The author’s idea of sharing our refugees by placing them on various Australian islands to enjoy a carefree life safe from the twin evils of oppression and violence is a good one. I’m sure Norfolk Island (pop. 1800), Lord Howe Island (pop. 350) and King Island (pop.2500) would welcome the influx of refugees.

The UN Convention relating to refugees says:
"Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside his country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear is unwilling to return to it."

It’s clear from the above wording that Mr Hitler, Pol Pot, General Pinochet, General Galtieri, Stalin, Saddam, Franco, Mussolini, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Somoza, Milosevic, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and even GW Bush would see a claim for asylum have a good chance of succeeding. We are committed to ‘international law’ and our international reputation would be sullied if we didn’t consider any applications from the above list. I’m sure the phalanx of human rights lawyers would see to that.

Seems to me we are saddled with a bandaid treatment to a problem that's been created during decades of Tamil unsuccessful claims to an autonomous state.

Surely Australian Governments, Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors, United Nations delegations could see the inevitability of Military action in the failure of a negotiated solution.

Aceh went the same way, a bloody guerilla war that cost many thousands of innocent lives until the earthquake generated Tsunami brought about a forced capitulation by the Acehenese.

East Timor could have been avoided if we had not given tacit approval
to an Indonesian takeover

We helped create the flood of refugees and asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan in our contribution to the US adventures in the Middle East.

The same in the aftermath of Vietnam

Instead of being forced to deal with the flood of refugees fleeing death and destruction or persecution when they would surely prefer to live in peace in their homelands, We must apply our reasoning and financial expenditure to addressing the causes of the problem

At last another positive contribution, without any criticism and which sensibly addresses the problem and discusses the real issue. The numbers and mix of our immigration policy.

An extra 3,000 or 4,000 humanitarian places would have easily covered all the current extra arrivals. With the off-shore visa suggestion, which may have some similarity to Temperory Protection Visas, and likely just as effective, this is the best option to emerge ... so far.

It certainly takes away the incentive to employ a people smuggler as long as the periods of times involved remain similar to the waiting periods in refugee camps and refugee assessment is undertaken by the UN.

Ken,
At last, an article that is a reasonable assesment of the problem and suggesting a way of dealing with that problem. Not sure yet about the details but the concept of not giving the illegals what they ultimately desire will quickly stop the boats coming.

It took years of progressively toughening the measures by the Howard government to finally stop the boats with the 'pacific solution'. the Rudd government may be successful with the 'Indonesian solution' or may consider an adaption of your 'Indian ocean solution'. But whatever, the illegals themselves have to be convinced that they will not get what they want, so abandon the idea of trying.

I have also wondered if we handed over the assesment, and paid for it to be done, to the UNHCR, on Christmas Islandi would that make a difference. I note that in the ME assesment produces about a 10% success rate for applicants, wheras in Aus, with people from the ME, the success rate is 90%. Seems that the UNHCR criteria is much tougher than ours.

Sage, the Refugee Convention is not just international law, it is Australian law, embedded in our Migration Act. For this reason, your statement that Hitler, Pol Pot et al would be successful with an asylum claim is false. People who have engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity are excluded from the right to protection under both international and Australian law.

Keith said:
"With the off-shore visa suggestion, which may have some similarity to Temperory Protection Visas, and likely just as effective.."

The TPVs were grossly ineffective both as a deterrent to boat arrivals and in enabling effective settlement and integration of refugees in our community. The two years following the introduction of TPVs saw a major INCREASE in the number of boats arrivals, with a corresponding increase in the numbers of women and children amongst them. One of the dumbest and cruelest of the Howard-era policies (brought in with the support of the ALP).

In regards to the main article, it is good to see efforts to explore workable solutions. Although I think the first thing we should all recognise is that there is no perfect solution, short of being able to reduce the sorts of circumstances which force people to be refugees in the first place. But reducing the need for people to engage people smugglers in order to do so is a very good idea. An orderly and relatively timely resettlement process is the best way to do that, but it still shouldn't exclude refugees who have to employ other mechanisms.

It should be that while it is true that "successive governments of both political persuasions have followed the practice of reducing the offshore humanitarian program in lockstep with any increases in irregular onshore arrivals granted protection visas," this 'linking' was brought in by the previous government. It is not automatic, and I think they should be de-coupled. Also, it is not just 'irregular' onshore arrivals, but also others who arrive with visas and claim asylum sometime later (who in most years are by far the majority of onshore claims).

Banjo is of course wrong in calling asylum seekers "illegals", but he knows that. Presumably he just keeps doing it to create a false perception that asylum seekers are doing something that is against the law.

I understand the article's rationale behind keeping people on various offshore islands until a resettlement opportunity becomes available, but I'm not sure how it would see them getting resettled any more quickly than if we did the same thing in Indonesia, which is what we have been moving towards in fits and starts since 2001. Obviously conditions in Indonesia need to improve greatly, but the solution proposed here involves bringing people to Christmas Island, which presumably involves them being on a boat - I think the ideal outcome is for people not to need to get on a boat in the first place (or at least for as short a period as possible)

I'm also not sure about the bit regarding the risk of Tamils and Afghans forming 'enclaves' if we let too many in. There is already a significant Tamil community in a number of Australian cities; many of them have been quite successful in business, finance and other professions. Enclaves are only a serious problem if there is a cluster of disadvantage/poverty and little connection to the wider community. Good settlement support usually prevents this.

Finally, Australia did breach our non-refoulement obligations in the earlier part of this decade. Some Afghans kept on Nauru were returned and some have been killed; others have had to flee again.

Banjo is NOT wrong in describing asylum seekers who are entering Australia by boat or by overstaying visas as illegal, as claimed by Andrew Bartlett.

It is not Banjo, but Andrew Bartlett who is creating “…a false perception that asylum seekers are (not) doing something that is against the law.”

The 1951 Convention does not provide for asylum seekers to go directly to any country. Even those who have been screened by the UNHRC successfully DO NOT get to choose the country they wish to go to. They are supposed to wait until they are accepted by a country, as they did do in the period the Convention was designed to apply to – 58 years ago. Those who drafted and agreed to the Convention could not have envisaged the current asylum scams by economic would-be immigrants.

According to the media, some of those people on the Australian ship in Indonesia have already been processed by UN officials; it is not Australia’s fault if they have been there for some time. Australia has its work cut out with its high intake of processed refugees, and the illegals arriving in boats.

If Andrew Bartlett wishes to continue talking about our ‘obligations’, he should say something about the fact that we are not complying with the Convention regarding the help given to, and the acceptance of, people entering our territory illegally.

As for the article by Ken Parish, it’s just not going to happen. Australia does not have any obligations that are not particular to the Convention. We are already far softer (so soft that we are a bit of a joke with the people smugglers and their clients) than most countries, who have given up and allow illegals to disappear into the wider community because they don’t have a Christmas Island.

The average, non-French-speaking Australian should be insulted by Ken Parish’s use of the word ‘refoule". All the better to fool you with, my friends. But, given that we can all work out that the Orwellian ‘world community’ means that we should not send illegals back to their countries of origin if there is a “…the risk of persecution in their home country …” our Government really needs to analyse just what, if any, risk is present.

In the case of Sri Lankan Tamils, the Sri Lankan Government has won the fight against people who thought they were not first and foremost Sri Lankans, but Tamils, and that country is now safe. These people should be sent back to Sri Lanka; and it is hoped that the Government’s special envoy to Sri Lanka can come to some negotiated solution.

Australia certainly doesn’t need people with centuries of separatism on their minds.

If apologists for illegals want the terms of the outdated 1951 Convention adhered to, they should at least read it. They should also accept that anyone who does get through the net illegally should be returned to their countries if it is safe; or, in the case where it is not been deemed to be safe, kept in detention until it is safe.

The slump in the Rudd Government’s popularity, and the exact same rise in the Coalition’s popularity clearly shows that Australian’s believe that Rudd is simply too soft on illegals.

Many, if not most, of the people espousing nonsense about illegals and so-called refugees were not born when the 1951 Convention was signed. They wouldn’t know a World War and its aftermath, of a Cold War, from a hat full of monkeys. These people should bone up or shut up.

Come on Mr Bartlett, enough of your sophistry. Consider form ‘C’: Application for a Protection (Class XA) Visa (or the current form) and the declaration which must be signed by the applicant. The applicant arrives in Australia with no identification and may have altered his appearance markedly. He is then asked to complete the paperwork and gets to the declaration with its attachments: ‘I have never been convicted of a crime or any offence in any country except as shown in Schedule A’…’I have not been involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity’…’I do not have any spent convictions under any spent convictions legislation in any country or any convictions on my police record’…and on and on it goes. Are we expected to believe that at the last hurdle the applicant will in any way harm his chances of being granted refugee status by making a full and frank confession?

Even question 50 in Form ‘C’ should be enough to cause immigration officials to be circumspect: “You are expected to provide documentary evidence of your identity, nationality and/or citizenship. If you cannot do so, and cannot provide a reasonable explanation of why you cannot, this may lead to doubts about the veracity of your claimed identity, nationality and/or citizenship.” The arrival of groups of people all of whom have no identification should cause our officials to vet each application with great care. However the onus is now on immigration officials to establish, within 90 days, reasons to reject an application. Most clear thinking Australians know that boat people have read the people smuggler’s handbook “How to fool the wantwits in Australia” so a very high percentage of boat people have a successful outcome. They are running rings around us.

Yes Mr Bartlett we do have immigration legislation but pre-dating that is the Australian Constitution which sees our elected leaders vested with the power to act in our interests.

Andrew,
Glad you are posting as I want to ask you something, but will get to that later.

The DIAC term those without valid visas 'unlawfull entrants' or 'unauthorised entrants' whether they arrive by air or sea. 'illegal' means exactly the same. The reason we can detain these people is because they are attempting to enter illegally. We cannot detain those that enter with valid visas, without some other reasonable cause.

Most of those that support people who try to enter Aus illegally prefer other terms that they think are softer and paint the illegals in a better light. I think they deserve to be depicted as the dishonest, liars, bribers and cheats that they are. So 'illegals' it is.

If they were 'bona fide' they would come all the way by air, with valid papers and ask for protection on arrival. Even having to buy a return fare to get a visa is a lot cheaper than paying a smuggler for a spot on a leaky boat. We both know they do not do this because they would not meet the criteria. So being the frauds that they are, they gate crash and try the back door.

I have, without success, been trying to find the number of persons that arrive legally and then seek asylum, I had it before on the DIAC site but now cannot find it. I seem to recall you mentioning it here some time ago, along with the number or percentage that were successful. If you still retain those figures, could you post them please. I wish to compare them with the number and successful percentage of the illegals that apply.

Excellent article with a viable solution. Thanks for that, Ken.

Andrew the ideal situation would be to give the refugees a greater reason to stay in their country of origin. Failing that all 'reasonable' solutions are realistically temporary ones. Skirting the issues.

The idea that they are all or majority are simply fortune seekers is defying reason and human nature. Most would stay 'HOME' if it was a reasonable option.

I'm pleased to note that the author is among the mung bean eating lefties with his Socialist inspired anti rich asylum seeker bias. Clearly because they have $5000, their lives are less deserving, (capitalist swine) . His view is a bit extreme for my humanist perspective.

I do applaud his effort sadly his island solution is problematic. Give the poor conditions in Indonesia why wouldn't those fleeing persecution etc want the best for themselves and their families? An Indonesian camp for years or Australia on a island in better condition for a limited time?

Consider what WILL happen when Indonesia inherits massive numbers of long term refugees Their capacity for generosity is more limited than ours. How soon before the people of Indonesia get fed up with being the 'dumping ground' and 'help' (corruption) refugees to move on to fill our off shore islands.
Add to that the cost of supporting them.

Following the logic of many posters the only solution is to make Australia more onerous than all others. By repudiating all humane and international treaties etc. .Close our tourist offices extolling the wondrous lifestyle here lest the brochures are read by the persecuted. Oh yes Close internet access too.

Conversely why not let these people fill our needs as they earn money doing jobs we won't ? Harvesting picking etc. while they're waiting.

Govt assisted farm facilities add to the Australian economy more than overseas/on islands reducing the costs of supporting them. When the drama at home is over they can be returned (end of their temporary visa) with money in their pockets to start again. Those that have or gain skills needed could apply for residency on a case by case basis.

From the article: "to live on one or other of those Australian offshore islands until a place can be found for them in the ordinary offshore humanitarian migration program"

I am not quite as enamoured with this as the rest of you seem to be.

As Howard found out, there are no "offshore humanitarian migration programs". If we don't want them, they are presumably poorly educated and can't speak the language. There isn't exactly a shortage of refugees out there. It is fairly presumptuous to assume others will let us pick and choose, and be happy to take our castoffs.

Rstuart,

In the latter part of my post I was having a tongue in cheek dig at the instant solution brigade.

The bulk of the post also showed reasons why I think that the island solution will ultimately fail.

In Q&A tonight it was stated that one of the reasons Howard's policy was successful what that we ran a naval blockade which clearly discouraged the people smugglers. Not the reasons commonly given.
If that is true then the pacific solution was merely the cherry on the top.

One stated view supported my assertion that it's only a matter of time before the Indonesians close their doors and we have to do something more meaningful.

I don't believe that a permanent blockade is a viable option therefore we're back to moving deck chairs.

I am deeply concerned that we should treat everyone humanely. the reality is Australia has an the undercurrent of prejudice and fear which needs to be dealt with through sound measured leadership. Not vacillation by the govt while the opposition run around generating fear for political party gain rather than benefit to Australia.

I can see that if Rudd does take the 78 to Christmas Island, every other wanna asylum seeker will see us as the better option.

This is especially so if international shipping take note of Indonesia's reluctance. Therefore making Aus the most probable port of call regardless of where they're picked up, or simply letting them drown.

It is a no win game. I half joked about the country workers. If the objective is to move asylum seekers out of harms way it seemed a possible solution in that it reduced costs and would mollify the rabid right, albeit imperfect. What do you think?

It is pity that Gilbert and Sullivan are not still around as they could have produced a superb comic opera out of this ongoing asylum seeker/refugee/illegal immigrant/whatever imbroglio.

What all of you are missing is that Australia needs more people like a hole in the head.Whether immigrants come here via air or sea,by legal or illegal means,by the rorts of student, work or family reunion visas,by buying their way in via the business immigration program - it is all immaterial to the real issue - too many people.

To some extent bleeding hearts like you lot are comical,but you and your cohort are doing a lot of damage to Australia.A dose of reality is in order.

I am not one of those who has been taken in by the Opposition's fear and prejudice campaign. However, I am against queue jumpers and therefore against giving them visas. Not only does that mean that those in refugee camps and pushed farther back in the queue, but it also means that more and more people will use traffickers to jump the queue.

Therefore, I support Rudd's stance on the 78 Sri Lankan's. I feel he needs to take strong steps to do whatever is necessary to control and whenever possible, reject those who jump the queue via the traffickers.

One stated view supported my assertion that it's only a matter of time before the Indonesians close their doors and we have to do something more meaningful. I don't know what the answer is but I feel very strongly about not honouring queue jumpers. I can only hope that wiser heads than mine will come up with a good solution. Meanwhile, I ensure I do not listen to the Coalition's rubbish in this serious issue. I hope that Rudd will not be forced to back down in re those Sri Lankan 'bullies.'

examinator: "The bulk of the post also showed reasons why I think that the island solution will ultimately fail."

I hadn't seen your post at time. Sometimes it takes a while for me to make up mind on a topic. :(

examinator: "we ran a naval blockade which clearly discouraged the people smugglers"

Did we? I wonder if it worked as described. The obvious counter move to being towed back is to deliberately sink your boat to force the Australian ship to take you aboard. It has happened a few times, so surely it must be common knowledge that is a winner. The Viking King is graphic proof of that, if we needed any. Its possible genuine people smugglers may want to keep their boats, but surely the odds of doing that after you have dropped some people off near the Australian coast are slim.

I don't have much sympathy for claims that these people are economic refugees. The evidence is they left their own country in fear for their lives. The latest lot then found themselves in some hell hole in Indonesia where they are beaten and drink water contaminated with their own faeces. We Australian's treat them very well in comparison. Even if we corral them onto an island as the article suggests, we will feed them, house them, provide health care and educate them. If it carries on long enough we will probably even find work for them to do.

While we continue to do that, the asylum seekers will continue to cross hell and high water to come here. At least that is what I would do if I were in their position. Since the article says we should keep doing it, the essential problem remains - we are the best 1/2 way house in the region if your own house has turned into a living nightmare.

I am glad I don't have to solve this problem. I can't think of a single solution my conscience could tolerate.

Examinator
" Conversely why not let these people fill our needs as they earn money doing jobs we won't ? Harvesting picking etc. while they're waiting"

This is false, They are already doing this work along with backpackers. It is very hard to get this work if you are Australian citizen. I have been down this track and have written to the government of my experiences. The exploitation of this labour is already preferred option. When the government floated the idea of bringing in Pacific Islanders I wrote and gave proof the farmers were ignoring requests from locals for work.

So you want more competition for us that struggle while you sit in comfort. I am not happy.

They have coined a phrase for it : "the Push Factor"

I don't know what the Australian Government is doing to engage the Sri Lankan Government to stop pushing, but if their citizens are arriving in Australia causing a financial burden on Australian taxpayers, creating problems with housing and employment, I reckon it is appropriate to invoice the Sri Lankan Government with the total cost until they stop pushing.

The alternative is to grant permanent protection visa residence on Christmas Island until the UNHCR has processed them and found countries who are willing to take a quota or assist those wishing to return home when the time is right and no persecution occurs.

Andrew says: “Banjo is … wrong in calling asylum seekers "illegals", but he knows that. Presumably he just keeps doing it to create a false perception that asylum seekers are doing something that is against the law”
Naughty, naughty Banjo –repeating things until they become accepted is the sole prerogative of the refugee advocates -- Andrew has made it his speciality.

Examinator says : “The idea that they are all or majority are simply fortune seekers is defying reason and human nature. Most would stay 'HOME' if it was a reasonable option”
Let’s try a little experiment shall we, go to any of the poorer (& even many of the not so poor) suburbs in any of the third world countries and with a megaphone announce:
“free visas to Aussie land “ or “free US green cards”.
Then stand weeeell back .
To use a Bronwynian expression “get real man!”

Horus

Perhaps you should re read what I said particularly the part where I said if it was a viable option.
Your scientific methodology is fatally flawed too.
Stand at opposing ends of the street and offer at one end free visas and at the other end a reasonable life here at home, then measure the result.

as examinator puts it "there is no substitute for objectivity and context, man!"

On line opinion and Graham Young as acting editor has done a wonderful job in handling this debate. With his judicious selection of articles he has marginalised pretty well all the critics of John Howard and the Pacific Solution and the TPV's. That effectively excluded their whinging having any sort of relevance in this very necessary public debate.

It also becomes glaringly obvious failure by the critics to reject Rudds Indonesian solution, or indeed by one notable, to embrace that abomination, marginalises by placing them in a position that is blatantly less humane than John Howard's.

Then loo and behold Graham publishes a positive article supporting the Pacific solution that attracts much obrium. It's followed relatively quickly by a very well written article advocating an in-offensive off-shore island solution. It's attractive because it counters the likely Indonesian inhumanity and totally lacks the obrium associated with the Pacific Solution. It is less humane than Howard's Pacific solution but more humane than Rudd's Indonesian Solution but hardly noticable because of the incessant 'chatter' of the political critics.

It is wonderful someone in the media is independent, rejects the government's political spin, edits with moral purpose and leads the community to a discussion of solutions in a reasonable manner. It's what the traditional media once had the capacity to undertake

well done Graham

Just like to say that my wife spent quite a few years in an indonesian refugee camp and told me that although conditions were not great, nobody complained and they patiently waited until they were given a place in Australia. People were just happy to escape where they had come from. She does not believe these current group of refugees nor the spin of their advocates. Be very very suspicious, once let in they will slowly destroy Australia. Be very very suspicious and question, question, question.

I totally agree with you Ozzie, and your wife. I don't believe the spin either and am very suspicious. No way should people who are engaging in attempt blackmail be allowed in to this country, not even to Christmas Island, much less granted residency. Their actions show what type of people they are, IMO. If they are willing to do this at present, as you say, what would they do if they are allowed to come here. I am totally backing Rudd in this and hope he sticks by his guns and does not allow those people in. The media has a lot to answer for in their attempt to stifle questioning and draw in what I call the GIN's (Gullible, Ignorant and Naive). Good to see your post and to hear your wife's view.