The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Not in my name Mr Morrison: compassion and public policy, a case study of Australia and asylum seekers > Comments

Not in my name Mr Morrison: compassion and public policy, a case study of Australia and asylum seekers : Comments

By Noel Preston, published 21/7/2014

The claim that one compassionate good is achieved (stopping drownings) should not come at the cost other unjustified practices.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Noel,

Even if you did increase the refugee intake to 30 000, what would discourage people smugglers from bypassing the system again.

Are you prepared to have the blood of 1000s of asylum seekers drown in your name?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 21 July 2014 12:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More double-talk and self-serving moral gibberish from the parasite class.

Noel ignores the fact that all the policies he advocates are to be funded by coercive means. What happened to compassion and ethics?

Perhaps Noel should propose that he, and everyone who agrees with him, should voluntarily fund the full costs of his proposal. That should solve all issues of compassion and ethics, shouldn't it Noel?

Noel?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 21 July 2014 12:30:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, a seemingly Kudos grabbing/blame shifting, reticent, reluctant, recalcitrant Mr Morison is not my cup of tea either; but I'm inclined to disagree with the Author's principle premise on these grounds.
Every successful people smuggling exercise, displaces an equal number genuine refugees, living, most often in far more distressing conditions, and for far longer, as is the case of some Burma refugees, marking time in Malaysian refugee camps, for literal generations!
Genuinely compassionate people, simply would not be able to make a case for a policy, which allows undocumented irregular arrivals, to displace even more worthy applicants, and at considerable risk to their lives.
For heaven's sake, economic migrants, who have the means to pay considerably more than first class air fares, to people smugglers, have no more rights than those 40-50 millions waiting their LEGITIMATE chance in refugees camps!
Undocumented economic migrants, who indubitably have quite deliberately destroyed their ID documentation, however seemingly desperate, [and given their outlays, they all likely are,] shouldn't be able to displace GENUINE asylum seekers!
No documents, no resettlement, no ifs, buts or maybes!
That said, I'd welcome a change that included far more regional cooperation and regional processing, that gave legal claimants a much better chance of far more timely resettlement; and see no reason, particularly, with worker shortages in many of our farms or seasonal harvest industries, for allowing in as much as three times the current limit, of GENUINE asylum seekers!
Always provided, they went and worked, lived and played, where directed; at least for a decade, and for the minimum wage! Let them earn their place!
And certainly, not in any of our overcrowded capital cities, already full and overflowing, and or gridlocked with already insufficient infrastructure/public transport etc/etc!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 21 July 2014 12:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While ever Sarah Hansen-Young infests Australian politics, we have an over-supply of disingenuous, whining lefties. You are surplus to requirements, Noel.

You quote a criminal like Tutu, and you mendaciously state:Ē one of the most shameful and cruel public policies ever operated in the name of the Australian nation Ė ď.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Noel.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 21 July 2014 1:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noel Preston wants to provide a moral, ethical and compassionate case for the action plan he proposes at the end of his article. I think his arguments are ad hoc and his action plan lacks a logical consistent basis.

Nevertheless I believe it is possible to develop a compassionate humanitarian refugee policy within a consistent ethical framework. Here is one such approach.

Let me suggest that the overarching objective of any Australian policy should be to ACHIEVE MAXIMUM GOOD FOR REFUGEES GLOBALLY. Accordingly Australia should OFFER REFUGE TO THOSE IN GREATEST NEED. Here we have an objective and a strategy that can and should guide everything we do for refugees.

First step is to set a refugee intake based on humanitarian grounds. Noel suggests 30,000. Maybe 100,000 is preferable. Whatever, the number needs to be argued and justified as part of any policy.

Next, how do we assess need? This means answering questions like: Who is suffering the most? Who is the most oppressed? Who is the most frightened? Who has been in a refugee camp the longest? The list will be big. Priorities, assessment methods and selection processes will be required. It wonít be easy but there must be many active in this field.

With such a rational framework the critical question becomes: Where do boat arrivals fit? Well, nobody knows. Thatís the problem. They have bypassed any assessment process. We donít even know whether to offer them compassion and refuge or congratulate ourselves on having attracted, say, a bunch of brilliant entrepreneurs.

One thing I can say with certainty. If, as the UNHCR says, the world has something like 10.4 million refugees, the statistical chances of any random boat arrival falling into most needy group as measured above are very remote indeed.

One conclusion is unavoidable. A refugee policy that fails to discourage self-assessed, self-funded asylum seekers also fails to meet the most basic test of a sound compassionate refugee policy. It fails to OFFER REFUGE TO THOSE IN GREATEST NEED.

Declaration of interest: I arrived in Australia as a refugee.
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 21 July 2014 1:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally, I see no justification for Australia accepting ANY refugees whatsoever.
We have major problems with our current population level, our infrastructure is decrepit and failing, our unemployment is about 10% and rising, there are serious problems with supply and cost of basics like housing, water, and power, why are we inflating our population in the face of these?
We should declare a moratorium on immigration at the very least, and reject refugees at the same time.
Far better would be to withdraw completely from the UN, it's an extremely expensive self-serving exercise in futility, and has done Australia NO good at all.
Remember the old saying..Charity begins at home..?
Let's get our own house in order before we bring in more people who inevitably bring with them, and cause here, more problems that we DO NOT need.
We should bring our Indigenous Australians into the mainstream, educated, working and housed in better than the Third World conditions most of them now barely survive in, before we start playing the good guys for other nations' needy.
Why are we wrecking our own nation just to appear to be nice people, that's insane.
I can't see any sense in a program the brings US down to their level, as adverse to them coming up to OURS!
Posted by G'dayBruce, Monday, 21 July 2014 3:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy