In the making of any refugee policy the SOLE guiding factor is eventually a case for national autonomy. Pause the debate and take a close and honest analysis of the conditions refugees have created in countries like the UK, Holland, Belgium, France and Germany.
There was a time 6000 Libyans wanted asylum on the island of Lampedusa which has an island population of 3500. Give the newcomers not only shelter but also democratic voting rights and what will be the result ?

Now it may be a hell of a long time before Australia faces a loss of national autonomy by allowing thousands more Muslims into the country but consider this: Australians have virtually reached ZPG or near enough. The Muslim families have on an average 6 0r 7 children. You do the maths.

Whatever the so called immigration/refugee policy will eventually be in framing it we must keep an eye on what sort of Australia we want to see emerge down the line. What are we handing our future generations? Will blood have to be shed because we allowed do-gooders and the UN to steamroll us into a sort of political hari kiri?
There wont be any use wringing of hands and crying of mea kulpa then when its too late.

socratease

Sorry, but I just can’t get past the enormous ethical disjunct in Noel’s reasoning. Only five years ago, Australia had what he pretty unequivocally defines as an immigration nirvana: no boat people, nobody in detention, a humanitarian immigration intake second only to Canada on a per-capita basis, and widespread national acceptance of the policies which kept immigration uncontroversial. Yet I can’t seem to find even one of those venting outrage today who put their hand up in 2007 to defend the very thing they so earnestly demand now. I have yet to hear anyone sympathetic to genuine asylum seekers admit they got it wrong.

That’s worrying, in the extreme, and I can’t grok a reason for it. If it’s a matter of despising John Howard and all his works, then some very vulnerable people are paying a huge price for some noisy first-worlders’ pique. If it’s a matter of following the Party Line -- Rudd’s, Gillard’s or Brown’s, or Howards -- that doesn’t say anything good about our democracy, or our ethics. If it’s a just a way to separate ‘intellectuals’ from ‘bogans’ we desperately need to import better intellectuals.

It’s not that hard to forge a consensus around immigration policy: Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard managed well enough. These days, though, I don’t see much interest in consensus. The national conversation is pretty much confined to highlighting the errors of others -- listening isn’t a priority. Nuances, compromise ... they’re just not on. When Noel urges us to ‘Do the right thing!’, he’s calling on the True Believers to berate the Great Unwashed. It isn’t going to be that easy.

We had an immigration nirvana for a few years. Through hubris and sanctimony, we’ve lost it. Wouldn’t it make sense to at least consider how a solution was achieved in past? The consequences might not be so bad after all.

Rethink Refugee Policy.

The ALP sets a dangerous political precept if it thinks it can just "kraft" a change in the law to suit itself.... to over-ride the UN Convention and get away with it. Again the government preaches that it has full confidence but do "we" have full confidence in the government? Where is the discussion?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-09/government-close-to-new-asylum-policy/2879016

IT'S TIME FOR A NEW CONVERSATION says Kon Karapanagiotidis
http://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/konkarapanagiotidis/post/9/comment/1/

Expert analysis: what on-shore processing means for Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3312711.htm

As Professor William Maley, and former Liberal Leader Bruce Baird say. The approach by this government is doubtful, dangerous it has serious cultural implications. It is a destructive approach bordering the formerly abolished White Australia Policy.

“The illiterate of the future are not those who can’t read or write but those who
cannot learn, unlearn, and re-learn.” said Alvin Toffle.... How a nation treats men, women and children fleeing persecution and seeking its protection is a mark of its own humanity.

http://www.miacat.com/

What if those "demonise(d) poor, frightened and desperate human beings" bring values and problems that are not only not compatible with Australian values, but even inimical to the institutions that have served this country so well (mostly) for well over 200 years?

I am talking about Muslims. Any country that permits mass immigration of Muslims is committing national suicide. The values of Islam are not those of the West, and Muslims will not integrate nor live in peace with a people their god considers "lower than animals" (aka, non-Muslims). One or two, maybe, but not massive numbers...

Am I being harsh? dishonest? evil? racist? or just telling it like it is? Take a look at Muslim societies and tell me I am wrong? Where exactly do these people respect and grand equality to infidels? I dont believe that Muslims coming to Australia are any different from those in Islamic nations. Given what Islam's own traditions (hadith) say about the morals of Mohammad (raids, plunder, lies, murder, torture, enslavement, rape, etc...)I do not trust anyone, moderate or radical, that says "praise be upon him" after this man's name and considers him a great moral example (per the Quran)- and that is all Muslims.

Better the harsh reality of facts than fuzzy feel good words that will case suffering, pain and death later. Refugee policy is complex and polemic, but "no Muslims" is a rational start.

What Julia needs to rethink is why Australia is a signatory to a convention which encourages desperate people to risk their lives, treats refugees unequally, and supports criminals. There is no doubt about the desperation of people taking life threatening voyages, but where is the humanity in encouraging such behaviour? Surely the more humane approach is to say to such people "Dont deal with criminals and risk your lives, because it will give you no advantage over the millions of other refugees in the world.".

Quite fair Kaktuz- though we wouldn't even need to do so on that basis; a few simple questions to the potential immigrants about their values, possibly their reaction to a Danish Muhammad cartoon, opinions on gay rights (merely Gays having a right to marry or exist), shariah, secularism, separation of church and state, lack of sacredness of religion, as well as questioned on their morality etc.

Seeing their reactions to these would tell us enough about whether they are deserving to live here or not.