed as both links indicate is not to make this issue
a political discussion of a Left/Right dog fight. It would be great if politics was put aside on this complex issue. But in an election
year I realise this won't happen.

Lexi,

Considering that the Houston panel pretty much recommended the pacific solution, it was accepted by the coalition with the exception of the Malaysian solution. Similarly, Labor rejected part of the Houston review that recommended TPVs.

Why should Aus accept 40 000 refugees a year at 10s of $bn when the rest of the OECD is clamping down. This will also not stop the 1000s drowning.

Lexi, the point of my last post is that it's not just left/right politics. The Greens are playing politics by failing to fully enunciate to the electorate what they stand for. Instead, all they do is oppose what the positions of the other parties. This is so as not to expose themselves to a bigger drubbing than they're already heading for.

Please explain how Labor and LNP can join over stopping boats, given that's what they agree on, or are you one of the let them come brigade?

There are something like 46 million refugees and displaced persons in the world at the moment.

Some basic questions,

1. If Australia's annual quota of refugees in the queue was 100,000, would this stop the boats ?

obviously not.

2. If Australia's annual quota of refugees in the queue was 200,000 was 200,000, would this stop the boats ?

Obviously not.

3. If Australia's annual quota was 500,000, would the boats stop coming ?

Obviously not. There would still be 45.5 million desperate to come to some place like Australia.

In fact, the more Australia takes each year, the more will come, by hook or by crook, to Indonesia, in order to get on boats on the assumption that they will be accepted as part of the ever growing cap.

So how many can we take ? What should be the anual cap, unmoveable and implacable ? Lexi ? 100,000 ? Poirot ? 200,000 ?

What's your limit ? Don't say you don't have one, And don't try to divert the discussion, please. And don't go all huffy and accuse people of viciously attacking you.

What's your limit ? And what's your 'solution' to what to do with all those above this level who still try to come to Australia ? Because sure as eggs, there will be.

Joe

Deterrence sounds good. It satisfies common sense ideas of crime and punishment. But it generally fails. - See more at: http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/23/png-solution-wont-stop-deaths-sea#sthash.ML76fX8a.dpuf
Lexi,
Those sentences from Mathilda are totally wrong because we never deployed deterrents so it's no wonder it is seen as a failure.
So, tell us again punishment is a failure after you have tried it , not before.

Loudmouth,

Humans migrate.

There are may displaced at the moment.

If Australia thinks it can actually halt the flow and/or still maintain some semblance of a reputation as an Enlightened respecter of human rights or, for that matter, international respect for its "hardline"...good luck to it.

Hi Loudmouth.

Good point

It was always a lie that if we only raised our limit the boats would stop

______________________________________

@ Poriot

<<If Australia thinks it can actually halt the flow and/or still maintain some semblance of a reputation as an Enlightened respecter of human rights or, for that matter, international respect for its "hardline"...good luck to it>>

So what are you admitting, Poriot:
2,000,000
20,000,000
200,000,000

As the same principle would apply to ANY number!

and I hope you have facilities in place since <<humans defecate>>

Dear Luciferase,

I hope that the following link may answer your question
as to what both major parties could do to try to solve this
complex issue:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-to-solve-the-boat-problem-without-cruelty-20130722-2qeof.html

Perhaps looking at the reasons people get on boats in the
first place may be a good place to start in trying to find
solutions rather than punishing people for doing it.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

As I've stated previously -

30,000 to 40,000 people a year should not be an issue.
It never has been. It is only a trickle of humanity.

Individual,

All our government policies to date have been deterrents.
Unless of course you don't see mandatory off shore processing,
"No advantage test," placing people on Manus Island and Nauru
for years at a time, et cetera not as deterrents. Mental health
experts would disagree with you.

SPQR,

If the numbers of displaced persons remain the same, I doubt if there's anything Australia can do (this end) to stem the flow.

That's the point I was making.

However, it'll be interesting watching us try.

(There's no point in asking me how many I'd admit - my opinion has nothing to do with actualities)

Lexi-

<In the late 1970s and early 1980s moral leadership
was demonstrated by the Fraser government assisting
Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees.>

It wasn't moral leadership, it was arrogant, cultural, Melbourne,Sydney,elitist,"we know better than you," leadership. I can assure you, if it had been put to a referendum the Australian voters would have rejected it. It was well known at the time, that opinion polls indicated that 70% of Australians were against it.

Keating and Hawke also presided over this mass immigration, and
Hawke was asked by Kerry Anne Kennerley who then hosted the Midday
Show and interviewed him, "what he said to the fact that opinion
polls showed 70% of the Australian population were against mass
immigration from Vietnam and Cambodia.

Hawke said, "it's not the first time the majority have been wrong
and the minority right."

How do you explain the bomb attacks and foiled bomb attacks by
immigrants to Australia, Britian and America, Mr.Fraser, Mr.Hawke,
and Mr. Keating. It is an indication that the majority of Australian people got it right and you got it wrong.

You say we should look at what these people are running from
Lexi. I told you that, in one of my previous posts here.

They are running from persecution from other tribes and
religious sects. Do you see, Mr Hawke and Mr. Frazer how tribes
kill each other over control of countries. Proves once
again you were wrong and the 70%majority were right.

There was no internet back in the 1970s and the newspapers were
too afraid of political correctness and being called racist to
publish anything about dissent from the mainstream population.
The internet has changed that and now we are hearing the previously
suppressed, real opinions, of a lot of the Australian population.

The very fact, that we have millions of people fleeing from persecution by other tribes and religious sects, proves that Fraser and Hawke were wrong and the Australian people who weren't brain- washed by University Academics and do-gooder-hippie-leftists(the Greens), were right all along.

Spar you are about the only one with any brains., as I mentioned there are thousands of empty units in Dubai owned by the Sheiks, for goodness sake fill them up with your own kind, that is Muslims, why aren't people condemning them, but no, lets brand Australia as a country of not wanting to accept refugees, we will accept legitimate refugees, and I for one am very happy for these people to come here, but not the leaky boat brigade. My taxes are for people that I want to accept here and nearly all people agree with my sentiment
Remember it is the wealth brigade who cause nearly all of our problems, whether it be through the billions making war weapons to displace ordinary people in some country where they should not be, or differences in religious opinion mainly by the wealthy clergy who dominate what the people should believe in, and they stupidly believe it.
Australia is a very considerate country, so for goodness sake lets look beyond our noses in other areas which are causing these refugee problems in the first place

Lexi,

40,000 - thank you.

Poirot,

So you don't the courage to put up a figure ? Yet you still put your oar in. No doubt you still would, no matter what the annual intake was. Why do you bother ?

Now, Lexi, if 40,000 is the cap on annual intake, do you include any 'illegals' in that ? Or are they over and above ?

The point about a cap, with no 'over and above', is that there would be no intake of 'illegals', none, they get sent/flown back to their point of departure, which in all likelihood would NOT be their original country. If that started to happen, how many would chance it and come to Indonesia, to spend precious money to get on a leaky boat, only to be brought back in due course to the place they had left ?

1 % of refugees get settled anywhere in the world each year. At 46 million, that's 460,000, of which - if we take 20,000 - our share would be quite generous, for our population - 4 % of refugees, 0.3 % of the world's population.

But Poirot will find something to whinge about - and then duck out of the ring. Takes all types.

Joe

We should remember that against all previous convention it was Howard who first played the race card (and that's exactly what it was) for electoral advantage.

He was the one who demonised the asylum seekers themselves as "not being the sort of people" we want in the country, encouraged by a deliberate lie about children overboard - and in response to the Cronulla riots, said only that racism "did not exist this country".

Rudd initially took a softer approach by shifting the blame from the passengers to the people smugglers and the opposition has also taken that angle.

Now as they allegedly sympathise with the plight of asylum seekers both sides are crying crocodile tears over those who have drowned but are trapped by a media manufactured public attitude of fear and loathing.

Neither side can win on this and both will ultimately pay a price, as will our international reputation. They are playing "Bad Cop - Worse Cop" with voters.

The asylum seekers themselves are not the problem - they are the symptom of another problem that lies elsewhere and one we are partly responsible for.

Hi wobbles,

So what's YOUR limit ? 20,000 ? 30,000 ? 40,000 ? 100,000 ? No limit at all ?

46 million. What can and should we do about it ? Yes. Work like buggery to help with the problems at source, back in the Congo or Afghanistan or Syria or wherever, yes, that's step one.

But step two: what to do about the refugees from conflicts that we can't resolve?

Millions of desperate people. Yes, we may see the hundreds here and there on boats - terrible. SHY must cry herself to sleep every night. But those other poor bastards, stuck in sh!tholes in vast desert camps, 300,000 here, 100,000 there - people who will never, never have enough to get on a f%c&ing boat, but who have put their names down and filled out the right forms - years ago ! - do you cry for them ?

Despicable. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be on the Left.

Joe

Wobbles,

I seem to recall, Howard's pacific solution was in response to 300 people drowning on the SievX.

As I said in a different thread, whenever a leftie starts using the term racist, it is generally because they have run out of rational arguments.

Mental health experts would disagree with you.
Lexi,
Your mental health "experts" know zilch about saturation indoctrinated fanaticism. If the "experts" kept out of it all we probably could have a solution in a day.

There are currently some 250,000 people in Australia on 457 visas. We have recently been told that many 457 visa holders come in on false identities. These 'unidentified' people are at large in the community and as of 2012 have the opportunity to apply for permanent residency. Why not cut the number of 457 visas by the number of asylum seekers who arrived the previous year and give asylum seekers temporary protection visas requiring them to work in specific fields of employment, and in particular regions? This disgusting race to the bottom by Rudd and Abbott has too great human cost.

Marylin Shepherd has now left the room and gone once again to the S.A. Advertiser for her usual raving and rantings about asylum seekers, how bad we all are who disagree with her, so all will be quiet here until the next episode. She is as boring as the new baby reporting.

Dear CHERFUL,

This is the 21st century, but there are pockets of
intolerance, confusion, and negativity still out
there and we need to tackle them. We might achieve
this through public education programs, or just
education. Maybe we just need time, as it was with
some attitudes towards people who were visibly and
linguistically different in the past. Tribalism in
Australia, dissolves away as people get to know
each other much the same way as it did for wogs, balts,
et cetera.
In fact all Australians who gradually became insiders
in our large brown land.

Whatever the long-term solution is, it will always be
important to nip extreme intolerance in the bud.
Regardless of number, ethnic diversity is a fact of the
modern age of migration, and we must deal with it.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

No, I did not include visa overstayers (illegals)
who come by plane, in my numbers.
Hopefully, they will be dealt with by the proper authorities.

Individual,

Thank you for your opinion.

Candida,

The 457 program is in place to fill skills shortages for engineers etc, to suggest replacing them with unemployable economic migrants who normally remain on the dole is ludicrous. 457 visa holders don't get welfare, medicare, or housing, pay taxes and are not a drain on the public purse. If they stop working for their employer, their visa is cancelled.

"We have recently been told that many 457 visa holders come in on false identities." (with regards Indian passport fraud in 2008-2010)

However, things have since changed.

"We're quite confident that those people who were issued with a visa ... 99.9 per cent are who they say they are and are doing what they said they would do when they were granted that visa."

As for being "at large" in the community, if they stop working for their employer, their visa is cancelled. They also don't get welfare, medicare, or housing.

Loudmouth,

"Why do you bother?"

I don't come onto this forum to answer every question put to me...especially those confected to construct a strawman argument.

I'm not beholden to answer your questions.

If you insist, as is your wont, on going into your "how many shall we take" routine, that's up to you.

I barely read your blather once I realise you're back in the "loop".

So, what I "bother" to say has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

Cheers

: )

Hi Poirot,

"So, what I "bother" to say has nothing whatsoever to do with you."

Nothing much has, since it's the topic that should be central, not me or you, with respect.

And if you want to have a chook in this race, you really have to be a able to set out your position - in this case, should we take everybody who comes within cooee of Australian territory - or should we set an annual limit, and if so, what ? And then what ?

My position is that we can increase the annual quota to 30,000, but strictly of poor people who have filled out all the right forms and waited in line: all others should, with the agreement of the host country, be flown back to the country they have just left, probably illegally.

The only exceptions might be people such as Tamils and Rohinga genuinely fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka and Burma respectively.

But the onus would still be on them to demonstrate/prove that they face persecution, perhaps not all that difficult given the vicious nature of the regimes in those countries, so there would not be much point to destroying their papers.

That's my position, for what it's worth. I'm prepared to defend it.

Do you have one at all, Poirot ? Any principles at all ? Or do just like seeing your smart-@rse words on a page ?

Cheers :)

Joe

Thank you for your opinion.
Lexi,
This opinion is not an opinion at all, it is a fact stated from experience. One of my mates is a psyche nurse & he only recently said to me "Now I know what you were whinging about when we mentioned academics since I had to start dealing with a few".

Loudmouth,

"Do you have one at all, Poirot ? Any principles at all ? Or do just like seeing your smart-@rse words on a page ?"

No more than you like seeing your smart-@rse words on the page.

...............

I merely made the observation that while the present numbers of refugees continues, Australia will be battling to stem the flow of boats.

In that case, it doesn't matter what quotas we set, they will keep coming.

Merely my opinion on the possibility.

...............

I hate to be the one to break it to you, since you seem to think that every question "must" be answered by every person you engage, but.....

I come here to give my opinion, not to be browbeaten by fellas who deem that an unanswered question = no principles.

Go and find someone else to practice your sneers upon.

Cheers : )

So you're saying nothing in particular, Poirot ? Nothing that one could not garner from a common or garden bar-fly ? Bla ?

Perhaps there are more intelligent comments offering in the saloon bar, I'll try there ......

Shadow Monster
The 457s have so little to do with skills shortages that employers are able to bring in people without either demonstrating a skill shortage or advertising locally.

individual,

You state that it's not an opinion that you're
expressing but - "fact stated from experience..."
I believe that you believe it to be true,
for you. Other people may have different experiences
and their "facts" will differ from yours.

The facts of the matter are that people in different
walks of life may interpret the same phenomenon -
whether it is a PM's policies, a religious doctrine,
their experiences with academics,
or anything else, in very different ways. In other words
people tend to see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and experiences.
We are influenced by our background, training, education,
the influence of personal values and prior experiences as
well as what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality
that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might
be no disagreement among observers.

Again, thank you for you opinion.

Lexi,
We here on Cape York must have done something wrong in a past life to get all the incompetent drabs whom you never get a chance to meet, hence your denial of them being a fact.
There is not much that is more annoying then being told by ignorant bureaucrats/academics as to what's best for others. Our lot doesn't go to your cities & dictates to you.

Lexi, Poirot, and Joe,

Lexi, you are right, we are all subjective creatures, but I have an 'observation' for you: PNG is NO solution, is a 'Claytons', a last ditch attempt by Kevin to avoid admitting he is incapable of achieving a viable solution - because he is incapable of admitting he was wrong before, and has burned too many bridges to be able to go back. His dignity would not permit it.

Why is PNG NO solution? Because PNG is an economic 'basket case' and is divided into many age-old tribal/language/cultural groups (wantoks) competing for scarce resources (read 'handouts' from Aussie Aid). Industry = foreign mining interests, some coffee growing, and a trickle of tourism - though the potentials for tourism would be great, but only if the 'locals' could get their act together. The constabulary is incapable of maintaining order in many parts, 'rascals' (read unemployed, and possibly unemployable, hooligans) abound in major centres, and general education is lacking.
PNG was a sleepy hollow until some brash Oz 'pioneers' tried to drag it into the 20th Century. Now it is the 21st Century and little has changed. Pidgin English remains the only effective communication with outsiders in many parts, and written local language is almost non-existent.
Does this setting really offer potential for the resettlement of foreigners? Or, potential for exacerbating an already 'sad' situation?
The cost to Oz would be enormous, and never-ending, and local 'rivalries' could only rise to epic proportions. A no-win.

Abbott at least has a chance of achieving a stemming of the boats - not so much by turning all and sundry 'around', but by appropriate 'negotiation' with Indonesia to properly house and treat asylum seekers, and provide education and employment opportunities - at a fraction of the cost to Oz of the PNG non-solution.

Malaysia was a no-go, not because it is a non-signatory, but because it also has a terrible record for its harsh treatment of 'refugees'.
What next from Kevin? Siberian gulags?

Joe,

I see that you think your own blather is of major moment.

A fair amount of your commentary is merely defensive waffle.

But, it's obvious that you're a legend in yer own mind.

Perhaps, before you go denigrating the contributions of others, you should make sure your own are above reproach.

(Big head:)

Dear Lexi ---< This is the 21st century, but there are pockets of
intolerance, confusion, and negativity still out
there and we need to tackle them. We might achieve
this through public education programs, or just
education.>

Pockets? Like, Rwanda, Sudan, Fiji, East Timor, The Solomons, Israel. The IRA, Bosnia, Burma, Syria, Egypt.
Pretty big pockets.

The Greeks and Italians have intermarried and assimilated well into Australian society as have other races.
But what if there had been or was, some reason why Australia was forced to go to war, with Greece.
As one Australian Greek lady remarked at the last Olympics.
"When the Greeks won, she wanted to stand up and cheer and when the Australians won she wanted to stand up and cheer.
she felt as though she was being pulled in two directions and wasn’t sure who she should support. It is only luck that there have been
no triggers to set the Australian Anglos and Greeks, Chinese and other races on a warlike path with each other here in Australia.

I get the impression you are a very caring person Lexi, but
I just don't think that having a nice chat about tolerating and
loving and accepting each other in a classroom or wherever
will be enough to stop inter-tribal and religious civil wars when
the right triggers come into play.
Like:- total economic meltdowns or one tribe gaining superior or equal numbers with another over generational decades. These triggers might not be strongly enough in place for 100 or even 200years but when they do occur in a serious enough way, then nice words about tolerating and accepting each other just aren't enough on their own to stop it.
It is the triggers that need to be understood and avoided with
fore-planning of some kind, if possible.

saltpetre <Abbott at least has a chance of achieving a stemming of the boats - not so much by turning all and sundry 'around', but by appropriate 'negotiation' with Indonesia to properly house and treat asylum seekers, and provide education and employment opportunities - at a fraction of the cost to Oz of the PNG non-solution.>

I heard that the Indonesian people smugglers were charging people
$4,000 dollars to get to Australia, at 300people a month arriving,
that amounts to $12,000.00. $12,000.00 a month, is big bickies.

Officials are no doubt being paid off at high levels to ignore
this trade. I think it is just too lucrative to Indonesia and
there is too much corruption in police and official circles to
stop Indonesians sending these people to Australia, no matter
who negotiates with them, Abbott or Rudd or the King of Farook.
They'll just keep coming up with excuses as to why they can't
stop it.

On a lighter note perhaps if human beings stopped using there dicks & micke the refugee problem may disappear, but then something else would take its place, we are born to fight, hate,kill etc, back through the centuries this went on and it will go on for centuries to come, untl the Big Bang

"not so much by turning all and sundry 'around', but by appropriate 'negotiation' with Indonesia to properly house and treat asylum seekers, and provide education and employment opportunities"

Interesting, Saltpetre. If it involves returning IMA's to a non-signatory of the UN refugee convention how does it pass through the High Court if the Malaysian solution didn't. Or does it involve paying off Indonesia to block boat departures or not to permit refugees to transit through Indonesia? Wouldn't refugees then embark from Malaysia instead?

Sounds like another LNP pre-election brain-fart.

Lexi's idea to stop refugees at their source by the political parties bringing about world peace has great merit but we need solutions, not sentiment. At least she's prepared to put a number up, unlike Poirot who ducks, dives and pirouettes around reasonable questions with bleedingly obvious non-answers like, "...while the present numbers of refugees continues, Australia will be battling to stem the flow of boats." Stunningly perceptive, but we're going to try anyway.

Luciferase,

".while the present numbers of refugees continues, Australia will be battling to stem the flow of boats."

What's wrong with that?

It's my opinion.

This is an opinion forum.

What is it with certain contributors who get shirty and fling abuse because another poster has an alternate opinion and/or chooses not to take the bait and the snide garbage which accompanies it?

(Thanks, Luciferase. From now on I'll put you in the same basket as Joe)

untl the Big Bang
Ojnab,
we've already had a couple of big bangs but obviously not big enough because there's no shortage of morons who do all they can not to clean up the gene pool. They're not happy until everyone is brought down to their level of unrecoverable sense.
If people can't get their act together at home then they won't be able to do any better abroad by not only dragging their baggage with them but even forcibly imposing it on others wherever they go. if they want a better life then by all means go where you can get a better life but you'll need to discard your excessive superstitions otherwise you're just wasting everyones time.

Hi Poirot,

Down here in sleepy Adelaide, there used to be an orang-utan at our Zoo named George who used to fling his turds at spectators - great fun for unsullied observers. George loved his turds.

So when you talk about 'having a right to express an opinion', you are right except for the problem that you don't seem to have one - you simply fling, willy-nilly. That's your right, but some of us here are serious about trying to nut out what to do about a very serious problem.

Fortunately, thanks to the protocols and procedures of OLO, we are fore-warned when you are about to let fly, and can turn off.

So when you have something substantial to contribute, we may not actually be on-line, we may assume that it is yet another one :(

which is really a tragedy for genuine discussion and a spirited exchange of views.

Joe

Candida,

Having brought out people on 457 visas, I can testify that it is a very expensive process, and one that is not taken lightly.

Asylum seekers given refugee status get benefits worth about $50k p.a. incl:

a) Access to medicare - 457s get nothing and the employer needs to pay about $6000 p.a. per family member in medical insurance.

b) free schooling. - 457s pay about $8000 p.a. per child to go to public schools.

c) Welfare incl housing, school kids bonus etc. - 457s get nothing, even for 2 years after getting PR.

d) Employers can be held responsible for the cost of returning the 457.

So whilst there are a few cases of rorting they are lower than for most programs at a couple of %, and even then cost the taxpayer nothing.

P,

Rates of boats coming is nearly doubling every year. The present rate is 50 000 p.a. Next year?

Dear Individual,

I understand what you are saying and as I told
you in my previous post - we form our viewpoints
based on personal values and experiences. Each of
us is inclined to perceive facts selectively and
to interpret them accordingly.

Dear Saltpetre,

You've raised some valid points and I don' have the
answers to the big questions of this issue. I'm still
trying to make sense of it all. However, there
appears to be flaws in both party's "solutions,"
to the problem. I've always thought that this was a
regional problem needing regional co-operation. Whether
the PNG attempt will work - we'll have to wait and see,
it is due to be reviewed in a year's time. And if the
Coalition wins the next election - well, I guess we'll
soon find out if what they have on offer is viable as
well. It is a complex issue that I'm sure will perplex
us for some time to come.

Dear CHERFUL,

Thank You for your civil response and kind words.
For me, the best case scenario would be that we don't
pre-judge people. As I stated earlier, we might achieve this
through education programs, or just education. As for what's
happening in countries overseas, especially in Islamic
societies, these problems arise out of specific social and
cultural conditions within those regions

Aw, jeepers, Joe.

I'm really sad that my "opinion" that "both parties' solutions will be ineffectual at stopping refugees" doesn't meet the standard you require.

Fancy it being a new rule that I have to respond to your scornful interrogations or cop abuse from you and your assistant if I fail to comply.

Your tale of your friend, George, and his turds sums up well the extent of your craft and your intentions.

That's about your limit, isn't it....you're all style.

I've sat here long enough over the years, fascinated by your penchant to slither your way through post after post of sneering sarcasm and derision - not only to me, but to anyone who may hold a view contrary to your own.

On the whole, I've come to the conclusion that you're getting way too many jollies from trolling Poirot. I know how invigorating it must be to follow me about and put the boot in whenever the opportunity arises, however, I'd be obliged if you could see your way clear to shutting down that particular avenue of enjoyment.
(Yes, I know you'll come out with your standard response to my complaints about your trolling - "It's not all about you, Poirot". One has only to take a peek at your posting history to see that it "is" often all about Poirot)

Here's an idea!

Instead of chasing my contributions up hill and down dale on OLO, and leading little deputations to tell me how dissatisfied you are.....why don't you just ignore them?

That would appear to be the sensible option - albeit, you'll have to forgo your little amusement of baiting Hercule.

A small price to pay for your peace of mind, I'm sure you'll agree.

(my latest "fling" - hope none of it missed:)

...........

SM,

I appreciate the rate as increased. All I was saying was that I suspect halting the flow may be easier surmised than achieved.

Dear Poirot,

Pay no mind to people who stoop
to personal insults.

If people stoop to personal insults the chance
of having a sensible well-reasoned discussion is lost.
And that's a pity. It lowers the bar.
All of our interests are far more complex
than those who insist on seeing all discussions
through a fixed ideological viewfinder.

Hi Lexi,

" ..... a fixed ideological viewfinder".

God, I wish sometimes that I had one of those. No, on second thoughts, .....

Complex problems sometimes have either even more complex solutions, or no full solutions, or no solution at all. Life is full of such tragedies.

With 46 million refugees and displaced persons in the world, it would be wonderful if civil strife and persecution could be overcome, and nobody felt obliged to flee their homelands. But that doesn't look like happening any time soon.

So what to do instead ? Each country should do what it can to make life easier for as many displaced people as practicable. Australia should take at least its share of those poor people.

As someone, I think Poirot, pointed out quite rightly, only about 1 % of all refugees and displaced people get re-settled each year, or about 460,000. I would be quite happy and comfortable if Australia took 30,000 of those people each year, perhaps those most in desperate need, those with least, such as the millions all over Africa. That would be more than 6 % of all annual re-settlements, for a country with 0.3 % of the world's population. Fair enough.

But if 30,000 was the cap, we come back to the problem - what to do with people who want to go 'around the cap', 'jump the queue', etc ?

All people trying to get to Australia have to be treated with dignity, they are owed that much. If a boat is intercepted, the Navy personnel should ensure that the passengers are healthy, well-fed and comfortable, so that they can be flown back to their point of departure, and advised thoroughly how to apply properly, and to get onto the queue, like so many others.

And I would predict that if that was done, the refugee population in Indonesia would evaporate.

Maybe I am thick, but could somebody lease explain why that suggestion, of flying people back, is so out of the question ? Why Heath Robinson, when Occam's Razor would do ?

Joe

I agree Joe that complex problems sometimes have either even more complex solutions or no full solutions or no solutions at all, well said.
Civil strife and persecution are brought about by mainly religious differences, until religions stop preaching rubbish and gullible people believe the rubbish, nothing will ever change. as an example three million Brazil people listen to a Pope who denounces bith control, this creates immediately a problem, over population and slum areas, these pople do not want to live that way,they are coaxed by a white clad man and their own instincs to have more and more children.
A refugee problem.
War, America who is gun happy must always be using these methods of destruction in countries that should not concern them,this causes displacement of people, religious beliefs are still there though.
A refugee problem
Wealth,the Sultan of Brunei and others like him, including our own head of state, believe that God (religion) once again has given them these positions of power over the poverty stricken common people, whose only positive and pleasure thing in their lives is to go to bed and have more children.
A refugee problem
Corrupt Governments where democracy is preached but not practised.
A refugee problem
These problems lead to the safe haven of Australia where we will come by any means, leaky boats etc, but please when you finally get here remember why you left your country in the first place and do not create the same refugee problem here in later decades where then poverty stricken Australians will be looking for a place to resettle as refugees.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I am so pleased that you also believe that we should
increase our intake of asylum seekers (30,000 to 40,000),
and try to help
as many people as we can. And, of
course all people should be treated humanely.

Flying
them back to their point of origin sounds like an excellent
idea but it may be a bit more
difficult to do, unless we get an agreement with our
neighbouring countries agreeing to take these people back.
Also, if they have no papers it may be hard to determine
to which countries they belong. At present as
you know Indonesia refuses to take any one back.
Regional co-operation is so vital to the success
of any solution. Just by-the-way, the Coalition has used
as an example the US Coast Guard when citing the success of
"towing the boats back," but what the Coalition has neglected
to tell us is that the US has an agreement with its neighbouring
countries to take these people back. And also, what the
Coalition also has neglected to mention - despite all this,
the people still keep coming and trying to get into the
US. In other words even with the Coast Guard doing what it
can, even with agreements with neighbouring countries -
their plan is simply not working and people are still
continuing to come. I guess all we can do is keep trying
and see what finally will work.

Joe,
I consider 20,000 refugees p/a extremely generous, in fact too generous. Then only accept those from groups that have shown a willingness to integrate. Media reports indicate some problems with some refugees from African countries, but no adverse reports about the Burmese, so why not concentrate on them.

However your idea of flying the illegal entrants back home or to point of departure has a major flaw. Other countries will not accept them unless we can prove who they are. So no authentic papers = no go.

How do you get around that. all that can be done is lock them up indefinately until those who are not genuine know there is no way in here, and stop coming. According to our Foreign Minister, about 90% of illegals are not genuine.

Taking refugees after the event is dealing with the aftermath
of the causative problems.

Shouldn't the countries taking refugees, demand instant contraceptive
solutions, by countries in the United Nations. After all, we are being
asked to mop up the results of their policies, overpopulation and poverty.

Demand that religions,(including the Pope),world-wide, be over-ridden
by secular government in providing immediate, freely, available
contraception. With regard to poverty, the rich of the world including those in Dubai,(the Sheiks),who own whole banks in America and around the world, provide that contraception free or very cheaply.

China saw sense and turned their horrendous, overpopulated, demographic, around, by adopting the one child policy. Today they have attained a lot of prosperity and are generally not starving.

The responsibility for the refugee problem, needs to be laid at
the feet of the religious idiots that cause it, and they need to be
challenged, as to what they are going to do about it. Not let
other countries mop up the mess they are creating, when they are
not doing anything, to change the status-quo and keep producing the
problem and the sheer human misery.

Get religion out of the bedrooms of the world. It's none of their business, except as a means of growing the membership and power of their churches.

I include George Bush and the nutty religious bible belt in America also, who are opposed to opening family planning clinics in
third world countries. Also on religious grounds. Jeez!

CHERFUL, "who are opposed to opening family planning clinics in
third world countries"

Not disagreeing however it is the abortion ban that does the greatest damage. Family planning and sex education cannot operate where abortion cannot even be mentioned. For example, 'backyard' abortions are in the top three causes of premature death for women in developing countries.

I try to ensure those with this "People migrate, get over it" attitude to at least squarely face their countrymen with that being their position. The sad thing is they hold that same apathy towards the migrants too, failing to advocate a path that will see them here safely and without being exploited. That is, unfettered arrival by air, yielding up of our borders with no annual or overall limit to population growth by such immigration.

Why this unwillingness? Cowardice, afraid to risk their remaining political clout so they can continue blinding our youth with emotion, and to hell with their countrymen and the immigrants.

Truth is parried by false umbrage, the refuge of scoundrels. I say where I stand and I'll not be lectured on etiquette by those too dishonest to do likewise.

Now, to the LNP's latest, can anyone explain how upping the number of detention places in Nauru is a bigger deterrent to boats than settlement in PNG?

CHERFUL & On-the-beach,

Yes, and I've heard that some refugees come from cultures which balance their boiled eggs on the pointy end ! Horrors !

Regardless of who they may be, all genuine refugees are equally entitled, or should be, to wait their turn and come to Australia when their number comes up. I don't think there would be any group of genuine refugees who have plotted and planned to deviously enter Australia just so that they can destroy our way of life.

One thing, surely, about refugees, is that they are not organised groups, they are individuals each with their own particular story, and reasons for wanting to flee from their homeland. The poor buggers just want a chance at a life free of persecution, harassment, imminent death or incarceration.

30,000 per year - surely we can manage that ?

But Lexi, I don't mean that they should be flown 'home' to persecution and possible death - no, to be flown back to Indonesia from which they have set out. By definition, refugees should never be flown back to their home countries, that's precisely their dilemma.

Joe

Seeing "Go Back Where You Came From " again reminds me how important it is not to forget those people who can't afford to push their way to the front to get here.

The answer lies in stopping boats (with their collateral deaths) and upping our annual intake of refugees SIGNIFICANTLY from around the world (while raising our total immigration cap by the same amount).

I am sure we could get agreement on all but the mode of stopping boats.

Abbott was looking at offshore settlement a couple of year back when he discussed with Nauru (I recall) the possibility of it joining the UN refugee convention. Why can't we get bipartisan support on offshore settlement to stop the boats now that Labor has jettisoned the Malaysian solution for something that should clear the High Court? Abbott expected this over Nauru if he'd proceeded but rather adopted his doomed tow-back policy.

Offshore detention isn't working (surprise)and TPV's for the length of time it will take for conflict resolution in refugee source countries are not sustainable, even if you believe they worked.

The LNP has withdrawn from its initial support of the PNG solution to differentiate its brand coming into the election. I think Labor will bring parliament back to sit on the issue, forcing the LNP's hand. If it does not vote with Labor it can hardly adopt offshore resettlement after the election should it win, leaving us with its back to the future Pacific solution to fail us.

The LNP is merely trying to match Labor's "Check".

This latest offshore free-for-all is orchestrated purely and simply for electoral advantage - by both sides.

True to form, the trip to Nauru of Morrison and a News Limited journalist and photographer was funded by a logistics company and tent supplier set to make a profit from the camp.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalitions-tent-city-trip-funded-by-logistics-company-that-provides-tents-20130730-2qws3.html

I'll just add that I make no apologies for merely being content to observe the tit-for-tat political shenanigans unfolding over this issue.

This thread was posted ostensibly on the political impact of refugee-related political exigences, Labor's in particular.

In the present climate of political buffoonery, it's difficult to form an accurate assessment of the refugee issue. One is forever trying to separate the hype and hysteria from the realities. My declining to post a detailed treatise on how many refugees our country should or shouldn't resettled does not make me a coward, dishonest - or one seeking refuge in false umbrage.

Poriot and Luciferase sound like two dodgy taxi divers.
Poriot doesn't know how to use the brake, and is proud of it
And Luciferase is easily spooked by coloured lights and noise, and is liable to make a u turn at any moment.
God help anyone who has either of them as a driver!

No U-turn here, SPOR, I have been consistent on this over the last 2-3 years if you review my posting record, beginning with my support of the Malaysian solution to stop the boats and a significant rise in intake.

Emma Alberici did her best against the ever evasive Christine Milne on Lateline last night, but to no avail. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3814671.htm

The Greens say the boats can't be stopped by any Labor or LNP policy and settlement anywhere in our region but Oz is hell on earth horrendous gulag for any human, far worse and unprotected than anything they've escaped, by the sound of it.

Apparently, all we have to do is bring over 3800 of those massing in Indonesia to take boats to Australia and the boats will stop. That's right, we'll steal the smugglers' clientele from right under their noses! But there's more, the secret is that that's only to begin with as thereafter, presumably, we keep the shuttle service going, boats solved! Of course, Milne won't come right out and say it, but she can't possibly mean anything else. Just get yourself to Indonesia and we'll pick you up.

Also, the developed world should take in 45 million or so, and Canada and Scandinavia need a talking to, along with other countries whilw we lead the way with no stated cap on our own intake.

Reading the transcript from "EMMA ALBERICI: Can I take you back to the actual specifics of the question, what's the upper limit in your policy?" (Control + F to find "Canada", the question follows this), it's like chasing Poirot through a warren, ducking, diving, burrowing and pirouetting.

Luciferase,

"..... it's like chasing Poirot through a warren, ducking, diving, burrowing and pirouetting."

My take that it will be difficult to stem the flow isn't coming from any party's policy. It's just me surmising that in a refugee crisis we're likely to be the destination of more people.

Regarding you seemingly putting so much importance on whether I can name a figure or a strategy, I think you're overplaying our participating roles in a common garden variety forum.

When all is said and done, it makes no difference whatsoever, who does or does not post their opinions on refugee numbers on this forum.

We're a bunch of odd-bods stroking our egos, putting our two cents worth in and having a bit of a squabble.

You might think that's earth-shattering in it's relevance to the ongoing refugee crisis.

I don't

I watched for the first time the conclusion last night
of "Go Back To Where You came From." It had quite an
impact on me - just the little I saw, and made me realise
how complex the problem really is - and solving it is
no easy matter. However as one of the Australians stated,
she wished that our mainstream media and our politicians
would stop with the politicising of this issue - and
trying to make brownie points for political gain. We should
not forget that it's human beings we're talking about here,
not "boat people," like some kind of disease but just
simply - people.

Lexi,

1)SBS nowadays is little more than a lobby group for asylum scammers & their advocates –which might explain why you feel so at home there.

2)What ever happened to your holiday?
When I read you were going to take a “break” from OLO I had high hopes we’d all be getting a 2-3 month Lexi-free period of bliss –instead, you pop up 2-3 days later!

SPQR's idea of a "great forum" is one where all posters think along the same lines and reinforce each other's prejudices.

As it stands, around 90% of contributors to OLO think alike.

He won't be happy until it's 100%.

.......................

Lexi,

".....she wished that our mainstream media and our politicians
would stop with the politicising of this issue......"

She's going to be wishing for a while. "Politicising" this issue has been manna from heaven for both parties.

With a willing population luxuriating in the over-the-top demonisation and hysteria, and cheering on the performing-seal pollies, they sky's the limit - politically speaking.

@Poirot,

<<SPQR's idea of a "great forum" is one where all posters think along the same lines and reinforce each other's prejudices>>

I seem to remember that you were one of those in the AGW debate who was hinting --and maybe even stating openly-- that only opinions in line with the offical IPCC position should be permited coverage.

SPQR,

I was arguing in favour of "science-based" evidence (usually represented by the IPCC)

As opposed to junk-scientific "opinion" disseminated by those connected with big business and right-wing think tanks (and usually delivered by people with little or no scientific knowledge or expertise)

Sorry about that.....

"....it makes no difference whatsoever, who does or does not post their opinions on refugee numbers on this forum."

There you go again! Gotta smile :)

Dear SPQR,

The reality is that I hardly ever watch SBS.
I happened to be switching channels last night
when I caught that particular program. I believe
it's a repeat and was initially filmed some time
ago. It seemed to have a balanced team of Australians
travelling to asylum seeker camps - including Peter
Reith and other conservatives. It made interesting
viewing, especially since a variety of opinions
were being expressed.

As for my taking a break. I did for a couple of days,
but family problems brought me back.
I am sorry that you feel so anti - my
postings on OLO. That's something that I guess I shall
have to learn to live with as I have no intention of
leaving, just yet.

Of course, if I upset you that much
you're under no obligation to read what I post.
I am flattered by your attention. I feel that I
don't really deserve it. You should simply move on
or -
do what I do with certain posters, simply scroll past
my posts. That would solve the problem for you.
However, although I may not always
agree with you,
I welcome your views (within the limits of defamation
and good taste) and feel strongly that on OLO -
we should allow all views to be heard.

I look forward to what else you've got to contribute to
all the concerns, issues, policies, and pre-occupations of
this country. This country has never needed a more positive,
open, and compassionate approach, to differences in opinion,
than now.

Take care.

Loudmouth
<Yes, and I've heard that some refugees come from cultures which balance their boiled eggs on the pointy end ! Horrors>

I enjoyed the humorous comment, Joe, very Funny, but balancing boiled eggs on pointy ends, has nothing to do with over-population, contraception and religious dictatorships. You give me your plan to stop the root causes that cause people to be so miserable that they must get in boats and come across oceans to flee their own countries, risking their lives and their childrens lives. People who have happy lives don’t do that.

One reason, people are coming from these countries is just because they are unhappy places to live in. Remember, how the Russians had to put a wall up in Germany.(the Berlin Wall) Not to keep out people wanting to get in,(because nobody wanted to get in) , but to stop people wanting to flee in masses to the Western, German side.

Forget the bandaids for a moment, how would you deal with the cause of these Problems.

What do you think is causing all the misery in countries? Poverty and over-population, caused by hopeless governments with tyrannical male and fundamentalist, religious, leaders? It’s telling that this refugee problem has only come to a crisis point as the world’s population has hit 7billion. 20years ago it wasn’t happening. But it was always on course, to explode into displaced people with no country or land sooner or later and that's
exactly what we are seeing now.

Empower the women world wide and this won't be a problem in years to come.
So many males in the world can't seem to handle this idea.
Take all the religious beaks out of the bedrooms of the world
they have no business being there. Handle the spiritual side but
butt out of the issue of contraception.

Hi CHERFUL, you're half-right - the point about a refugee-settlement scheme is that people are accepted from many places, and that's fine with me.

The criterion for refugees, genuine refugees, is that they are fleeing persecution or death, and that they have filled in all the appropriate forms. As it happens, it seems that the majority of such refugees are currently in ghastly camps in Africa and the Middle East.

When they get to OZ, they come from many and very varied cultural and political backgrounds and do not, in any way - no more than the migrants of the fifties and sixties - form any sort of common cultural background. So politically, they are no more likely to constitute some sort of cultural subversive body, to attack our 'way of life'.

By definition, refugees are from diverse backgrounds. When they get here, the lucky ones, they pick themselves up and get on with life.

25-30,000 sounds a manageable number to me. On the bus today, I was enchanted by, I think, an Indian mother and child going into the city, and a Somali grandfather and child coming back out - such beautiful children. We should be so lucky - our grandchildren will :)

Joe

CHERFUL, what a brilliant idea! "Empower the women world wide".

You probably think I'm kidding, but men have made such a muck of things for far too long, and continue to make an even a bigger muck of it. Time to let the women of the world have a go - if only it were possible.

Think on it. Men banished from holding the top office in any organisation, in government (in fact ban men from government altogether), of all religious movements (a female Pope, Ayatollah, etc), and of all the world's armed services.
Men will oppose this vehemently of course - but what else could you expect from men. Testosterone-driven purveyors of havoc and mayhem - as amply demonstrated in so many corners of the globe, both now and throughout history. (Egypt, Syria, Somalia, etc, etc, etc.)

I think it would be a marvellous advancement (or experiment at the least), and definitely worth pursuing - but I also think that only the demonstrable and direct physical assistance and support of God could make it happen.
Pity, but that's a bit unlikely in this demonstrably 'ungodly' world.

As for the boats - I think there would be much less resistance to harbouring many more refugees in this country if they were all women, with or without children in tow.
Women are far less threatening after all is said and done, are they not?

Cherful, you've got the right sort of idea, in that women ARE society, but for the most part they don't want to be "empowered", they just want to be safe and secure, well-fed and well-housed and with noone bothering them while they go about the business of life.

The problem is that men want the same thing, but they are programmed to be the protectors rather than the protected. Men have been so successful that the world is now full to overflowing. In the past, if a community was overcrowded there would be somewhere to expand. That is why humans cover the planet. however, in today's world everywhere good is already taken, so problems fester.

We need to work out how to satisfy the drives of men and women in a world where there is plenty of everything except room to breed and expand.

Any ideas?

To all those who disagree with the writings of Marylin Shepard on OLO, they will be pleased to know that she now has come under fire from readers for her writing to the S.A. daily Advertiser for her beliefs, which she is entitled to, on illegal asylum seekers.

Salpetre

I totally agree Salpetre. I have thought for a long time that
the best way to handle huge immigration is through bringing in
100,000's of women. The natural follow-on to that of course
is allowing men to have more than one wife. I can't see that
being accepted too readily by Western Society. Especially the female
population.

Biologically though,in a country wishing to rapidly increase
it's population it makes sense.
After all, a harem with one million men
and only one female can still only produce one baby a year. So it
is the number of females in a society that allow huge
and quickly growing populations.

Bringing in only women would ensure that there was no threat
of ethnic cleansing and civil war in the future. No bomb attacks
either.

I know that this idea of bringing in only women would never be
accepted by Western women and as a woman I can understand why,
so it is probably no use trying to solve the problem this way.
There are economic practicalities also, that might arise from a change in marriage arrangements,
plus Christian religious objections.

It's a good idea for ensuring a peaceful, future, Australia but although it makes perfect biological sense, the idea of polygamy
would probably cause too much of a shocked reaction in developed
countries.

Antiseptic,

You are right in saying men are the protectors and
the defenders but this tends to cross over into being
controlling and thinking they own women.

By saying empower women, I don't necessarily mean that they
should replace men or be without them. And in Australia
and Western countries they do have the power over their
own fertility and access to jobs and financial assistance if
abandoned by their husbands. Plus equal treatment under the
law. A right to education also.

That's all I am saying,
that women in the countries who contribute to this huge world
over-population(7billions) world wide and rising, need
to have just the basic empowerments I mentioned above.

Then, watch the population of the world drop dramatically
over the coming century. Also watch a lot of the world problems
fade away as the population pressures ease over the coming centuries.
Watch the wildlife and threatened species spring back to life.

Read the post I wrote to Saltpetre, Antiseptic you'll enjoy my polygamy solution to the refugee problem. Unless you think
too many wives would drive you crazy and empty your wallet.
Look on the bright side, you can send them all out to
work and they can keep you.

"You are right in saying men are the protectors and
the defenders but this tends to cross over into being
controlling and thinking they own women. "

followed by

"in Australia
and Western countries they do have the power over their
own fertility and access to jobs and financial assistance if
abandoned by their husbands."

Who thinks they own who?

Cherful,

I take your "bring in the women" solution is tongue in cheek....ha, ha.

Can you tell me of any society where the ratio of the genders is so far out of kilter...(notwithstanding China and their one child policy which has led to a significant skewing of the ratio - (I believe it's between 110-120 live male births for every 100 live female births)....and there will be ramifications as this continues.

"Watch the wildlife and threatened secies spring back to life."

Considering the per capita per hectare footprint of countries like the US and Australia is something like eight times that of a developing country, you'd better start examining "all" the reasons for the threatened extinction of species - more often than not stemming from rampant industrialisation and consumerism.

September 7 election - well, I certainly got that wrong, I thought he would hang on until the death-knock and go in late October. I suppose we all should grateful.

So maybe it would be uncharitable to suspect some nefarious reason for going early ? At least we can now commemorate Yom Kippur AND vote. Oy.

Joe

"in Australia
and Western countries they do have the power over their
own fertility and access to jobs and financial assistance if
abandoned by their husbands."
Antiseptic--<Who thinks they own who?>

Antiseptic, I am shocked! by your reply. Not really!
As a man you probably like to think that you have some control over
your fertility, for instance, you probably have no wish to father 10children and take responsibility for them financially or physically especially physically, so why then should women not have the same option in determining how many children they wish to have.

As to financial assistance, would you like to have no money at all of your own(that’s none, not a cent anywhere in your name) and then be homeless on the street if your wife or partner decided to abuse you and kick you out. I don’t think you would like that,or as a man expect to be in that position so why should women be expected to.

Women’s Liberation espouses the radical idea that women are human
beings and entitled to the same rights and privileges that men think
they’re entitled to as human beings, but women are not.

It's not much to ask that women oppressed world wide, be given
control over their own fertility and some financial independence of
their own. Until this happens many world problems will just
continue unabated.

Poirot you say:-
<Considering the per capita per hectare footprint of countries like the US and Australia is something like eight times that of a developing country, you'd better start examining "all" the reasons for the threatened extinction of species - more often than not stemming from rampant industrialization and consumerism.>

I think the threat to animal species is the spread of the human
species by the billions into territory that once belonged
to animals like the tiger, elephants you name it. Human beings
don't stand on each others heads physically as they spread,
except in skyscrapers maybe. They build houses or huts
or any kind of shelter on previous animal habitat.

7billion humans can spread an extremely long way across the
rivers and viable land, plus these humans have to be fed, so
they need equally as much land for growing crops or cattle.

It is the over-populated countries that are providing these human
destroyers of animal habitat much faster than people in the developed
world. They are also providing global companies with a
consumer base that would have longer ago ceased in developed
countries.

Hi CHERFUL,

If women are able to be educated, wherever this has happened, the birth-rate has declined significantly. As well, of course, if birth control methods are readily available, birth rates decline.

I did some work on Aboriginal family size and birth-rates in relation to one community, from the 1860s through to the 1960s: two factors seemed to leap out from the data - many women did not have any children, and those who did tended to have large families - ten and twelve kids was not at all uncommon right up to the 1950s, even into the 1960s; one family I knew had eighteen children. Pretty much all put into care, by the way.

But from the late sixties, probably due to the availability of birth-control measures like the pill, the number of children that women had dropped to two or three. it became quite unusual for a woman to have more than four or five kids. My wife was eldest of ten Aboriginal kids, but between them they have had nineteen kids, not quite replacement. And as the next generation of women seize much better educational opportunities, they will be able to exercise far more choice over their fecundity than ever before: stable or negative population growth is certainly on the cards in such situations.

Case in point: in Afghanistan, women tend to have five or six or more children. If birth-control measures were available AND if women can access education, then the birth-rate there will plummet, towards stable population. And reactionaries like the Taliban know it.

Cheers,

Joe

Cherful,

You are right to an extent....however, cutting down Brazilian forests for grazing land to hold cattle for beef (the increased intake of which defines a country's level of industrialisation)

Palm oil plantations etc impinging on land where people have subsisted for eons is another modern phenomenon.

There are too many to list (and I don't have time at the moment)..suffice to say industrialisation does have a diabolical impact on species survival as well as merely over-population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/liberia/10104422/Liberia-and-the-vanishing-rainforest.html

Yes, you're right, Poirot - we need sophisticated forms of sustainable industrialisation, for the entire world's population, not just for ourselves.

Cheers,

Joe

Poirot-
I understand your point about industrialization. But it is going
to take a long time to put that genie back in the bottle. too long!.

What I could deduce from what I read of your article link-- is that a lot Of Liberian Logging Companies backed up by Asian companies are exploiting the Forests in Liberia. Malaysia was also mentioned.
Asian companies being the stand out fact to me, in this article.

These are big population countries needing constant access to more and more resources to sustain their burgeoning populations on a day to day, year by year, lifetime, basis.

I don’t like your chances or any Western countrys chances of persuading these countries and their people to refuse resources that help sustain them and make their lives better. They’ll probably just tell us to butt out. Or nod politely take our aid money and do just what the hell they want anyway.
You can always back the horse called self interest.

They just can’t die or go back to poverty stricken lives while they wait for some idealistic well-fed greenies or Westerners to convert things over to so called sustainable consumerism.

Going back to a hippie commune lifestyle may sound wonderfully
idyllic, and be longed for like some nostalgic memory from a
a rustic farmhouse picture book but that picture book doesn't
show the dark, cruel side of living with nature.

"He who sits on the lid of progress shall be blown to pieces"
the above is a quote from Henry J. Kaiser.
By the way, that progress in my mind also applies to the contraceptive pill and modern methods of contraception as well.

You can't go back to a supposed idyllic form of life because it is long gone, and if you try and stuff progress back in the box it will only keep pushing the lid from different places all over the world until it jumps free again. People can't unlearn what they already know.

Cherful:"would you like to have no money at all of your own(that’s none, not a cent anywhere in your name) and then be homeless on the street if your wife or partner decided to abuse you and kick you out."

Been there, done that Cherful. In fact, for 10 of the last 13 years I've had my Government doing its best to ensure I not only had no money, but no opportunity to earn any and no right to collect any kind of benefit. I have no super other than what I have collected during the last 2 years, after I managed to beat some parts of the system off.

In that time my ex-wife has been given housing, legal aid, access to education that I was denied and a Government job with as much time off as she wanted to go to court to try to get more out of me, while I was forced tpo self-represent because I couldn't even operate a bank account without having the money taken from it. She is presently purchasing a former public house that she has lived in for the past 12 years. For 8 of the past 12 years I have lived in a tin shed, which was my business premises. I had to be self-employed because when I was employed the Government took so much of my income that I could not pay rent or feed myself.

Forgive me if I don't buy into your one-sided, genderised view of the matter. Frankly, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

In fact, it's stupid self-satisfied nincompoops like you that have caused a great deal of trpouble for this country and are directly responsible for 1000s of good men killing themselves.

At least they're not "controlling women" eh?

Idiot!

Sorry for the OT post folks, I'm afraid something nasty crawled out of the toilet.

Cherful,

So is it a choice between a hippie lifestyle at one end of the spectrum, and houses with four or five cars sitting in the driveway at the other?

All I've ever called for is moderation.

(I sometimes wonder why I bother with this forum)

Poirot,

"So is it a choice between a hippie lifestyle at one end of the spectrum, and houses with four or five cars sitting in the driveway at the other?"

No, actually. Like it or not, that entire spectrum of choices is - or should be - available to everybody. If you want to live in a cave, on roots and berries, go ahead. If you want to scrabble and scrimp and have five poncy cars in the driveway and a heated pool, and a whatever, go for it. As long as you don't trample over anybody to get it. That's democratic capitalism - the worst form of life except for every other form known to humankind.

You make your choices, Poirot, and let other people make theirs. You and I may not like those choices, but it's not our God-like decision to make. They have as much right to choose as you do. So go for it, cave and berries and all.

Sans internet.

Cherrs :)

Joe

Hasbeen--- <She is presently purchasing a former public house that she has lived in for the past 12 years. For 8 of the past 12 years I have lived in a tin shed, which was my business premises. I had to be self-employed because when I was employed the Government took so much of my income that I could not pay rent or feed myself the money taken from it.>

I would presume your wife was given public housing because she had children who needed a roof over their heads. She didn’t even have a tin shed on a piece of ground like you did as a roof over her head.

That’s much better than the first half of the 20th century, where the wife and children had literally nowhere to go, not even a tin shed on a piece of property, whilst the men stayed in the oversized family home,
Welcome to the situation women found themselves in for centuries and still endure in many countries around the world today. Not pleasant is it? when you end up penniless, homeless and unsupported by society. Welcome to the world of women for thousands of years. I have no sympathy.

Actually, Cherful, she had the proceeds of the divorce and was living in a nice 3 bedroom home until she decided it was all too much effort to work to support that, so she applied for public housing.

I've been through all this here many times. I suggest you pull your head out of the dark, dirty place it's parked and do some reading before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

On second thoughts, why fight nature, leave it where it looks best

Poirot--

<I never said it was a choice between, the hippie lifestyle
and 4or5 cars in the Drive way.>

My point was, that when there are so many mouths and human bodies
needing food, housing and all the rest of it,urgently! your ideas about scraping industrialization
and using natural methods(hippie ideas)to sustain the 7billion people on earth,
just can't be done quickly enough or efficiently enough. And I also made the point
that you, me the Greens or anybody from developed countries has
absolutely no power over China and India and other Asian countries.
Why you think we do, baffles me.

Therefore, even your ideas of moderation aren't going to be adopted
by these countries. If you think consumerism is the problem, then
these countries are the major source of today's consumers.

China, was recently the major consumer of our coal. Coal, the
big Carbon producing monster so feared by the Greenies.
I presume China is going to burn and use this huge amount of coal to provide for their people and industries.
Again what China does is pretty much beyond our control. No stopping industrialization there.

Antiseptic,
I know the history of how women were treated
and I witnessed it in marriages around me too, when I was
growing up in the years before the 1970's.

I am totally unrepentant in what I said.
Men no longer have the control over women that was once built
into society and the marriage contract. And they can't hack it
poor dears. Women had to put up with much tougher lives than
men have today, when they were not even allowed the vote etc. only difference being they were made of tougher stuff and didn't have the luxury of committing suicide because they had 8 to 14children hanging off their skirts and depending on them for their every need.

Today's men, doing it tough, don't make me laugh.

.