Exactly, Yabby. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Those who are unhappy with our current refugee convention status should be lobbying politicians to change it, if that is possible, or to withdraw from it if it isn't.

If they aren't willing to do that, then they have no choice but to decently accept the status quo, or live somewhere else that better suits their beliefs.

There is no point in railing and whining if you can't put your money where your mouth is and take action about something you deeply believe in.

Nobody is stopping any of you from lobbying for change or withdrawal from the Convention. So why don't you?

*Nobody is stopping any of you from lobbying for change or withdrawal from the Convention. So why don't you?*

Well there you go briar rose, that is exactly what I am doing right
here. Given that I am a member of no political party, all I can
do is put forward sensible suggestions or back those who do.

People seemingly need pain to learn and perhaps its going to take
a few more sunken boats on rocks and more billions of $, until our
politicians finally take notice and change things, as should have
been done many years ago.

As it happens, in this case its both major parties that have the
same major problem that needs dealing with, so that there is a
win-win outcome all round.

I like the ideas in this article.

May I add an extra suggestion? Grant the UNHCR a 25 year leasae at peppercorn rent over Christmas Island. Have the UNHCR run it as one large refugee camp, with the UNHCR doing the assessing and sending those unauthorised arrivals who don't qualify as refugees back.

Another point: so many of these unauthoriseds arrivals don't have papers. The refugee lobby claims it is because they never had papers, or they were lost. Well, these people needed papers in order to fly into Indonesia didn't they?

Mirko,
where do you suggest we send the people who arrive by boat? Can you tell us what countries are going to accept them? Do you suggest that we do not assess if they are indeed refugees, like the people who were sent to Naru were eventually found to be? Do you begrudge others the same opportunity your family recieved when they came to Australia?

There has to be a better and more humane way of treating refugees as the current way does not appear to be working.

Perhaps there should be a queue, with places reserved for urgent cases. Maybe if refugee families awaiting processing were able to be in smaller communities with access to the basicscard (like in the NT intervention) it would be cheaper and more humane.

I would also like to see, in the Australian funded refugee centres in Indonesia and Australia and elsewhere, courses run to teach English and the laws and cultural expectations of western countries that they may accept them. Perhaps training for general work or the opportunity for people to upgrade any qualifications they may have to set themselves up for relocation.

Some people might find that the western countries are not for them as they would not be happy living in such a society, but others will welcome an opportunity to gain skills to help them make a living when they are relocated.

English is needed as it protects families from exploitation and from isolation.

If the time people spend in refugee camps is used well, and there is a greater chance of gaining relocation depending on the level of skills etc, plus a bonus if they are prepared to go where thier labour is needed, it creates hope and opportunity.

Another point is that people will have to show commitiment to relocating and accepting, appreciating and understanding possible host communities.

The key to this though is to treat people with respect and human dignity

I'd like to know if it troubles Briar Rose, that if the current rates of refugees arriving by boat continues, they will soon exceed the refugee intake. Leading to the likelihood that the only way top get accepted as a refugee, is to take to a boat.

Does this pass her fairness and compassion test?

Its specious to argue that this is the law as it stands. If someone who claims to support social justice, uses the law as an excuse to argue for a patently unfair situation, they either have an ulterior motive, or they are turning their back on their beliefs.

Mirko and others are not suggesting that many of these people don't deserve refugee status. What they're saying is that they're are potentially other refugees with more claim, but less money in camps across the world.

Should the fact that boatpeople have the money to advance their cause, be enough reason to accept them before those who are following the rules?

Its a clear violation of the principle of social justice.

I thought this article was very good. This solution increases our intake of refugees. It doesn't reward those who use their money to break the rules. It doesn't encourage people to risk their lives in unseaworthy boats. It looks good to me.

Mirko please write an essay outlining who these people are are they all Islamic etc .
What are the risks eg; will conflicts arise from the numbers of people who will find conflicts with Australia's largely atheist religion .

Muslims have demonstrated exactly what they will do in a culture clash plus other (in an Aussies view)undesirable traits like the Burka the idea that Osama bin Laden is living in Oz clad in a Burka while our lads are dieing in Afghanistan is reprehensible .

Howard provided a solution , what happened ? Exactly what has the ALP achieved in changing the Howard doctrine ?

PM Julia and Me and many others have no idea what to do ? Except that we want to be fair and sympathetic , what is your solution Mirko ?