Jack M, why are you equating international students with refugees? A totally different case. International students have to have a lot of money up front, they have visas, and they have no right to stay permanently unless they meet permanent resident requirements in the normal way. They also don't stand to get killed or be tortured when they go home.

I support trying to minimise boat arrivals because leaky boats are a hazard that people who have already endured extreme danger should not have to face. What I object to is demonising boat people as if they represent the one big issue we have to deal with, and dumping the problem on someone else. The numbers are small, refugees generally end up making a positive contribution to the economy, and we contributed to the problems causing the flow of refugees by taking part in poorly managed wars.

How many of the people who advocate turning boats around are mindless advocates of foreign wars? To attack Iraq without putting the necessary resources into stabilising Afghanistan was extremely stupid, and we are now unhappy with the consequences as we see them: a relatively tiny flow of refugees compared with the total (2.9-million displaced Afghans, 96% of them in Pakistan and Iran).

In my last post I wrote:

<< And as far as population and sustainability policy goes, progressive governments have just turned a blind eye to the ever-worsening and harder-to-deal-with situation… >>

That should have been successive governments. There is not to much progressive about governments that fail to address sustainability and continue to rapidly take us in the opposite direction.

----
<< I'll believe any change in population policy when I see it, Ludwig. >>

Likewise Fester. I don’t hold a lot of hope. Initial indications are good, but that’s all they are – just very initial and very general indications at this stage.

<< Wonderful to see some common sense. >>

Yes it is, regarding onshore asylum seekers. Pity about the extremely flimsily based East Timorese processing centre in Gillard’s plan through. She’s getting a bucketing today for basing her plan on one phone call to the President, in which she received very tentative support for the idea. The criticism is justified. It needed to be a whole more solidly based before it became a pivotal part of a major policy.

Ludwig, while I don't agree with how Gillard is handing the issue, to be fair, when she originally announce the proposal she was quite explicit about where it was at. Here are her actual words:

"In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region."

This clearly is not the announcement of a definite plan and the media have read to much into it. That said, she was extremely unwise to mention East Timor when discussions were at such an early stage. She should have said she'd started discussions with regional governments that were at too early a stage to be explicit.

I also disagree with making such a big deal of "border protection" as the main issue relating to refugees. There are many people out there with misinformed views on refugees (e.g. there's a hoax email circulating that claims refugees receive more benefits than pensioners, which is totally false; there's also a totally incorrect perception that we are dealing with a flood of refugees). Playing to these misinformed fears only supports them further.

In relation to the worldwide refugee problem (15-million total), Australia's contribution is insignificant (taking 13,000 per year. less than 0.1% of the total), and debunking these myths while she had the country's attention would have been a much better response than following Tony Abbott down the sewer.

PhilipM: << There are many people out there with misinformed views on refugees (e.g. there's a hoax email circulating that claims refugees receive more benefits than pensioners, which is totally false; there's also a totally incorrect perception that we are dealing with a flood of refugees). Playing to these misinformed fears only supports them further. >>

I agree completely, Philip. The Australian Greens have kindly put together a fact sheet about asylum seekers, in order to inject some reality into the 'debate'.

<< THE FACTS ON ASYLUM SEEKERS

We had hoped that Australia had moved past this.

The Greens believe that, in the country of the fair go, we should be able to embrace a decent and compassionate attitude to refugees.

Sadly, both Labor and Liberal are once again locked in a race to the bottom, opting for harsh new policies for asylum seekers.

Both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Liberal Leader Tony Abbott want to re-visit off-shore processing of asylum seekers.

Both leaders want policies that 'deter' asylum seekers from asking Australia for protection with policies that will be harder on refugees and more harmful to children in detention.

The Greens believe this is wrong. We recognise that the small number of people who arrive by boat seeking protection deserve to have their case heard and be treated humanely. >>

Full article at http://greens.org.au/content/facts-asylum-seekers