Does Jo have any suggestions on how to stem the flow of boat people from Afghanistan who, in the main, are economic refugees?
(surveys carried out in Afghanistan prove the point)

The more accommodating we are of boat-people, the more they will come, exponentially. Something must be done deter this.

I have no problem accepting those fleeing persecution, but their case is compromised by queue jumpers seeking an economic improvement. The Malaysian solution will both remove the incentive for the latter group, and improve the lot of five times as many others.

The Gillard Government is naive to think that Malaysia sets a more valid alternative to that of a centre on Nauru. It is just the Government trying to avoid criticism from the opposition by accepting that they were wrong. Malaysia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and is not a realistic alternative as a processing destination. Shame on this Government.

With the "aid" we are giving Malaysia for this "deal" the cost to Australia per asylum seeker returned is nearly $400 000, and then we take back 5. Then as soon as Juliar announces the deal, the conditions start to worsen further, with limits being placed on

There is a saying "There is a sucker born every minute."

Julia, I can sell you the Harbour bridge if you are interested.

But then there is a very good chance that this deal will also fall through, as all Juliar has is Malaysia's assurances that the asylum seekers will be humanely treated. Interestingly enough, the Malaysian ambassador insists that the existing refugees are humanely treated. REALLY? Treating boat people far worse than the coalition is not a tag the ALP wants to take to an election.

The East Timor lie managed to last nearly a year while the one sided "negotiations" dragged on. Maybe the "negotiations" will drag on until the next elections so that Labor can claim that it is at least trying.

Everything I see in this article says "bring them on, the more the merrier". Any "solution"? No.

So, Jo is saying we don't need a solution, there is no problem, just bring all who want to come, bring them directly (no boats), don't keep anyone waiting, bring them, house them, feed them, etc,... Our hearts and homes are open to all!

That's great. We don't have unemployment, or a budget deficit, a housing problem, any underprivileged (except refugees), any health care shortages, education deficiencies etc. We're so fine Jack, it's such a shame we can't just share all this with the rest of the world!

How many refugees world wide? What's our immigration policy? Do the Australian people have a say? Or, is it just multi-multi-culturalism bedlam, bring it on?

Ok, not everyone can find a queue to join to make a nice, quiet application for refugee status (with preferred placement in Oz, please), so have to pay a few thousand bucks to a smuggler to get us in the back door. Such a pity things can't be made easier.

Reality 1: Some people have to run from persecution, to bolt to the nearest refugee centre. Why isn't it possible to apply for refugee status there? No, too simple, have to go to Malaysia. Why?

Reality 2: Some people seek greener pastures, and have heard Oz is a soft touch. How to differentiate these from "genuine"? See 1.

Best Case: Give people a better reason to stay at home - political and economic reform (Tunisia?) What good is the UN? Toothless, token?

Second (or 3rd) Best: Stay at home and fight for a better deal. (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain...) Or, turn tail and run to Oz.

Oz: Migration Act should Not apply to illegal aliens; TPV's are a workable mechanism for reducing detention and keeping options open; Try like hell to bring about the Best Option (don't equivocate about ousting Gadhaffi, etc); use Malaysia or Nauru, but get the UN to do its job (and ASIO).

the second paragraph of this article had me choking.

It is costing us, the taxpayer $19,000 to fly a refugee from Malaysia to Australia.

Why? That is astonishing? $19,000 for a one way flight to Australia from Malaysia.

Why isn't that the issue?

Why are you not enraged with that Jo? Doesn't this type of waste worry you?

I think it's great we are taking the genuine refugee.

I think this exercise is just Gillard trying to show how tough she is and putting all the other quite justified objections aside that is just as disgraceful as the wastefulness.

She is absolutely unsupportable in this action and should be utterly condemned. She's a bloody disgrace. Nobody should try to explain her or her disgraceful conduct.

Jo why do you think that more important than the $19,000 one way air ticket or her sending refugees to be ill treated in Malaysia just to show how tough she is? Btw isn't that harsher than anything Howard did?

Keith,

$1,900 or $19,000 ?

'$76 million to fly refugees from Malaysia to Australia'

$76,000,000 divided by 4,000 =

$76,000 divided by 4 =

$19,000 each.

You are a labor supporter? Aren't you?

[Deleted for abuse.]

<< Everything I see in this article says "bring them on, the more the merrier". Any "solution"? No. >>

Right on there, Saltpetre.

Jo Coghlan’s criticisms of Gillard’s failed refugee policy are predominantly reasonable, but there is no suggested solution, other than to have no mandatory detention, no TPVs, no hold-ups at all, in fact just a completely open border policy!

This really is mind-boggling.

Jo writes:

<< This leaves room for conservative commentators to recall deplorable policies such as the expensive and ineffective Pacific Solution. >>

Excuse me; this policy WAS effective, and nowhere near as expensive as an ongoing asylum seeker issue of the magnitude that we saw in 2001 would have been, let alone a much greater rate of arrivals, which was looking imminent at the time of Howard’s first real action on the issue when the Tampa arrived in August 01.

It struck the right balance – most asylum seekers were accepted as refugees, and indeed most spent a relatively short time in detention… and it stopped the boats!

THIS policy is what Gillard needs to get back to, and quickly!

I wonder when refugee advocates such as Jo are going to see the light and start putting their energies into helping the most needy of refugees, by lobbying to increase Australia’s aid programs and refugee quota as part of our formal immigration program…. and to accept that this onshore asylum seeking business is just NOT ON and MUST be shut down.

Herb, get your facts right.

I am merely quoting from the article. I have not made any assertion whatsoever.
If you were to read and show a modicum of comprehension of the fourth sentence, paragraph two, you will see where I have quoted Jo Coghlan's stated figures, exactly. I have no reason to doubt her research nor veracity.

Do you?

If so state facts and don't wildly throw your absurd ascusations at her now ... will you?

Then do some simple arithmetic.

And do try not to go off half cocked again.

The only thing unbelievable here is that people like you think it is ok for this kiddies government to spend our money in such a thoughtless, stupid, reckless spendthrift manner.

And I bet you'd still vote for them.

Herb,

For your very first post to accuse someone of being obsessed with hate is called flaming. Especially as it is certainly not based on this thread.

I would suggest you abide by the terms of conduct or your presence on the site will be short.

The annual budget on dealing with boats has blown out from less than $100m to more than $1bn. This is wasting more than twice as much as they get from raping the benefits for higher income families.

Politics is not only about doing good works. It is also about cogently explaining your good works to the electorate. The Government is clearly incapable of the latter, whatever they may achieve in relation to the former.
One of Australia's most talented bureaucrats and former head of the Immigration Department, John Menadue, gave the lie to the hysterical nonsense that is the polity’s obsession with "Boat People". Waterborne illegal entrants are a tiny fraction of the "Aeroplane People" who illegally enter or stay in this country by aircraft. Refugees are a massive world-wide problem created almost exclusively by ‘push’ factors. They constitute a relatively minor problem for Australia.
The Howard Government can take as much credit for “stopping the boats” as it can for winning cricket matches and causing the drought – they just happened to be in power when it happened. The “Boat” frequency of arrivals in Australia correlates with the ebb and flow of refugee arrivals around the world as the result of the ebb and flow of ‘push’ factors. The Coalition knows this but peddles their lie and cynically whips up and exploits public fear, following their tried and true Domino Theory formula which they used to get us into the Vietnam War. (Readers of a certain age will remember that the Communists were going to take over all of Asia before invading Australia where they would be greeted by the Reds hitherto hiding out under our beds.) The Labor Party also know the truth about refugees but they are too gutless and incompetent to clearly set out the facts and take leadership of this matter back from the Coalition. But then, if you allow second-raters like Shorten, Abib, Howes and Bitar to sack your Prime Minister and turn the Labor Party into one that reacts to polls rather than leading from core principles, you will always be behind the game. Still, I would rather be known for being out of my depth, like most of the current Labor front bench, than someone like Scott Morrison who is building his career by cynically peddling a lie.