Pauline Hanson, for the love of God, come back and protect us from this insanity. Her trip to Europe and UK has opened her eyes even further as to what disaster Oz is heading towards. Go Pauline!

Why would anyone with any sense in economy want to set up overseas processing centers simply to make political points?
It has to be excessively expensive and in the end over 90% of the detainees are brought back to the mainland and admitted.
The centers should be set up on the outskirts of the main cities, utilizing unemployed labor and providing jobs for locals to operate.
Lets face it, it is all political sham to build up the handful of boat people as a threat to Australia when the real threat is the enormous number of so called “legal” migrants.
We cannot afford to waste this money on this foolishness. It would be better spent on education and the health service.

What we need is a nice quick 5 minute processing system, undertaken at sea, where boats are found, before turning them around, with a rocket up their tail if necessary.

I'm with you there peter piper.

There is the most enormous opportunity for Pauline Hanson to re-enter the political arena with the simple platform of stopping this insane onshore asylum seeking business, while upholding a high humanitarian standard by redirecting the same amount (or perhaps half of quarter) of money and effort that is currently going into dealing with onshore asylum seekers into our our official offshore refugee and international aid programs.

<< Mere political expediency is no justification for detaining such people in remote areas, and we have much to answer for in how we treat people who flee persecution >>

I completely agree with the good Bishop, and indeed with sarnian above. What would be "insane" would be to support the likes of the populist rabble rouser Hanson.

As far as I understand, Mr. Howard set up the off shore processing for one reason only. He wanted to deny the refugees access to the legal system. This is the same reason that Mr. Bush set up Guantanamo Bay.

The argument that the courts will be overrun and the expense too great do not hold water. To begin with, only a small number being those denied a visa would make the choice to approach the courts. Precedence would soon be set and only those likely to get a positive outcome would be allowed to proceed.

What is a fact that the system set up to avoid the courts is expensive and unfair that causes unnecessary suffering.

All people seeking asylum, whether they came by boat, plane or swim should be treated exactly the same. The way that the system has worked since 2001 is expensive, cruel, inequitable and can only lead to mistakes being made.

it's good to see the High Court come down on the side of humanity and common sense. 'Procedural fairness' was the phrase that did the trick, and perhaps it wouldn't be too much to ask Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock to explain to the Australian public what they understand by that phrase, and why they found it so necessary to turn Christmas Island into a Guantanamo. And also to justify the enormous expense involved.

But of course that won't happen, it might embarrass them, and they'd probably get knighted for all their good deeds in the end.

As former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was wont to say, "Life isn't fair."

My goodness, CJ's back!! Nearly fell awf me chair with shock!!

Welcome back old buddy.

----

Hey, this article is entirely the WRONG thing to be discussing here. We should absolutely NOT be condoning onshore asylum seeking AT ALL.

We should be exploring ways to SHUT IT DOWN and to deal with asylum-seekers, refugees and other desperately needy people that can be helped in their home countries, via our official offshore refugee and international aid programs... which we should be greatly boosting, to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of our GDP.

How on earth those people who are so keen to help onshore asylum seekers and facilitate their journey to asylum... and inevitably facilitate a much larger and ongoing rate of arrivals... possibly be so quiet about Australia's international aid effort and offshore refugee programs!?!?

I just don't get it. I've been saying the same thing on this forum for more than five years now. The amount of concern about a wealthy country like Australia putting in a substandard effort to helping some of the world's most needy people is just extraordinary.

Why is there such a huge discrepancy?

The number of people that could be helped with the same sort of money now being spent of dealing with onshore asylum seekers would be much greater if the money was properly allocated. The gains would be much more efficient. People in greater need of assistance would be helped. No domestic strife being caused by ongoing onshore asylum seeking would be overcome, and most people who are highly offended by this reimposition of a problem that Howard had solved and Tudd had totally stuffed up, would be happy to see Australia considerably boost its overseas aid programs and even considerably increase the number of refugees accommodated here through our formal immigration intake, on the condition that we regained control over our borders and adopted a no-can-do policy with onshore asylum seekers, or any sylum seekers outside of our formal immigration and refugee programs.

It this really too much of an ask for the likes of Beth Doherty and Bishop Grech?

Thank you for the Church's and religious orders' moral leadership and affirmation of the rule of law and particularly for the pastoral care being provided now to asylum seekers in unnecessary detention in isolated places, far away from support of Australians who speak their language and understand their refugee claims.

As a Queenslander, I have concerns about the nearly 300 Hazara men now being held in the Scherger Detention Centre, 30 km outside the mining company town of Weipa.It is so isolated that noone from their community can afford to visit and airfares are said to have more than doubled. With the rainy season on us, roads become impassable so the isolation is almost as bad as a Russian gulag in Siberia during winter. I suppose the guys have access to telephones.Makes you wonder why on earth these non criminals have to be treated so cruelly.

I hope they are getting a few visitors from the town to break the boredom and the rising anxiety about what is to happen to them.Detainees have developed mental ill health in Immigration detention for ten years , and still the Government continues to lock up innocent people. Will we ever learn and end the torture - because this is torment and suffering in people who have suffered too much already.

Flo
I agree with your post.

Offshore processing is device to deny full legal rights to asylum seeks and to warehouse them far away from public and media scrutiny. it is expensive and unethical, and should be stpopped.

Ludwig, how would you suggest the Australian government prevent some groups being slaughtered by other hostile groups, in their homelands?
I know we're giving it a whirl in Afghanistan, and Iraq, along with the USA, but we don't seem to be achieving a lot.
Are you imagining a situation in which we revive conscription in this country so we have enough soldiers to protect people in their home countries so they don't have to become refugees in the first place?

And what do you suggest we might do about the refugees from countries from which even the UN has to withdraw?

International aid and asylum seekers are two completely different issues, and it makes no sense to conflate them.

The very simple answer to the ”boat people crisis” is to subtract the number of illegals from the total number of migrants, or even better twice that number and the “problem” is solved.

Why don't we just abandon any sort of immigration policy and only process refugees who arrive here by boat? Then everybody's happy!

The Rudd Labor Government was a bad Government. The Gillard/Brown Labor/Greens Federal Government is just totally inept and incompetent and borders on dysfunctional.

ASSYLUM SEEKERS AND CRIMINALITY.....DISQUALIFICATION from ELIDGABILITY.

We had a riot between around 30 Afghan youths and other youths at the Broadmeadows detention centre this week...over 'COMPUTER ACCESS'.

The law is very clear about 'violent public behavior'.

NSW has the specific law 'AFFRAY' which this riot certainly was, but VIC has case law, not a specific offense. Nevertheless such behavior is covered in criminal case law.

Violent Riot is CRIMINAL behavior.

Such behavior DISQUALIFIES any would be refugee from any elidgability as a 'refugee' according to the UN convention.

The Broadmeadows police have now been reminded of our LAW and have been encouraged to take appropriate action.

DIMIA will also be notified today.

Awwwwww those POOR 300 Hazara men :(

Ffred... for goodness sake READ some history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people#Emergence_of_the_Hazara

They have had or been trouble ever since their first mention in the history of Afghanistan...

1/ They are PERSIAN speakers
2/ They are SHIA muslims.

conclusion. They must have come FROM Iran/Persia.

Now..they can GO BACK to Iran/Persia...where they will find both linguistic and religious compatibility.

The Pashtuns hunted them from areas where Hazara's had encroached, and for obvious (too all but lamentably ignorant PC Aussies) reasons.

In a tribal "Multicultural" setting.. the stronger a tribe becomes, the more it will ASSERT "its" authority (percieved or real) on non them.

I'm afraid there is ZERO "Moral Leadership" from the churches who support them 'encroaching' on Australian turf.. it is utter stupidity, unfathomable ignorance, incredulous naivity and historical blindness!

WAKE UP and smell the history!

BRIAR SAYS:

//Ludwig, how would you suggest the Australian government prevent some groups being slaughtered by other hostile groups, in their homelands?//

Ummmm...perhaps because they have always been 'slaughtered' (or at least punished) by non Hazara's when they BUCK the system, assert indepenance on other peoples soil and revolt against authority.

Maybe ?

and now you want to bring this mentality HERE ? aghast!

The Catholic lobby is a strange thing- it viciously works to undermine Australians' rights to contraception, abortion and euthanasia, and of course our normal civil rights whenever their beloved Vatican celebrity wants another private function away from his office- the only people's whose rights they endorse are asylum seekers.

I think the real answer is the Church only believes in whatever rights a religious fanatic would want (perhaps they feel they can make some new friends with some of the wahabis).
I imagine I can't be alone in thinking this church is among the biggest detriments upon the lives of Australians.

Oh and Sarnian, Please explain;
"the handful of boat people as a threat to Australia when the real threat is the enormous number of so called “legal” migrants."
What is this supposed to mean? Why are THEY a threat?

Oh and Sarnian, Please explain;
"the handful of boat people as a threat to Australia when the real threat is the enormous number of so called “legal” migrants."
What is this supposed to mean? Why are THEY a threat?

The real threat from them is that there are too many of them.
The population went up by 600.000 in 2008 and half of them were Migrants.
I am afraid that I am on the side of Dick Smith, when it comes to our population building up to the projected 35 to 50 million. I do not see how Australia can provide the total wherewithal to supply this many unless it is at a drastically reduced standard of living.
I agree that out standard of living, the highest in the world is far too high but I would not want it reduced to bare survival.

The main reason for this high intake?
Big business wants an oversupply of labour, so that wages can be forced down and the other reason is more people = more voters +more consumers.

Well if our population is the problem (and for our major cities it most definitely is) then surely we should prioritize people that would contribute to our country instead of detract, and prioritize the immigrants that would integrate and have a positive culture, regardless if they are refugees or regular immigrants or not?

If its that serious a problem, we cannot afford to make a concession for refugees- especially not at the expense of people expecting to contribute to Australia;
Then we should be prioritizing immigrants Australia would welcome and need, even at the expense of refugees (except for those that would still fit into the latter category- in which case it would be fair to raise their priority well above).

King Hazza

What you propose is a false dichotomy. We should screen economic migrants to ensure we get the people who will contribute most to our society, AND accept humanitarian migrants on the basis of need an immediacy. And we should trat both with fairness and decency.

It is not a false dichotomy- regardless of circumstance, the physical presence felt by any new arrival in terms of resources and space will be very much the same for us, and no amount of difference of background circumstances will state otherwise- and refugees should not be exempt from a single consideration that others are held to; if a refugee would fail entry requirements a normal immigrant would be held to, that person should be sent back and their place given to someone more deserving.

Also, if we DO make a concession, it must ONLY be for those coming immediately from regions who would make a good case to immediately come to Australia and that any neighbours are either too hostile or very much incapable of housing them (Sri Lankan Tamils make a good case- except members of the Tigers). Those from countries with plenty of alternative havens (especially the Middle East, unless they are Sufi Muslim, secularists, Christians, Zorastarians or Jews) cannot make such a claim that their need to come all the way to Australia is still higher than the normal immigrants anymore.

It boils down to prioritizing one group at the expense of putting the other in limbo; and to me, the prospective students, accountants and doctors from modern and civilized East Asia are a much better contribution to our country than a tribalist Wahabi whose tribe is losing against a bigger wahabi tribe in his home country, and the neighbouring countries in the Middle East which he COULD have taken refuge in just aren't lucrative enough.

ALL assylum seekers and country shoppers should be processed OFF shore.

End of story.

Briar Rose, to answer your questions of 15 November:

<< … how would you suggest the Australian government prevent some groups being slaughtered by other hostile groups, in their homelands? >>

There is only so much that Australia can do about conflicts in far-away places. We’ve just got to do our bit, through the UN or with other allied efforts, or provide unilateral assistance to some of our close neighbours. But we can’t have an input into all of the world’s conflicts. We’ve been doing our bit. As you say, we’ve been “giving it a whirl” in Afghanistan and Iraq … for better or for worse.

<< Are you imagining a situation in which we revive conscription in this country so we have enough soldiers to protect people in their home countries so they don't have to become refugees in the first place? >>

Absolutely not. I’d just like to see our international aid effort increased to the UN recommended level. Foreign Minister Rudd says that the government has increased and is further increasing our international aid effort and that he is working hard on making sure that it is properly targeted. I’m pleased to hear it … but I won’t believe it until reputable authorities confirm it.

Rudd has launched a massive review of our foreign aid program: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/rudd-orders-review-of-foreign-aid-program/1999461.aspx

Australia can and is taking step towards increasing its international aid effort very considerably above the current level. But of course we can’t hope to stop refugeeism or ‘asylum-seekerism’ any time soon.

continued

<< And what do you suggest we might do about the refugees from countries from which even the UN has to withdraw? >>

We should take our fair share of refugees, which I’d suggest should be in the order of 20 000 or perhaps double the current intake to about 26 000 per annum, within our formal refugee program.

This increase, above the current 13 700 would be a whole lot more than the number of onshore arrivals accepted as refugees.

If there is an urgent need to accept refugees from a trouble-spot that even the UN can’t work in, then fine, within our formal immigration program. But only up to a reasonable number that is not above or excessively above the annual intake, and only for as long as other countries take their fair share and Australia is not the sole host country.

<< International aid and asylum seekers are two completely different issues, and it makes no sense to conflate them. >>

I’ve got to disagree. I see them as intimately related.

If we didn't invade countries, kill the inhabitants, destroy the infrastructure; prop up the war lords and other corrupt government people, the people wouldn't want to flee their homes. Australia has a damned cheek illegally invading other countries, and then when the inhabitants(a very small number)end up here, we put them in the slammer.
Australia has committed to upholding International Laws re asylum seekers - we should uphold that commitment or have the guts to withdraw. But no, we boast of our commitment to democracy etc, and then act against it. Anyone has the right to seek protection from persecution or fear of torture or death.Howard turned back SIEV X and that resulted in the deaths of 353 people, mostly women and kids.
Is that what we stand for? I hope not!

@King Hazza.
What about the Boers then,they have a compatible culture.
It's estimated that 600,000 White South Africans live in abject poverty, Pretoria has several large refugee camps where Whites live in extreme conditions, where children and the elderly are starving to death.
The UN has listed the Afrikaners as being at risk of Genocide yet they are not eligible for asylum in the West.
http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.blogspot.com/2010/03/racist-to-feed-poor-whites-anc.html

Does anyone here agree that having foreign companies managing our immigration detention system is a bad thing for Australia?
SERCO, G4 and MSS are among the most corrupt companies in the world, SERCO was asking for cash kickbacks from it's suppliers in the UK, MSS has been investigated for hiring unqualified guards to work at the Darwin detention centre, G4 have a terrible record on human rights.
SERCO is making big money from asylum seekers, would anyone here countenance the possiblity that such an insidious Globalist entity could be funding and equipping people smugglers on one end to supply their private prisons with "Clients"?
The "Refugee Industry" is just that it's a privately run, for profit migration business hiding behind international law and UN treaties.
Post processing these migrants are passed on to privately run settlement and welfare groups, taught English by the private sector, trained in job skills by the private sector, housed, advised,educated and integrated by private companies.