"Australian politicians have blood on their hands. So do their Indonesian counterparts.
It's the blood of hundreds of asylum seekers who have perished in the Killing Seas trying to get from the Archipelago to Australia. They lost their lives because the politicians have failed to find a humane solution to the people smuggling curse."

What, no self-responsibility for getting on an overcrowded boat, no self-responsibility for illegally paying a smuggler to enter Australia?
Another rubbish article trying to shift the blame and create perpetual victims.

Duncan there are a lot wider issues than blaming the Indonesian and Australian Governments regarding refugees.
Lets take Iraq, George bush invaded this country because "God " told him to do so, out of this invasion 1 million Iraquis were killed and many more injured, 3 thousand American soldiers killed or injured, 4.7 million people were turned into refugees, perhaps a lot of these people are on the leaky boats trying to come here, so where is the blame?, not Australia or Indonesia, America has a lot to answer for regarding the state of the world at present, Iran is next on the list for invasion, then there will be millions more of refugees.
My main concern with the mainly Muslim men on these boats is why are they wanting to come here to a non Muslim Country, why not Malaysia, what is the ulterior motive, do we have to worry about "Sharia Law" in the future, why don't they join the legititmate refugees on a waiting list, why pay big money to end your life on a leaky boat, most on these boat people look well fed, I think most Australians would agree with my comments, if these refugees are placed eventually into the Australian way of life, then abide by our laws, or else do not come here in the first place on leaky boats.
I remember when the "10 pound poms" arrived in Australai from England after the war, they lived in terrible conditions then, Nissan huts etc, but they didn't complain, but take a look at the new immigrant refugees they want to be looked after from the day they arrive.
My last comment, if you are stupid enough to get on a leaky boat then you have to put up with the consequences of arriving safely, it is your decision nobody elses, don't blame Australia or Indonesia look at the wider issue behind all of this.

I think we need to hold a referendum, those who wish to support illegals, and those who don't.

The do,s can then have a self imposed level on themselves, pay the bills and feel all warm and fuzzy.

Now I would not be so critical about this if I could arrive in their country, unannounced, take up residency, enjoy the fruits of their tax payers all because I no longer wish to live here.

It has been suggested that these illegals get more in benefits than that of an Australian old age pensioner, who, after working their entire life, gets left on the scrap heap because we simply don't have the resources to fund all of our governmentS whims.

If there is any blame to be laid anywhere but the illegal boat people themselves, it is Duncan & his bleeding heart mates, along with the Greens, all of who encourage these people to come here in the first place.

People smugglers would not exist if there were not many dishonest people, who will pay for a boat ride to our welfare system, for themselves. These worthless people, who will not put the effort into building a homeland worth living in should never be allowed into Oz, on any terms. They are just not worth having.

Duncan Graham, you noted that the survivors were being represented by an Australian lawyer. Could you please explain why these people need a lawyer, are they suing someone for getting on the boats? Who is paying for this lawyer? Who is being held responsible for the bad weather that actually caused this disaster?
This is just on of the reasons these people come to Australia, free access to everything paid for by the Australian Taxper.

I agree that people who get on overcrowded leaky boats in the monsoon season have themselves to blame if the thing sinks.
I also think that if and when they do get here, we are obliged to find space in our national system to accommodate them. And lets not forget that this influx of refugees will only get bigger, so either we figure out a method of accommodation, or we start turning the boats around and may the devil take the hindmost.
The biggest danger to Australia is the recent life experience of those arriving, whether they arrive illegally or not. Many (most?) come from war zones, either in Africa which is not of our doing, or from the Middle East where we do bear some responsibility. How we deal with this influx of people who have known personal, in-the-face violence in ways most of us can barely imagine will become part of the Australian narrative in the coming decades.

as Robert Manne pointed out it is time for the left to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong in order to prevent more tradegy. And to think they continue to take the high moral ground is unbelievable. Mr Howard had been shown to be more compassionate than the Gillard/Brown Government by a long way. The left has always put ideology above human life.

Ojnab & Hasbeen,
Thanks for giving me hope that there are still people out there who can see & think.

People smugglers ? What about the New Zealand government ?
According to the courier mail ( 23/12/11 ) they've unloaded 50.000 of their unemployed over here in the last year alone !
And they will "still" call New Zealand home !
Welfare not offered ? Ask and thou shalt receive !
With the Chinese Government being offered the front door keys to Australia by Gillard and company,
it's no surprise Indian call centre supervisors recognise our stupidity and pass this on to trainees !

Arthur Bell.

What sort of person would support a convention which treats people unequally, encourages the desperate to risk and occasionally lose their lives on perilous voyages, and supports organised criminals? Yet time and again the Refugee Convention is given an unassailable status: Refugees suffer more than enough, so why unnecessarily add to their suffering? Time for Australia to opt out of this harmful anachronism.

What sort of person would support a convention which treats people unequally, encourages the desperate to risk and occasionally lose their lives on perilous voyages, and supports organised criminals?
Fester,
Throw this question at those who send them. Also ask them when they expect to achieve their agenda in Australia.

Individual

The agenda is profit. Over a million for the last boatload and it sank. No refunds, sorry, and the payoffs I would guess go right up the hierarchy. Much the same for Indonesian pirates.

The agenda for corrupt Indonesians is for Australia to remain a signatory of an idiotic convention so they can continue to profit from the death and misery of desperate people. Plenty of Aussies profiting from the idiocy as well, and more than the Indonesians at that.

The agenda is profit.
Fester,
For some boat owners yeah but I was thinking of the agenda of those who send the poor bastards via Indonesia to Australia.

How extraordinary. Nowhere in this article or in any of the comments is there any mention of the appalling decision that led to this horrible onshore asylum seeking debacle or the person who did that despicable deed – one Kevin bloody Rudd!

This man has surely got to bear the lion’s share of the blame….. and he is still in our faces!!

How DARE he be! He should have been BANISHED from Australia’s political landscape for that, if not charged with a criminal offence.

His watering down of Howard’s border protection policy, thus opening up this whole huge can of worms is one of the very worst political stuff-ups of all time. It was surely bleedingly obvious what would happen if he gave people-smugglers and asylum seekers an opening.

I can’t see why he shouldn’t be charged with criminal negligence leading to death, or something along those lines.

I can’t see why he shouldn’t be charged with criminal negligence leading to death, or something along those lines.
Ludwig,
That would require a legal system based on integrity.

Yeah.

Good point Indi!

What hasn't this government stuffed up.

Here we have two key independents, or at least that is what they say they are, sitting there over each and every stuff up, offering their continued support simply because they dislike Tony Abbott. Or a least that's the only logic I can find.

True ind should be monitoring the governments performance and, if they become unstable, or incaable of governing for the betterment of society, they should withdraw their support.

They, along with the greens are as much to blame as the current labor government and Krudd.

I say again, and again, and again, when is enough, enough!

'''This disgraceful state of affairs is the result of both political parties being unable to come to a bipartisan agreement...,'' he told The Age newspaper.;

''If our leaders had an ounce of decency - both of them - they would get together and formulate a serious policy ...''

These two lies are spread by labor propagandists and their equally culapable compliant media.

When Gillard seduced Slipper it gave Labor the numbers in Parliament to pass it's Malaysian solution.

They won't present it because their partners in Government, the Greens in the Senate, won't pass their legtislation.

The Liberals are doing what oppositions since Federation have done... opposed bad legislation and held the government of the day to account.

It used to be that our media would also hold the government to account.
But no longer! They have simply fallen in behind the Labor government's desire to avoid their legislative responsibilities and to blame others for their utter incompetence.

Here's an example of more of the stupid propaganda

'In Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have spent the past year squabbling over solutions to the problem,...'

Gillard should have legislated, which she didn't, and Abbott opposed ...which he did. The medis should have reported this as a Government shortcoming, which it is, and not as squabbling, which it isn't. It's policy difference... and a legislative void.

'Canberra tried to do a deal with Kuala Lumpur ...' Why not Gillard instead of the legitimacy of the title 'Canberra' .

'The Liberal opposition wants a return to processing on the Micronesian island of Nauru. This was the so called Pacific Solution used when John Howard was PM, but scrapped when Labor took office in 2007.'

Which if the author and others in our regimented media were honest would admit worked and when scrapped led to the current deaths

'Australian politicians have blood on their hands.'

Wrong. Australian Labor and Greens Politicians have blood on their hands... as do those in the media who perpertrate the labor lies.

The Liberals had and still have a consistant humane solution.

I understand we provide foreign aid to Indonesia. Perhaps, instead, we should be hitting them with the bill for all the costs associated with the boat-people problem - for surveillance, rescue, detention, and legal aid, and for repatriation of those few who are sent back 'home'. Also, Aus could possibly make a case for the Indonesian government to be indicted by the UN for crimes against humanity - or for manslaughter - even if such a case would be unlikely to go ahead. Certainly their government must take some responsibility, and a bit of a scare has to be worth a try.

Indonesia's role cannot and should not be ignored. (And they have a terrible human rights record, as demostrated in East Timor and West Papua, and including regarding the Balibo 5.) They need to seal their borders, as do all other countries along the chain, all of whom are eager to send the 'problem' next door, with Aus at the end of this particular line.

We know the basic problem is prevailing conditions in the refugees' countries of origin, as compared with those in Aus (and elsewhere) - and exacerbated by our reluctance or inability to repatriate more than one or two here or there, and then only after a long legal battle at taxpayers' expense.

There is no easy solution to the problems in these originating countries, but I'm sure a lot more could and should be done in that regard. Look at the situation developing in Iraq, now that the allied troops have withdrawn. It appears we could be expecting even more refugees from this quarter - as well as possibly from Syria, Libya and Egypt.

The UN needs to take a stand! But, as a global force for good, the UN is proving recalcitrant, toothless and indecisive, and perhaps even a total waste of time and money.

The refugee crisis is a global problem, and requires a global solution. Wars, repression and abuse of power need to end, and a new world order begin. The crossroads is not nigh, it is here and now.

Duncan Graham,

Here you are!

Now, if you had known that all Australians were bestowed with the sentiments displayed by the above nineteen comments, would you have wasted the ink to write about boat people?

Fortunately the average stature of the common Australian is by far higher.

Thank you Skeptic,

But I don't think you needed to be so personally unkind to Mr Graham at Christmas time. Mr Graham is no doubt as valuable as those whose opinions differ.

I don't know that his stature is any less than the majority (If you are at all logically inclined then you'd realise that the majority would tend to equate with average on this issue) of Australians.

And merry christmas to you too.

Isn't it interesting Skeptic, that it is the most stupid who we find are most "up themselves"

imajulianutter says "The Liberals had and still have a consistant humane solution."

I've knocked around other threads on this topic and read many a newspaper letter, but not seen one other person use the term "humane" in relation to the Coalition solution to deterring boat-people.

What exactly is humane about turning unseaworthy vessels overcrowded with asylum-seekers back out to danger at sea? I can accept the adjective "consistent", but "humane"?

The unsafe, immoral and illegal use of force was effective in deterring asylum seekers in boats. However,to return to it would be a very sad day for our nation.

Labor is trying to implement a deterrent that does not forcibly endanger lives at sea or compromise our navy, which is responsible under international law for the safety of those it encounters.

Why does the Coalition, irrespective of the national interest, push Labor towards implementing its own position on the use of force when Labor's swap alternative has a high likelihood of success?

I am saddened by dark-hearted comments of some on OLO towards their fellow man. They assert Australia should give nobody sanctuary, often justified by uncertainty over whether all claimants qualify or concern that we have our own unfortunates to worry about. I would venture that some holding this outlook care little about our own, let alone outsiders.

If Australia wants to save lives......DO NOT! EXCEPT PEOPLE FROM THAT ANGLE.

What is wrong with you people?....I'll tell the truth whats behind it all.

See, if the cash-registers don't ring....our econ collapses, so bring more people in, just has that small ban-aid effect. Now, most want the, and the all, singing with the tunes of constant.....however in the long-run...the fall of Rome will happen....unless....we take the "just pay for the costs and run the econ, not as profit, but as a turn-over....just for a while.....or we keep going and burn everything until its all destroyed......thats not very smart, is it?

We all have the responsibility's and families to run, just take life as slowly/timely, and after 25 years of nonprofit....just checks and balances, you and your sons/daughters will see....that just living and the planets repair, is the best course action, and you know it.....or A third world war!

Which one do you want?

CACTUS

Where is the compassion and high moral standing in saying to desperate people,"Engage the services of organised criminals and risk your life on an unseaworthy vessel, and you will be given advantage over other refugees."?

Let's see:

Supporting organised crims:

Compassion: X High morals: X

Treating people unequally:

Compassion: X High morals: X

Giving incentive to people to risk their lives:

Compassion: X High morals: X

I am reminded of all the fluffy rhetoric in Europe about fixing the debt crisis, yet when it comes to practical solutions, nothing is done. You can spout all the fluffy rhetoric you like, but that doesn't hide the serious failings of the UN convention on refugees: Australia should opt out of this harmful convention.

What is needed are practical solutions, not fluff and waffle.

Fester, if your post was a response to mine:

You wrote ","Engage the services of organised criminals and risk your life on an unseaworthy vessel, and you will be given advantage over other refugees."?

The Malaysian swap addresses your concerns. The 1 for 5 swap will result in people realizing that a boat trip will not propel them ahead of those awaiting resettlement via formal pathways. It is a practical deterrent to boat arrivals. Concern hat we will end up with five times as many refugees "invading" Australia have to realize that as the deterrent bites, there will quickly be no arrivals and hence no swap necessary.

Forcibly turning boats back, besides being unsafe, repugnant, against UN convention and compromising our navy, is unnecessary in forming a deterrent.

Where's the fluff?

unsafe, repugnant.
Luciferase,
Go & spend time in those countries where they have already lost the fight against religious fanaticism invasion then come back & tell us your experiences.

Indy, you are skirting the point.

The swap will give you the result you want on boat arrivals.

Your concern is more to do with our total immigration intake, really a different topic.

John Passant linked to David Pope's cartoon on his blog.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/multimedia/32342/426554/december-23-2011.aspx

Says it all....

Luciferase,

The Malaysian Solution could at best provide only a slight and temporary stop-gap:

. In no time the 800 return seats would be filled - and then we're back where we started, and the people smuggler pamphlets will continue to stress what a welcoming place Aus is, and that the accommodations are at least far better than that available in Malaysia or Indonesia;

. The 4,000 we will 'inherit' will take the places of others who may well be more worthy of 'refugee' status;

. The Malaysian accommodations will Not be any holiday camp for the 800, and even worse for all the others who aren't able to get on a boat.

We can't solve mass starvation and repression in other countries by taking a handful of refugees here and there, and those countries will continue to have massive problems requiring international intervention.

The problems causing mass migration have to be solved at source.

Recent events in Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan should give us cause to re-evaluate what form international intervention should take.

Iraq provides a lesson in what Not to do - with Afghanistan a close second in the shamozzle stakes.

Our welfare system is already stressed, and adding a whole lot of extra mouths is not going to help - and is counterproductive when these could be housed, fed, educated and provided with jobs and opportunity far more economically in their home countries, if only their security and governance problems can be resolved.

We should be able to select who we want to migrate to Aus, and under what conditions.

Your concern is more to do with our total immigration intake, really a different topic.
Luciferase,
I think you're utterly & totally missing to see the overall picture. Refugees are deliberately produced to achieve non-military invasion of western cultures.

individual,

Tell us more?....who's "deliberately producing" the refugees?

Why, one would have to interfere economically in a country's affairs or even bomb it into oblivion "preemptively" to produce a flood of refugees.

All the countries and corporate interests which comprise West's "pure as driven snow" approach to world affairs couldn't be accused of such behaviour - could they?

Saltpetre wrote: "The Malaysian Solution could at best provide only a slight and temporary stop-gap:"

Huh? So sending boat occupants to Malaysia will not be a deterrent? It won't take too many to be transferred there before the deterrent is loud and clear. What is "temporary" about this deterrence any more so than turning boats back was?

Regarding the "worthiness" of refugees, the ones replacing those sent to Malyasia have already had their claims assessed by UNHCR and are awaiting resettlement. What is unworthy about them?

Also, just how are refugees stopped "at source". Sure, there is a source, but just what do you propose. Bad s... happens and to suggest there is an authority that can stop it happening is fanciful. Perhaps you are a "one world government" proponent?

To finish, you write "We should be able to select who we want to migrate to Aus, and under what conditions."

Well, Saltpetre, that is what Labor is trying to achieve against opposition, but turning back vulnerable people with naval force does not have to be a part of it.

Why, one would have to interfere economically in a country's affairs or even bomb it into oblivion "preemptively" to produce a flood of refugees.
Poirot,
No, absolutely not necessary. That's out-dated strategy.

Poirot,
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how often it is attempted. Nowadays it is far more effective to exploit the stupidity of the educated.

After reading the E-mails I don't think we are going to come to a solution very quickly regarding refugess, nearly every one I have spoken to, and that is many, all seem to come up with the same request;
Send them back and come into Australia legally
They all look well fed on these leaky boats
Why are they not responsible for their own actions, that is why board a boat that may not make the distance to Australia.
Must have plenty of money to board these boats in the first place, the poorer refugees cannot afford the amount of money these people are paying.
Why are these mainly Muslim refugees coming here?.
Where are all of these Muslim refugees in the workforce, the Vietnamese soon opened businesses and flourished when they came.
Why is the taxpayer having to support these boat people
Why don't the Indonesian Gov't put an end to refugee smuggling.
These are just a few of the answers I have had from ORDINARY Australians, not from the Academics who will do their best to justify their coming here.
Wars and Religion are the two main groups creating refugees, lets curtail the population explosion,of course that will never happen owing to the thinking of the Catholic and Muslim religions.
Yes! we are all becoming more scared of where this great country is heading with people like Gillard, Abbot and Brown in control

'What exactly is humane about turning unseaworthy vessels overcrowded with asylum-seekers back out to danger at sea? I can accept the adjective "consistent", but "humane"?'

In comparison to current policy it's very humane and in fact the boats won't be turned out to sea but back to Indonesia.

With a very limited perception I suppose you'd think you'd have to turn back dozens of boats.

Returning one boat would see an end to the matter... like last time.

All your other points are just more labor left and green spin.

Now tell me two things.

Firstly if Malaysia is such a great policy why doesn't Julia recall Parliament and pass the legislation? Shes had the numbers in the Lower House since she bought Slipper. Her problem is that there are many in her side of the Lower House who will abstain.

Secondly what do we do with asylum seeker number 801?

'I mean, you were just not cool unless you were a female who have been to Israel, worked on a Kibbutz, and got ferked by an Israeli para"'

That is a generalisation, a boorish mysogynist comment ... It wouldn't be if you'd said, if you were male and your Para was female... as well. But comprehension and expression isn't your strong point.

Israel is not a Western Liberal Democracy like us. It' not liberal nor western.

It's basic democratic nature is questionable when it's minority communities can be evicted and subjected to ethnic cleansing by the majority.

Why don't you go live there Lego... with your 18th century attitudes.

imajulianutter says,"In comparison to current policy it's very humane and in fact the boats won't be turned out to sea but back to Indonesia."

The current policy does not force the turn-back of vulnerable people. The boats are escoted to safety instead. It's a two week journey back to developed Indonesian landfall.

"With a very limited perception I suppose you'd think you'd have to turn back dozens of boats.

Returning one boat would see an end to the matter... like last time"

Thanks for the insult. Educate yourself at the following link. There are more than a dozen encounters with SIEV's that you need to know about, not one. Also, look up the SIEV X disaster for yourself Warning, it's sad.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/07/the-consequences-of-turning-boats-back-siev-towback-cases/

"All your other points are just more labor left and green spin."

Actually they're facts. Have you got any?

"Her problem is that there are many in her side of the Lower House who will abstain."

You answered your own question about recalling parliament, with hypothetical answer, so I won't spoil that. To meet the national need in relation to deterring boats, the Coalition is required to do more than simply oppose for political purposes. That is "her problem", and it is why Labor invited the Coalition to a discussion in the national interest.

"Secondly what do we do with asylum seeker number 801?"

If the swap arrangement starts afresh, there won't be an 801 as before that number is reached the deterrent will take effect. Why do you think it took more than a dozen SIEV's for the actions of the Australian Navy to take effect? Information takes time to travel.Also see the following to get a taste of some naval action,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4816#128339

Come back to me over anything I've said whenever you decide to gain the necessary knowledge and understanding qualifying you to take part in a debate. Until you demonstrate that, I'm not wasting another keystroke trying to plumb the depths of your ignorance and bigotry, or to subject myself to and databank of insults you reserve for anyone who disagrees with you.

Luciferase,

Your position is perplexing. Your support for the Malaysian solution appears to be aimed ultimately at stopping the boats - by what you perceive is a humane methodology. However, detention in Malaysia is unlikely to be very humane, even for the returnees, and you appear to ignore the fact that it is only those with means who manage to get on a boat in the first place. Many, many more live in squalor in Indonesia and Malaysia, with no work, and threat of jail if they get caught working without a work permit, and without the means to hop on a boat. This has to be a very desperate situation, and best avoided altogether if possible.

All these poor desperates have made hazardous journeys, and have only done so in genuine hopes of a better life. What makes you think they're going to stop short of the last leg of the journey to the 'promised land' - if they can only find the means to get on a boat? Sure, some may be assessed by UNHCR, but only apparently after years of waiting, and then only the first 4,000 get a seat to Aus anyway. But, what of the rest? Do they wait for the next batch of 4,000? And, how do they live in the meantime?

How much more humane to find a way to avert these poor souls from having to leave their homes in the first place. Remembering also that many don't even make it to Malaysia or Indonesia, but die somewhere along the way.

"Ojnab" made some very good points, but you seem to have just ignored them completely. The suggestion is that you take a wider view of the whole 'refugee' exodus, instead of merely focusing on the boat arrivals - which are only the tip of the iceberg after all.

Compassion is all well and good, but our emotions should not avert our eyes from the wider view and ultimately from the only viable long term solution for all concerned.

It seems that we always get sidetracked in these discussions: our focus must be to stop the boats because this is a cynical, exploitative, illegal and dangerous trade. How and where we process people once they have arrived is secondary. As the majority of the smuggling trade is based in Indonesia we must work with Indonesia and agree to establish a processing/temporary detention centre in Indonesia. This would immediately bring the trade to an abrupt stop as nobody is going to hand over $5000 to get on a boat only to be returned to where they came from.This is where Kevin Rudd comes in,as Foreign Minister, to negotiate at the highest level in Indonesia.

Oh well, it won't be long and you won't even hear about the boats.
Moves are being made to prevent video of illegals arriving being shown
by TV stations. ACMA is being requested to implement bans.

No doubt someone has taken a leaf out of the book by Goebbels, Stalin & Mao.

Saltpetre, wantok expressed my reason for not responding to yours and Ojnab's points on global issues. This thread is focused on a particular symptom, dangerous boat journeys.

One has to ask why, if Malaysia is so inhospitable towards refugees, that they make their way there. The matter that Malaysia is a non-signatory to the UN convention on refugees does not deter them, nor does it in relation to Indonesia, and nor did it in relation to Nauru in the past (before its status recently changed).

There are two approaches to deterring boats. Force them back, or, escort them safely to Australian landfall and tranfer them to Malaysia, or Indonesia as wantok suggests. You know my feeling about turning back boats. Both approaches result in the same outcome, but that's where the similarity ends.

Would Indonesia be opposed by the Coalition as a return destination given this same outcome? What significant difference between Malaysia and Indonesia can the Coalition cling to? Absolutely none, yet that is just what it is doing!

In fact, regarding Malaysia, Labor has extracted important committments re the treatment of the 800. They will be able to be formally employed, for example, which you raise as an important concern Salpetre. They don't get that in Indonesia where the Coalition would force them back to!

Regarding the number of processed refugees we take from Malaysia, the 4000 under the swap arrangement is not the sum total of refugees Australia will resettle from Malaysia. Our intake is not all about the swap arrangement.

The wider issues you and Ojnab raise are important, Saltpetre, and perhaps the subject for a new thread

Luciferase,

Confining the discussion to the boats is hardly going to provide a solution to the problem. Many thousands of 'refugees' have fled to Malaysia and Indonesia, and it is clear that these countries don't want them. (It is not unreasonable to assume that Indonesia has been turning a blind eye to the people trade, as it actually serves their interest not to interfere. Some officials may even be profiting from it?)

Aus, UNHCR, etc, could provide aid to Malaysia and Indonesia (and so many other 'host' countries) to establish world's best practice detention centres, and then to develop education and employment opportunities for all these 'refugees', but is this the best solution? Aid will still be needed to provide means to squash the people smuggling racket - but will this stop every boat? Every death in custody, or on the seas?

Long term detention, no matter where or how humane, is not a solution. We are left with a choice. Either all countries receiving 'refugees' open their borders to free immigration, or seal their borders and try to accommodate existing 'refugees' as best they can. Detention, re-education, and staged resettlement or return to home country; or welcome to the welfare state?

The situation in 'refugee' home countries is being improved. Until it improves further their will still be thousands alienated from their home soil, thousands fleeing from destitution and impoverishment.

Resettlement is the only solution. The only question is where? Home country, or new patron?

wrong wrong! Indonesia & Aussie Pollies do not have blood on their hands. Media jurnos have it; as too much is false info and just HOW much d they pay for their info and to whom I suggest? [News of The World closed due to improper media-jurno deals ok!]
No political person makes nor forces these persons onto these boats..THEY select this method of transportation. To stop all boat and human traffic MINE the coasts of the entire Indo coast lines and have 24/7 naval boats every 100 mtrs apart..ok... OR once caught return them to where they claim they come from..THAT VERY SAME DAY THEY ARE CAUGHT. We here can't solve the Global problem of others.
T Abbott is most at fault for dictating to his party..just like Hitler re The Jewish Solution..never worked did it? This is a historical fact, not diatribe ok

Some contributors here are of the same mentality as someone who needs to get blown up before they realise explosives are dangerous.
Some of you really don't have a minute's worth of foresight. Beats me how you made it this far ? Simply unbelieveable.

Duncan,
why is it australian & indonesian politicians who have blood on their hands ?
Firstly, it's those who make people leave for whatever reason who are guilty.
Secondly, killing seas ? I spend quite a lot of time on boats & I'd have thought seas by nature get rough occasionally & if people are unlucky enough to get caught then that's just that, unlucky. Don't blame the politicians for that. If you however have to blame politicians that you'll also have to blame the people who voted them in. I believe it was two blokes who did that in Australia.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Indy.

Oh boy Luciferase,

Thank you for your re-education reference to the Crikey article. Crikey is a Labor front organisation isn't it?. I read it. It was indeed enlightening. You might like to read it too.

Firstly it seems the propaganda of you labor die-hards is incorrect.

"'The second “successful” return of a boat to Indonesia involved an incident where a child was thrown overboard."

It seems there were many incidents of children being held overboard and it seems it occurred at least once.

The report presents obvious solutions to problems encountered in returning vessels. It seems the threat of publication of the disgraceful behaviour of the PII's (Potential Illegal Immigrants) and their actions actually deterred potential self harm and sabotage and saw the return of these bullying cowards to Indonesia.

'“The situation was serious enough to cause the Warramunga to go to action stations in readiness for a potential safety of life at sea situation, and only resolved when the potential illegal immigrants were shown that they were being videotaped and told that their actions would not assist their case with the Australian government.'

And finally you claimed deaths resulted when vessels were returned. Do you read the correction attached to the end of the Crikey article.

'UPDATE: This article originally said that the Four Corners report alleged that three men had drowned when returning to Indonesia on the SIEV 5. This is incorrect. Four Corners alleged that the three men drowned when the SIEV 7 was returned to Indonesia. The story has been updated, Crikey apologises for the error.'

It seems your truth of facts are based on a since corrected Crikey lie.

Now for some facts you ignore;

John Howards's Pacific Solution saved lives by stopping the boats.

Rudd and Gillard's relaxing and scrapping the Pacific Solution has encouraged boats and lead to deaths.

Only 40% of Illegal Immigrants sent to Nauru actually reached Australia.

Julia Gillard has the numbers in the Lower House to pass her Malaysian Solution. That fact that people like you inhabit the Labor side of Parliament means she cannot pass her legislation.

Number 801 will come up quite quickly. You people don't acknowledge realities. THe people smugglers like any business will overcome impediments to their business.

All they will do is offer a free trip to any PII who is returned to Malaysia and who can return to indonesia.

So now what about some really hard evidence there will be no number 801?

'Why do you think it took more than a dozen SIEV's for the actions of the Australian Navy to take effect?'

Simple, the PII's obviously weren't 'the sharpest tools in the shed' and repeated education was necessary ... that time. This time they will know we are serious.

It's time for you to stop repeating the Labor lies, blaming Tony and John Howard and get realistic Luciferase.

Discussion of this whole issue seems bedevilled as much by the things that are NOT being said, as by those that are.

The author, Duncan Graham, in an essentially unattributable reference in the 12th paragraph of the article, says:

"Press accounts in Australia allege
that corrupt officials in Soekarno-Hatta
were charging $US500 (Rp 4.5 million)
to let individuals without visas through
airport controls."

It seems readers of this article are meant to infer that would-be boat people enter the end-of-the-line Muslim country Indonesia through Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta international airport WITHOUT visas with the aid of corrupt airport control officials for a going price of US $500. This claim seems to be at some variance with one made by Julian Burnside QC, here: http://theconversation.edu.au/if-were-serious-about-stopping-the-boats-we-must-take-more-refugees-4820 , where, in speaking of would-be boat people, he says:

"With your family you make your way
to Indonesia, passing through Muslim
countries which allow free passage
to Muslims, but they do not offer
protection because they have not
signed the Refugees’ Convention."

What is the true position with respect to visa requirements at every step in the chain of passages that ends with an asylum-seeker boarding an illegal entry vessel somewhere in Indonesia that has as its destination Australia or its territorial waters?

The seeming 'free-passage-to-Muslims' aspect of this issue more or less ensures that the overwhelming majority of boat people will in consequence be Muslims. In its turn, this sheds light upon what at the time I thought was the strange opposition, expressed in the critique of the program 'Go back to where you came from', by a young Muslim woman that had grown up in Australia, to the five times more numerous prospective (as we have since learned) apparently non-Muslim beneficiaries aspect of the 'Malaysian solution' swap deal.

Given that the author routinely resides in Indonesia in winter, perhaps he could clarify exactly what the visa requirements in respect of Muslims travelling to, and/or through, Indonesia are?

Any foreign national entering Indonesia requires a passport and a visa, religion does not give an exemption.The boat people usually leave their travel documents with friends or family in Indonesia before boarding boats ; lack of documentation when intercepted virtually guarantees that they will be given the benefit of the doubt and accepted as refugees when processed by Australian officials.

http://www.kbri-canberra.org.au/consular/visa/visas.htm

“Resettlement is the only solution. The only question is where? Home country, or new patron?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 11:59:54 AM”

Saltpetre, how about this, we send them to New Zealand !
If they refuse to accept them, we then in turn, refuse to accept their unemployed !

A “Win Win” situation !

Arthur Bell.

Having just found this I can only say one word - crap.