really sad that Online Opinion is running an article from more than two weeks ago. Reading it in one location was enough.

Sev is out spreading his new right wing propaganda and misleading facts. Scary that he used to be Human Rights Commissioner.

a few points. The difficulty at the moment in sending many people home has nothing to do with them having destroyed documentation, it is because we don't have agreements to send people back to countries like Iran. They won't accept them, documents or not.

and many people do not have documents, eg if they grew up in a country that doesn't provide birth certificates, etc. or their documents were taken from them in their country, or they were a minority not entitled to Citizenship. Really an ex human rights commissioner should know this.

the recent increase in boat arrivals is clearly connected to the collapse of the Malaysia arrangement, not to processing some people in the community. Even DIAC admits that detaining refugees has never deterred boats. It is shocking that a former human rights commissioner is talking this way. Most plane arrivals are already processed in the community, they usually come in much larger numbers than boats, and they don't wait 5 to 10 years for processing.

this is such a bad piece, without any answers, not sure what it is doing on here. But could be why I don't come here much these days, sadly.

Rangeroad:

A host of OLO readers object to the opinions of others; one must be tough to survive debate on OLO: That is its main attraction to me.

diver dan, I like diversity of opinion and ones that give me something new to think about but this has already been published weeks ago and it doesn't offer anything exceptional. It is not informed and it is naive. I didn't even bother critiquing the whole piece but the idea about Indonesia shows such ignorance. Is he not aware of Indonesia's views on the signing the convention or on processing thousands more asylum seekers in their country. It is articles like this that stifle debate and keep people uninformed on actual facts. is it any wonder most people are confused on the subject?

and this ex human rights commissioner was one of the commissioners who conducted the review into children in detention which came up with a damning report. One of the findings was 'In particular, Australia's mandatory detention system fails to ensure that: detention is a measure of last resort, for the shortest appropriate period of time'

How disgusting that he now calls to keep that system in place knowing what he does.

There are 2 simple answers.

1/ No person who comes in without prior approval, & correct paper work should be ineligible to ever have access to family reunion.

Any boat illegally entering our waters should be ordered out, & sunk forthwith if it does not comply.

No further boat people, after a short period.

To me the main problem with illegal immigrants is that both sides are talking past each other, and that consequently nothing changes. We have a group of internationalists on one side, who seem unable to appreciate the principle of territoriality, and that admission to a territory must be by leave, and that entry without leave constitutes invasion. On the other side we have a country that has one of the most successful refugee resettlement programs in the world, which has settled well over 1 million refugees since WW2, and which is at risk because of illegal immigration. What I would love someone to explain to me is why a person who arrives illegally is more entitled to live here than someone who waits for years in a camp for permission to settle. If it is accepted that we cannot and will not accept the 150 million + people who would like to come here, what is wrong with Australia selecting people from the camps? I think a lot of activists want unrestricted admission, but just won't admit it.

We should take a lesson from East Germany and build a wall all around Australia. Look how well that worked… oops, sorry, they were trying to get out. Oh well, can’t be right all the time.

Why don't we run a bi-monthly fast ferry service from an agreed Indonesian port; to Christmas Island? That would put the people smugglers out of business; given, our fare structures would be a lot lower; and our ship; seaworthy; and, a lot safer!
The catch would be, the intending immigrants would have to allow their claims to be fully tested by medically assisted space age lie detection equipment! These checks could be carried in tandem with mandatory health checks.
Good moral character ought to be mandatory!
Anyone who has engaged in drug trafficking or prostitution; or, lived of the earnings of either, has to be rejected for permanent settlement. I mean, if it's good enough for our fellow Anzac kiwi cousins; to be automatically rejected for any and or all criminal behaviour!?
Once all that was satisfactorily completed; the intending immigrants, could be issued with bridging visas; fitted with mandatory ankle bracelets; and, sent to willing employers; and, placed on the same waiting list; as those waiting their legitimate turn in migrant camps. It might seem heartless, but, irregular arrivals ought to be obliged to become citizens, before family reunion is possible.
As for un-returnable Iranians? I'd return those we automatically reject by shipping them to the straights of Homuz and setting them adrift in small rubber boats, with enough food and water for a fortnight!
Others , willing to undertake voluntary repatriation; could be offered a cash settlement equivalent, with what it would cost us to incarcerate them for 2-3 years? Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago. Humane? Always! A soft touch preyed on by con artists? Never!

Regional co-operation is just another couple of words for "not here".

Why Sev is writing this as a "solution" is beyond me because the "solution" is to stop governments from all corners of the world persecuting their citizens so they can stay home but that is la la land stuff.

As we cannot legally demand any other nation on earth do our work for us why do these prattling old men have to keep prattling.

The way we treat people here is the point, and Sev has forgotten that people are refugees when they leave, not when they arrive here.

Maybe the only solution to the boats is to put all such arrivals immediately on a plane back to Indonesia (or other point of departure) - No Questions Asked! That should make them think twice. (If Indonesia is recalcitrant about this, just put the question; Why didn't they stop the boats departing their shores in the first place?)

Sev's bleeding heart is all well and good, with all the pie in the sky of a regional processing framework, but the reality is we have to stop people coming, not increasing our intake - unless we, the people, determine otherwise. I for one am not amused by our Gov unilaterally deciding to increase our 'refugee' intake. I suppose the next step will be a 'refugee levy'?

People without papers? Is it time we all got an ID Implant?

It is time for a world order, for an end to Capitalism for its own sake but rather as a mechanism for world development (within sustainable constraints) to put an end to massive inequity and to enable developing nations to become fully self-sustainable, and to educate with pupose of reducing population, and to put an end to violent conflict - which is all based on power and greed. It is time!

Sitting here reading the posts, I was reminded of an event that occurred in 1953. My parents had adopted a baby boy born 1951.

My brother was the youngest child of a woman who had escaped from behind the iron curtain at the height of the Cold War.

My mother had shown the adoption papers to a person from the mother's country.

He became upset and agitated at seeing the names of the parents on the piece of paper. The names on the documents were those of well known political and freedom fighters in the country the mother had fled from. The mother had a large family she left behind and adopted the child out so she could return to help them. Sound like a fairy tale, but sadly for some people it is true.

He begged my mother not to show it to anyone else. He suggested she destroy the papers or at least deposit them in a bank account. The man was also a refugee himself.

I believe we have to be in the position of refugees before we can understand the desperate need for secrecy the have,

Hasbeen, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant in Australia, there are just people without visas and there is no law broken for not having those visas.

And Salt, you say the same thing year in and year out. We cannot expel anyone at all without due process of the law.

Didn't you hear the high court just 4 months ago or do you choose to pretend you didn't hear.

Marilyn, just go sail into Indonesia, or Hong Kong, among many other countries, without a current visa, return air ticket, or a bank guarantee of same, & full documentation of your vessel, & find out about illegality.

You'll be out of there so quickly, & so much poorer, your head will still be spinning a week later.

Marilyn Shepherd,

So, the High Court determines the law of the land? And, we are so bound by our adoption of the Refugee Convention that our government cannot legislate to enable us to expel uninvited visitors?

Who is the ass here? (Or the donkey?)

Would you please stop and have a read of what is being written here.
It is so bigoted and racial that it is sickening.
Yes some of these dreaded boat people are probably not 100% refugees but they have made an incredibly tough journey to be here.
The only wrong they have done is to be used as a political football by politicians.
This is stirred up by the so-called investigative media, who are really acting on instructions from a press baron with an axe to grind.
The numbers that come in are so small that they could have no effect on the population here.
The numbers that are deliberately brought in by the government at the behest of big business is immense.
This is added to by the huge influx of “workers” on special visas.
If you subtracted the number of boat people from the hundreds of thousands of “legal” migrants they would pass unnoticed.
These are the people that won an election victory for Howard. They are not villains, criminals, or coming to take us over, just unfortunates.
Forget about them and get a life.

sarnian,

The idea is to stop the boats:- firstly to avert the possibility of deaths at sea on the way, secondly to secure orderly immigration, with preferrence being given to the most worthy refugees (those in real peril and/or who have been waiting longest for relocation), thirdly to smash the smuggling trade and to minimise the risk of 'unsuitable' imports (such as criminals posing as refugees), fourthly to save these poor 'refugees' the exorbitant cost of hopping a smuggler boat, and fifthly to avert long periods of detention and lengthy legal battles after which we are currently unable to send anyone anywhere; and finally to stop the cue-jumping (for it is 'means' rather than just 'need' which determines who is able to hop a boat).

The ultimate objective has to be to stem the flow by attending to the problems causing people to flee their home countries prematurely in the first place. We can't reverse history, but we must surely try our best to avert its continuation and repetition.

It's not a numbers game so much as a matter of principle; and of establishing a 'real' solution to the refugee problem, by treating causation rather than merely attending to the symptoms.

Sarnian,

We have 7 billion going on 9 or 10 billion people on a planet that could sustainably support perhaps 1 to 2 billion in modest comfort.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

Most of these people have rotten lives. This is not our fault, and there is nothing that we can do about it. As plerdsus has said many times, we could take in 80 million of them and turn our whole country into a stinking slum, and it would only amount to one year's global population growth.

It is true that the real population issue in Australia now relates to the legal immigration program, that asylum seeker numbers are relatively small, but why do you think it will stay that way? Asylum seeking started small and genuine in Europe as well. Numbers snowballed over the 1980s and 1990s, and became dominated by economic migrants. Between 1997 and 2004 there were half a million asylum claims in the UK, not counting dependants who arrived later. 23% were found to be genuine, including after appeal, and a further 14% were given leave to remain. 76% of the failed asylum seekers (all the rest) were not deported.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

The UNHCR has admitted that by the early 1990s, the vast majority of asylum seekers in Western countries were economic migrants

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

There is no reason why we could not withdraw from the Refugee Convention and take, say, 20,000 refugees a year - from the camps and giving preference to the people who actually stuck their necks out to fix their country's problems. Sev Ozdowski's solutions are unworkable.

A convention is just that; or if you will, a gentleman's agreement rather than inflexible law? We can and should throw out those that no longer serve our interest?
How much does it cost to inter a detainee? As much as $50-70,000 per person per annum. Take a family of four interred on Nauru for five years; and, well you do the maths, then add in the almost inevitable legal fees, someone somewhere has to find; as rejects exhaust all their legal options; and or stalling tactics, which could easily double the cost of incarceration inc.
It's not that I blame them; given, in their shoes, I'd likely be following the same path; and indeed, sharing the trauma around, with the entirely innocent kids in particular, who are not likely to understand; either their incarceration or the subsequent family split up; as we try to "manage" an intractable problem. Only ever likely to grow even more intractable; but, particularly if we give sanctuary to people who hate us, western values, and our largely Christian belief system?
We clearly don't need to import the problems these people are allegedly escaping from?
My first instinct would to offer them around half the combined probable cost of processing and keeping them; for immediate voluntary repatriation to their homeland; or, another country of their choice, which would welcome them and their religious disposition; or indeed; their new-found affluence; a once only, never ever to be repeated offer!

Any immigration policy that is dictated by the government (no matter which party) is politically-motivated and bound to be clumsy, ineffective, cruel, absurd and costly to the tax-payer.

Instead, immigration should be privatized: any Australian citizen and charitable organization who believes in helping either asylum seekers in general or specific asylum seekers, should show it by opening their pockets and sponsoring them. People who actually need to pay, apply common-sense rather than formal procedures and political-correctness, and therefore know best which are genuine and deserving refugees and which are not.

A quote from the Liberal Democratic Party policy-website: http://ldp.org.au/policies/1156-immigration

Unauthorized arrivals and refugees

It is important that Australia provide a sanctuary for people who are fleeing political oppression and persecution, both on compassionate grounds and to demonstrate to the rest of the world the attractions of a free and democratic society. Such people can also become fierce advocates of freedom in Australia, having experienced its loss.

It is necessary to do preliminary health and security checks on all people coming to Australia. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do these checks on unauthorized arrivals before they come to Australia. It is therefore necessary to detain unauthorized arrivals temporarily until basic health and security checks can be completed.

Following these checks the unauthorized arrival can then apply for PR either by paying the immigration fee, applying for an “immigration scholarship” or “immigration loan” or by applying for humanitarian consideration. The process of determining genuine refugee status will be limited to a tribunal of first instance and a single court of appeal. Both will be open to the public.

While awaiting a decision on humanitarian grounds, unauthorized arrivals can apply for temporary release, with bail conditions. Any individual or organization can offer to post a bail equal to the immigration fee. If the unauthorized arrival is denied entry on humanitarian grounds and they refuse to leave the country, then the bail money will be used to pay the immigration fee.

Quote: It is important that Australia provide a sanctuary for people who are fleeing political oppression and persecution, both on compassionate grounds and to demonstrate to the rest of the world the attractions of a free and democratic society. Such people can also become fierce advocates of freedom in Australia, having experienced its loss.

There are refugees and there are refugees. And what makes you think that all refugees support freedom and democracy? Many who come bring their own values, cultural and religious, that are contrary to Australian values. They come only for financial gain and welfare. They will not integrate nor respect the host population.

In case you haven't figured it out, I am talking about Muslims. Most of their problems are caused by their culture and religion, which they bring with them as so-called 'refugees'. Any country that accepts large numbers of Muslim immigrants is asking, begging for trouble. You would think, anyway, that they would be happier in Malaysia or Indonesia where Islamic values dominate, not among those vile, evil infidels.

Unfortunately, Australia must considered its own bests interests and say 'no' to all those who come uninvited. People take advantage of the West's humanitarian values and use them to destroy society in the name of misplaced 'compassion'. Yes, good people will suffer but it will be worse if we ignore the consequences of bad decisions.

PS: Australia is alone on this. To think that other Asia Pacific Region countries will cooperate and help, except for short term gain, is silly.

Dear Kactuz,

"And what makes you think that all refugees support freedom and democracy?"

I certainly don't think so! and that's the beauty of the LDP's policy: if Australians do not believe that Muslims (since that's the example you gave) are genuine and deserving refugees, then they will simply not sponsor them! The government cannot make such politically-incorrect decisions, but individual Australians can. If you do decide to sponsor a Muslim, paying some 6-figure sum to allow him/her in, then you would surely have done your homework and are convinced that they and their circumstances are indeed exceptional.

Further, if you read down the same link (Liberal Democratic Party policies), you will see that immigrants (permanent-residents) will not be entitled to welfare for at least 10 years, so that takes out those who come for welfare.

P.S. Why complain about refugees not supporting freedom and democracy while the Australian government doesn't support those either!?

I think a return to John Howards Pacific solution is the most effective solution. It worked last time and they stopped coming almost overnight.
Kevin Rudd stupidly demolished the offshore detention and opened the gates to these people again. It has also opened up another problem with the growth in appeal and legal action by the burgeoning immigration legal industry.

It is not legal to shove away people without due process. End of story.

Get a grip some of you racist cowards and ask "what if it was me".