Dino - a motherhood statement made by Don Chipp, of all people, more than 30 years ago is hardly a firm base for policy, particularly as the statement itself is just hot air.
Although it would be nice to have a refugee policy based on logic and Australia's moral obligations - which seems to be what the article is saying - this just isn't going to happen. Immigration is too hot a topic in the marginal electorates. Julie has to be seen to be firm. In particular, the boats have to stop coming. Admittedly the plan to base a camp in East Timor was madness. The East Timorese government would have turned it into a political nightmare. But it made Julia look good for a moment, and that's all that really matters for Labor.

Nauru , currently is the only country putting up it's hand for a regional processing centre. Watch Julia jump at that opportunity.

After an initial reading of this article (I wasn’t able to access it all day!), it seems quite contorted.

<< A globally based solution is one which includes and ensures Australia, in conjunction with nations that form part of the United Nations, increases its intensity and commitment to:… >> [followed by seven dot points]

YES!

So we should be striving to shut down onshore asylum seeking / people trafficking and undertake a much-improved input into refugee issues through formal channels, including a considerably increased intake.

Why then does Dino Cesta brand Abbott’s objective << to discourage people smugglers and asylum seekers arriving by boat >> as << morally bankrupt and inhumane >> ?

Aren’t Abbott’s efforts in line with the second dot point:

<<pursuing strategies which attempt to interrupt and breakdown smuggling networks and which inhibit asylum seekers from embarking on their perilous journey across dangerous waters and land >> ?

Yes they are.

The great flaw in Abbott’s and Gillard’s approach to this issue is that there is just nothing about increasing Australia’s international aid effort in dealing with the causal factors of refugeeism or in helping refugees in their home countries or in resettling a considerably increased number per annum in our country.

Given that Australia’s effort really is below par – well below the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP being put into international aid, and a quite small intake of 13 700 or thereabouts refugees per annum, within a vastly bigger immigration intake, this is what our leaders should be competing with each other to improve.

Wouldn’t it be great that, in conjunction with the Liberal / Labor struggle to be tougher on asylum seekers they also battled to show more compassion than each other on refugee issues within our formal refugee and international aid programs?

Alright, I’ll now awake from my silly dream and regain a sense of reality ( :>/

Ludwig

A bi-partisan effort from the Libs and Labor to assist with refugees with other countries? ? ? ?

What are you thinking?

Har, har, har, har, har, bloody har.

Yeah, that'll happen when there is a bi-partisan effort to transition to sustainable energy.

<< A bi-partisan effort from the Libs and Labor to assist with refugees with other countries? >>

You've misinterpreted my post Severin.

But, yes it would be just as laughable... unfortunately... for the libs and labs to actually play off of each other in an effort be the most compassionate party in the broader arena of refugee issues.

The only really significant thing the libs and labs are likely to be truly bipartisan in is the worship of the dinosaur-era continuous growth paradigm!!

Ludwig

I was just running with your idea - did get you.

Isn't it a shame that not either party has the cojones (ovaries or balls) to really differentiate itself from the other party and get us out of this cycle of mediocrity.

I do believe that it is 0.0001% more likely for Labor than the Libs to offer a rue alternative into a sustainable economy. Particularly while the Liberal Party retains its Howard era pollies like Abbott.

Meanwhile we have no cohesive policy on refugees (visa'ed or non visa'ed - whether they arrive by plane or boat), skill shortage, future infrastructure strategy, equitable taxation and so on.

This had better be the lucky country 'cos we're gonna need it.

<< Isn't it a shame that not either party has the cojones (ovaries or balls) to really differentiate itself from the other party and get us out of this cycle of mediocrity. >>

Severin, I don't think there's single gonad to be had in our whole federal parliament!! ( :>|

<< I do believe that it is 0.0001% more likely for Labor than the Libs to offer a rue alternative into a sustainable economy. >>

Agreed. That's about how different they are on the things that really matter!

Cheers.

Yes Fraccy.. we are gonna need that 'luck' you referred to.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/asylum-seeker-linked-to-al-qaida/story-e6frg6nf-1225891385695

INDONESIAN authorities believe they have captured a
senior Afghan al-Qa'ida-linked figure posing as
an asylum-seeker trying to reach Australia.

One wonders what he might 'do' if he managed to get her and the veritable footy team of lawyers on legal aid get the ball rolling to ensure he stays here out of 'compassion' .....

Of course.. he might just want to come to see Ularu ? :)

Something we often forget or neglect to consider. "One" person can do a hell of a lot of damage if they try.. how many bombers took out 88 Aussies out of a total of 202 in Bali ?

Then again.. just imagine the 'clout' that a bloke from Afghanistan would have when speaking 'in person' to small cells of highly 'devoted' young men, as he relates the body count, the women, children and old men murdered..slaughtered... by the 'evil Americans'

Sheesh... a bloke like that could multiply himself many times over.

Did all posters on this thread forget that Bob Hawke brokered a deal with the Libs NOT to discuss or debate immigration, on the grounds that it was too complex for us poor electors to comprehend. The government of the day would set policy and the opporsition would not comment.

In other words both parties agreed that they could well be embarrassed by their own policies.

So there are some things they can agree on. But hardly for our benefit.

Banjo: << Did all posters on this thread forget that Bob Hawke brokered a deal with the Libs NOT to discuss or debate immigration, on the grounds that it was too complex for us poor electors to comprehend. >>

On the basis of the hateful babbling from those who seek to demonise asylum seekers, I think that's one of the things that old Bob got right. What we need is an informed discussion about population, which would include immigration and asylum seekers, but not be framed as an appeal to the xenophobia of swinging voters.

CJ Morgan

>> What we need is an informed discussion about population, which would include immigration and asylum seekers, but not be framed as an appeal to the xenophobia of swinging voters. <<

For example:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10680

How long before I get suspended again?

Ludwig - Isn't it a shame that not either party has the cojones (ovaries or balls) to really differentiate itself from the other party and get us out of this cycle of mediocrity.

It happened in the last general election

Rudd & Co were elected on a campaign of “mee too”

Now Gizzard’s Pacific Solution is what she denigrated as Howards Pacific Solution.

The shame is that some refuse to recognise the reality that the mediocrity is with Labor, who even Graham Richardson acknowledges “will do absolutely anything” (including the wholes plagiarising of Liberal Coalition policy), to retain their illegitimate and grubby claw on power.

Mind you.. Minister Evans does admit it is causing some pain in the caucus... killing them, even....

so it should...

the furball of hypocrisy does stick in the throat

but I am surprised, they brown nose enough, I would have thought one of them at least would know how to perform

a hind-lick manouver

Stern

>> the furball of hypocrisy does stick in the throat <<

Then stop doing it.

Stern,
Yes the hypocrisy of the current government is almost unbelieveable.

Firstly they campaign, before the last election, that they will 'turn the boats back'. Then since have done everything to encourage the boats to come and now have a problem of their own making.

While maintaining they are tough on asylum seekers they continue to encourage, in which their 'humanatarian' policies has resulted in about 170 drownings.

With an election coming they now change again trying to convince us that an off shore facility will, on its own, stop the boats from coming.

The truth of the matter is that they do not have any intention of stopping the boats from coming and they care not about the poor sods that have drowned.

Everything Labor has done since being elected has been a complete fiasco. They could not run a chook raffle in a pub and lie simply to chase votes.

Hi Col

<< Rudd & Co were elected on a campaign of “mee too” >>

Yes…what a sterile policy vacuum that was. Talk about no gonads!

<< Now Gizzard’s Pacific Solution is what she denigrated as Howards Pacific Solution. >>

It is pretty much the same policy, isn’t it!

Nauru is the obvious place for a processing centre, being vastly more practical than undertaking long and very uncertain negotiations with East Timor and then no doubt having to pay through the nose to get a detention centre set up there if agreement is eventually reached, not to mention the very long timeline before it would be operational.

Gillard is loathe to do it, for one reason it seems – she would then be seen to be doing virtually exactly the same as what Howard did and what Labor had been so critical of for so long…instead of only undertaking 98% of the same policy!

For goodness sake, Gillard needs to bite the bullet and get the Nauru centre up and running and quickly get on with stopping onshore asylum seeking / people smuggling.

----
<< Everything Labor has done since being elected has been a complete fiasco. >>

Under Rudd, yes, just about.

Banjo, I just hope to goodness that Gillard will be different. Initial indications were good, but those indications changed very quickly.

A Nauru processing centre is such an obvious next move. If she can’t do that, then where is she at??

Col/Stern

>>>>>>> Isn't it a shame that not either party has the cojones (ovaries or balls) to really differentiate itself from the other party and get us out of this cycle of mediocrity. <<<<<<<<

First Ludwig quotes me and now you, needing inspiration, have quoted me as well. Blush.

No problem. Any time you are short on ideas of your own, you are welcome to plagiar... ooops I mean quote me.

Anyway, how's the Bentley going? Appreciating in value I hope. Perhaps you could give it a good run out to Tullamarine, and assist a few asylum seekers into Melbourne. They aren't nearly as smelly as the ones who arrive by boat - so you won't have worry over the leather seats.

Cheers

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that there are currently more than forty million refugees, including internally displaced people, around the world. Forty million: some of them have been in camps and on the waiting list for fifteen years, some for twelve years, some for ten years, some for a year ...... in other words, a queue.

Some refugees are desperate enough to try to come to Australia by unseaworthy boat and - there's no other term for it - jump the queue. They might have perfectly good reasons for so desperately wanting to get out of their perilous situations, but in the process, they are, certainly through no fault of their own, jumping the queue.

My view is that we should expand the refugee intake to allow for these desperate people, once they have been 'processed'. After all, we really can't send them back - where to ? So keep a scheduled annual intake, plus those willing to risk their lives on the high seas.

There's another problem: most people who are welcoming of refugees might also oppose the war in Afghanistan. Fair enough, but think about it: if the US etc. pulled out of Afghanistan and left it to the Taliban, surely adherents to one of the most reactionary, right-wing ideologies in the world, what would happen to the officials there, and to all those women who have dared to lift their heads, and to the girls who have dared to go to school, and to their families ? Are we ready for literally millions more refugees suddenly fleeing certain death ?

Just a thought :)

Joe

NIce yarn, Dino. Not sure I'd necessarily hold up old prune face Chipp as some kind of icon of integrity. It's easy to be right on when your carping from the sidelines - as he was. I think the problem with Gillard's grasping attempt at a solution to the reffo crisis was that her request went through East Timor's president: a figurehead – which is like a foreign country trying to conduct policy through our Governor General. Very amateur indeed. There are no easy solutions here. But I did like how Gillard sought to gather views on the subject from right across the spectrum rather than just the cud chewing intelligentsia whose views are always the same anyway. In a democracy we should not be afraid to argue our point. We should not fear others disagreeing with us. Take off the gags!

Severin/Fractelle "Perhaps you could give it a good run out to Tullamarine, and assist a few asylum seekers into Melbourne. They aren't nearly as smelly as the ones who arrive by boat - so you won't have worry over the leather seats."

Illegals who try to come in to Australia via Tullamarine end up in Maribyrnong detention centre and are sent back home either the same or following day, so your silly and small minded notion is just that,

a silly and small minded notion

The problem is those who people with valid visitor visas who overstay their time.

This is simple - when identified, they should be deported.

Same too those who come here as migrants and flout the laws and become, for want of a better term, "career criminals". They should be kicked back from whence they came as soon as they have finished their gaol time.

and with No right of appeal so some government board, infiltrated by refugee activists

people who want to drag us back to the Pacific soltuion should look a little further into the dealings of those countries before we get in bed with them again. Nauru has a scarey record on legality, just do a google. This is just one story in 2003 here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nauru-bows-to-us-and-shuts-down-its-banks-595021.html

'The US claimed that both banks and passports from Nauru – the world's smallest independent republic and a member of the Commonwealth – have been used by al-Qa'ida-linked terrorist groups. The Americans clearly remain suspicious that Nauru will renege on its promises. As a "big stick", the US Treasury announced on Friday that it is going to impose "special measures" against Nauru under the US Patriot Act. In a move that threatens to take the island to total economic collapse, American businesses will be banned from having any dealings with Nauru's offshore financial sector. Details were also released last week that six suspected Islamic terrorists who have been arrested in South-East Asia and the US were carrying Nauruan passports.