Jennifer,

I agree with you on one thing: Australia should get out the refugee convention.

But, I’m not naïve enough to believe that if we did, it would solve the illegal entry issue.

The big attractor for/to us is our standard of living: the many (lifestyle)advantages that accrue from residency.

The refugee convention is only a pretext, a proxy used to attain those benefits.

If you took the convention away the traffic would simply re-direct itself into student entry, spouse entry, special business entry routes or some other guise.

Part of the problem stems from the motives of those wo arrive by boats or in other ways contrary to normal immigration and other laws. Lets just call them 'unauthorised arrivals'.

The problem is that even those who claim asylum are not seeking asylum, that is, a place of safety and security until it is safe to go back to their countries of origin. They are not seeking 'refuge' as refu=gees normally would.

They are seeking permanant settlement contrary to the immigration laws of this country. They are seeking to circumvent normal procedures under the guise of claiming refuge, in other words they are economic migrants using the convention for results that it was never intended to achive. Is it any wonder that the faces of so many people are turned against them? The UNHCR has itself stated that there are many here who are not genuine refugees and who should be sent back. Of course few are sent back.

If you really want to accept anyone who arrives, as Briar Rose seems to advocate, just be prepared for Australia to turn into the third world slum that so many have come to escape from.

There is no need to withdraw from the convention. The pacific solution complied to the letter (maybe not the spirit) of the convention.

Stop the pro people smugglers from creating a market for human misery.

The other alternative is to give Christmas Island to Indonesia, after all, it is much closer to Indonesia than Australia, or grant it actual independence, or perhaps make it a UN protectorate under the control of the UNHCR, under a 25 or 50 year peppercorn lease, to that organisation. Don't just excise Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, excise it completely from Australia.

It could be become a one stop shop for asylum claim processing. Those who really need asylum and could get there by boat could have their claims assessed and receive what they want, asylum from war and conflict, as they don't need to come to Australia for that. Those who by-passed Christmas Island are clearly not refugees, but economic migrants. Others could actually be flown there from other places and be assessed there.

This should satisfy all those people who claim that there is no queue for asylum seekers to jump. The queue for Australia could be on Christmas Island.

*There is no need to withdraw from the convention. The pacific solution complied to the letter (maybe not the spirit) of the convention.*

Clearly there is SM, for we would not have the present fiasco,
whilst Labor are batting, if Howard had had the testicles at
the time.

The way I understand it, we can withdraw from the Convention,
then rejoin, but under different terms. That would close many
of the loopholes that are causing all the problems.

*Stop the pro people smugglers from creating a market for human misery*?

There aren't any "people smugglers" here.
Nobody attempts to "smuggle" people into Australia using boats.
This isn't Europe.
People are trafficked to Australia on boats. Their arrival is announced, they request asylum and they are escorted to Christmas Island. There's no smuggling involved.

*Pro people smugglers*? What transparent tosh.

The global trafficking of people is second only to the global trafficking of illegal drugs.

It's a big international business run by big international cartels.
The crews of the SIEVS have no control over it, they're just earning a quid. They're right at the bottom of the food chain, like drug mules.

Why don't you try the Nancy Reagan solution and *Just say no.* That went well.

*Stop the boats* is just as likely to succeed.

Or *Stop the pro people smugglers...*
Or *Stop* anything really, what a plaintive ineffectual 1970's bleat that is.

Oh people traffickers? ? Hello? We just said no.
Oh damn. Why won't they listen? (Spits dummy).

What a wonderful little world you live in Shadow Minister if you think a bit of sloganeering is going to stop the global trade in human traffic.