I agree- I don't buy the notion that any cost the Australian citizen is justified to rescue refugees.

A fair policy would be to hold every arrival to the following criteria:
1- mentally sound and with a mindset compatible to contemporary Australian society (which I imagine most would agree on as liberal secular values, morals and ettiquite (ie not crazy, not a religious fanatic, and did not rely on theft or other antisocial behaviour in their past life).
2- zero personal contact or involvement in any conflicts (fundamentalist warriors of Shia tribes enemy of the Taliban need not apply).
3- Has not committed a crime
4- The boat upon arrival had not been sabotaged- to discourage anyone from trying to resort to such tactics to force rescue squads to take them in (assuming they can do it guaranteeing their kids will be taken in.
5- Cooperates with border guards, provides truthful personal information

Failure to meet these 5 standards shall result in an instant deportation back to their assumed country of origin. It's tough, but we deserve to entitle ourselves to that much.

This should ensure we discourage anymore of the likes of what we saw last year that set their boat alight. Up until I found out they were mostly still let in I was actually giving the government a benefit of a doubt about their screening standards.

Australia- nor any other country- should be 'obligated' to harbor people who would not meet this criteria, simple as that.

Why doesn't the Anti Conservative Idealist outfit pool their money & call the UN & for once go into a country for humanitarian reason only & prevent these people from becoming genuine refugees. Let's see them stop the atrocities by idealistic academic rhetoric & without the help of the terrible coalition forces. There's a once in a lifetime chance to proof their philosophies right & prove the coalition forces' approach wrong.

Why doesn't India take them? India has more than 456,000 refugees, of whom 100,000 to 160,000 are Sri Lankans. India, unlike Australia, has a massive problem of poverty amongst its own citizens. Yes, it is a large economy now, and growing. But it has a long way to go before its living standards match ours.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

It is not reasonable to expect people to wait for years in refugee camps where basic sewerage is lacking--so that they are subject to cholera and dysentery. Nor is it reasonable to leave them in camps where they are subject to attacks from the same groups from whom they have fled (e.g., in Pakistan, from the Taliban).

It is not reasonable, either, to expect poor countries, or those with a severe poverty problem and a low average standard of living, to be taking large numbers of refugees.

And decent people do not watch others being killed and say 'it is none of my business'. Nor do they watch them starving, or being tortured, or dying of curable or preventable diseases and do nothing. Not do they drive refugees away without the certainty that there is somewhere safe for them to go.

If the Opposition were to include in their policy proposals to fix the camps in other countries and to speed up the processing of refugees, and to help their settlement, it would begin to look like an alternative. As it is, it is despicable.

Well said indeed ozbib - and also examinator and David Jennings.

As we can see from the other comments thus far, there's a ready audience of baying hounds just waiting for Abbott's mob to blow the refugee dog-whistle. Indeed, they're positively salivating.

Fortunately, the polls tell us that while there's a an unfortunately significant proportion of them in the Australian electorate, they remain a minority. But that won't stop both major parties from stooping to the lowest common denominator to get their votes.

"Fortunately, the polls tell us that while there's a an unfortunately significant proportion of them in the Australian electorate, they remain a minority. But that won't stop both major parties from stooping to the lowest common denominator to get their votes."

Yes CJ, they are called Australian citizens, and they are entitled to an opinion and a vote.

"An unfortunately large proportion", do you not like your fellow Australians? Hey it's a democracy and no amount of whining and name calling will change the basic conservative nature of the electorate.

"A minority", I think not, that's just wishful thinking and you know it, your average Aussie is not a bleeding heart regardless of the MSM and luvvies trying to pretend it is so.

As PM John (MOS) Howard showed, the conservative middle ground of Australia is solid (re-elected 4 times with conservative goals, because it's what we like).

Australia did not move to the left during the last election, it merely ousted someone who stayed too long. The ALP won with 51.9% of the vote, hardly a landslide and all we need is a little shift and it's all over.

"stooping to the lowest common denominator", that's CJ speak for listening to the majority and putting into action their wishes. If they were not a majority, politicians wouldn't bother, to stoop.

Most Australian abhor cheats and con merchants, and that is the perception of some of those who come on boats, refuse to leave boats till they get "a deal", blow boats up, and so on.

Baying Hounds, I guess you see others as you see yourself.

This is not quite on topic, but will be of interest to a number of you. We have lifted the restrictions to double the number of times you can post on article and general threads. The original restrictions were designed to keep conversation polite after the initial completely unregulated posting rules tended towards extremely short and aggressive posts.

I'm hoping that the site has matured to a stage where that won't be repeated. So good luck with the new rules.

There's bound to be a lot of discussion on this thread, so I thought those involved in this discussion might particularly like to know of the changes.