I agree with "Knowingly instituting a policy which puts lives at risk is inconsistent with Australia's obligations."

Then Labor's Policy of dismantling the Pacific solution, which has lead to a massive surge in unseaworthy vessels setting out for Australia, and an estimated 1000 or so deaths at sea is the worst policy possible.

This dangerous Labor/Green genocide should be stopped as quickly as possible.

There is a report today claiming that 1 million Iraqis have been killed in our war of choice, we have known for a good long time that Afghanistan is hellish for the minorities like the Hazara, that thousands of women die in child birth every year and 25-37% of children die before they are 5.

Yet we only give Afghanistan $120 million or $4 per person per year in aid and spend $500 million a year jailing the few thousand Afghan refugees who get here.

It is illegal to turn anyone from our shores unless they come with guns and bombs, yet we expect Afghanistan and Iraq to allow us to enter when we feel like it with bombs and guns.

Under the law of the sea it is illegal for us to interfere with any vessel until they are in our contiguous zone just 20 nm from the shores, and once they are in those areas we have to assess their claims.

I do wish our two "leaders" would find out the law and treat humans who have just asked us for help with respect instead of worse than mass murdering invaders.

160 children were found dumped in Leonora alone on Australia day, some have been for 2 years but nothing is done.

I am sick to death of what passes for debate about this.

The refugee convention is legally binding, the high court affirmed that just 5 months ago today.

Labor Green genocide. Do you have fair knowledge of this claim.

And lets examine the "facts" of drownings.

The fact is that apart from one cover up where 353 people drowned in one year almost no-one has drowned. In fact just 100 in the last 13 years when SIEVX is excluded.

But in those 13 years nearly 5,000 Australian's have drowned, about 1 million Iraqis have been killed, 113 million kids under 5 died of disease and starvation.

Then we get to the thousands who didn't drown - we didn't care a fig about them, we jailed them until the results that we saw on The Man Who Jumped on SBS last week.

Today we are still jailing them even though it has been illegal for 20 years and Bowen has a piece in the Tele about Abbott not "making a deal", he is lying and knows he is.

There is a deal, it's bipartisan (until these two racist boat people got hold of it) and is legally binding law - it's 60 years old and Bowen reaffirmed our commitment to it just 7 weeks ago, in particular the non-expulsion of asylum seekers.

People in this country still do not or do not want to understand that the resettlement program is voluntary and nothing to do with the law.

Question: When can a country intercept a vessel?

Answer: If it clearly intends to illegally enter another country’s waters – as soon as it leaves its port of origin.

If this is the case, the boat can legally be turned around or if necessary, the refugees taken directly to Nauru or Malaysia, with no issues w.r.t. the high court decision.

Shadow Minister, that is not true. It has never been true and never will be true except in the feeble brains of Australians.

But let's have the head of border command tell us what the law is.

L&C 122 Senate Monday, 8 February 2010
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr Carmody—It is a bit hard to talk about responsibility. Ultimately Border Protection Command can only intercept vessels on the contiguous zone around Australia, which is about 20 nautical miles around Australian territory"

So to claim that we can prevent people leaving other countries is ludicrous.

And they are not entering 'illegally', they are legally seeking asylum.

Let's see what the courts ruled on that in 2002.

31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as "unlawful" serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a "valid permission to enter and remain in Australia". The use of the term "unlawful" does not as such refer to a breach of a law.”

And this:62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.

Marilyn please, facts don't get in the way of Shadow Spinmeister.

Marilyn.

<<I am sick to death of what passes for debate about this>>

And so am I Marilyn, so am I...most of what passes for debate, at least that which emanates from the refugee activist side,is more like sermonizing than debating.

It usually starts off with some activist with a big heart and a small understanding of real world situations telling us they are going to teach us the "facts" & whats true & what's not.

Then they proceed to tell us that country A is a horrible place.
And to reinforce it they start quoting things like:
<<thousands of women die in child birth every year and 25-37% of children die before they are 5>>
<< and millions of dead due to war (flood or famine)>>
And of-course it's somehow all our fault.
If we are there, we are faulted because we should not be there.
If we are not there, there we faulted because we should be there.
And in either case, we are obliged to take in anyone who can tell a good sob story and claims to be from country A.

It doesn't make an iota of difference that neither high infant mortality nor having a war in your country qualifies you for refugee status under the convention --the purpose is only to instil guilt, intimidate.

It is of-course no surprise that they often gain the endorsement of AGW believers. Since both groups have common ground: both want to make OZ the soup kitchen for the world.

The AGWers wants to do it under the guise of climate change & secret IPCC treaties.And the refugee activists want to do it under the guise of the Refugee Convention and economic migrants posing as refugees.

Did I say that it was our fault they die in childbirth? I don't think so but after 10 years of occupation and it is worse one would have to think that we are at least partly to blame.

The thing is that only 4500 people claimed asylum here last year after coming by sea and all but a handful will be allowed to stay so why do we continue this nonsensical "debate".

The convention is legally binding. End of debate.

Very true Marilyn.

Yet SPQR rants on about global warming - go figure?

Marilyn,

<<but after 10 years of occupation and it is worse one would have to think that we are at least partly to blame>>

"According to USAID, infant mortality rate has decreased by 22% and child mortality has dropped by 26% since 2003. It was reported in 2006 that nearly 60% of the population lives within two hours walking distance of the nearest health facility, up from nine percent in 2002.[2] The average life expectancy at birth was reported in the past at about 47 years[3] but has risen to as high as 64 for both sexes.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Afghanistan

Not sure where you get your figures from --Radio Taliban?
But judging from the above, it would seem praise rather than blame would be in order. And things might have improved even further if the Taliban had not persisted in blowing up hospitals and murdering medical staff!

<<The thing is that only 4500 people claimed asylum here last year after coming by sea and all but a handful will be allowed to stay so why do we continue this nonsensical "debate">>
Only 4500...claimed asylum ...by sea!
But if most play the game I can't remember the <<exact date of (my) birth>> .Then cry "I want my mummy & relos" as was the case here:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/high-court-rules-for-afghan-refugee/story-e6freooo-1226222067060
"Mr Shahi came to Australia in May 2009 and was granted a protection visa.Seven months later he applied for a global special humanitarian visa for HIS MOTHER AND OTHER RELATIONS"
You can multiply it by any positive number you like.

<<all but a handful will be allowed to stay>>
Come-on, be honest, even when they don't pass they get to stay,like this bunch:
<<More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected>>
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

<<The convention is legally binding>>
The convention is a farce. It has no more credibility than the Tooth Fairy & Easter Bunny ...or Bonmot.

Well. of course Adam is a passionate supporter of boat people. As a lawyer, he is touting for business. I don't know how much of the $100,000 dollars per person that each boatperson costs the Aussie taxpayer to process goes to lawyers, but you can bet thqt Adam and his ambulance chasing mates will be doing their best to make sure that the proportion is as high as possible.

MS,

The numbers drowning are not just those confirmed, but also includes boats that left Indonesia and never arrived anywhere. Look it up the numbers are between 500 and 1000 since 2008.

As for your contiguous zone, There is a 20 Nm contiguous zone of territorial water, in which people will be considered to be subject to Australian law, there is a further 20Nm contiguous zone which is not territorial waters, but in which the navy can intercept law breakers, but they are not considered to be in Australia. Beyond this boats cannot be boarded or interfered with UNLESS there is strong evidence that the boat is headed directly for one's territory.

This last clause was used when the Israelis intercepted the Turkish boat headed for Gaza.

As for the UNHCR charter, perhaps you should actually read it. If you do, then you will find that everything Howard did complied with the letter of the charter if not your interpretation.

For example, you cannot detain someone that has been determined to be a refugee, but you can detain them pending determination of status.

Shadow, 350 people are missing on a New Guinea ferry today, all believed to be drowned. Should we demand now that New Guinea "stop the boats". The ridiculous notion that we can stop anyone from being on the water has to stop. It is not our right.

LEGO, the $100,000 per refugee mostly goes to the British prison company SERCO, the lawyers work free.

That has been known for years.

Not only do SERCO get most of the money they make profits they then send to the boss in Britain to bolster his billions.

The lawyers here get nothing unless they are prepared to work for the government against refugees.

Enough. The cost is imposed on us by the government and no-one else - the proof is in the fact that each asylum seeker who flies here costs the community about $2500 each because we don't jail and abuse them.

MS,

After the elections in 2007 there were 4 asylum seekers in detention. Thus only a tiny fraction of the suffering and cost that Labor is responsible for.

I really have trouble believing that lawyers work for nothing, MS.

And if most of the $100,000 per illegal immigrant goes to SERCO, then I consider that a plus. Because if we didn't lock these people up, instead of arriving in old fishing boats, they would be chartering the QE2.

Could I ask you something, Maralyn? Why is it that you hate your own people so much that you want to turn your own country into another third world cesspit, full of third world people? The importation of Vietnamese "refugees" into Australia has resulted in a heroin plague which is killing 1000 Australians every year. And the importation of Lebanese and Arabs 'refugees" has seen 70 Australian girls gang raped, and entire suburbs turned into bullet spattered ethnic ghettoes with high rates of serious criminal behaviour and welfare dependency.

Yet you want to bring more people like that here? Haven't you caused enough damage to your own society already?

You know, Maralyn, I was born into very serious poverty. My father was killed in an industrial accident, my mother was unmarried, and she led a heroic life just keeping the two of us fed. When I was 9, my mother and I used to sleep in the same single bed in a room rented from pensioners. We waited six years for a Housing Commission flat, and we moved in with a folding card table, a TV, and an ironiong board. We slept upon the concrete floor.

Then we found out that out immediate neighbours, who were migrants, had waited only two years for their flat. I will never forget the shock of that discovery on my mother. She said that "the government thinks more of foreigners than their own people."

And that is the charge I level at you, Maralyn. I just do not know why you prefer foreigners to your own. Please consider me your implacable enemy who opposes everything you stand for.

LEGO, you make a very compelling argument, but I have to admit, after viewing the SBS documentary on the fellow who jumped at the Woomera detention centre, I am having a real problem balancing reason with emotion. The world is such a stuffed-up place in many parts, and I know we can't solve it all with the stroke of a pen, or with aid or intervention, yet I feel strongly for these boat people - even though I can't help thinking many could be classed as 'economic' or queue jumpers.

I am also extremely annoyed that it took so long for the SBS piece to be put together, or to be put to air. Why a delay of so many years to bring this predicament to public notice? Not just the case of the guy who jumped, but the stories of all those other poor lot? Cover-up? Shame! Disgusting shame!

The previous documentary 'Back to where you came from' (or such) was also compelling on the human side, but this recent doco was enormously more compelling on a humanitarian side. We just can't continue doing this sort of thing to people, any people, whoever they may be and wherever they may have come from. It is a dilemma, with absolutely no easy solution.

I was previously dead against opening the flood gates. I am having to rethink my position, delving for a humanitarian and economically feasible resolution - as the attendant problems are not going away any time soon.

So, until a way can be found to resolve these overseas problems I am moving to a view of meeting some of our supposed labour shortage, and Julia's aspirations for bolstering manufacturing and industry, by finding suitable work for our boat arrivals, and if necessary going into budget deficit to make it happen. We are multicultural, there are problems (as Lego has mentioned), but a humanitarian solution must be found - with no mums, kids or families in detention, and only refusing criminals.

Question: How can someone/thing be labelled unlawful, yet is breaking no law? Counterintuitive or contradictory?

Hi Saltpetre, you seem like a nice person with humanitarian ideals, exactly the sort who's values and attitudes can be manipulated by the self serving film producers at SBS. The media has the power to alter the values, attitudes and behaviours of entire nations, a fact that nations, (both democratic and totalitarian) are fully aware of.

It can sell products, set fashions, promote ideas, champion causes, create heroes, create villians, generate approval, incite rebellions, provoke wars, sponsor charities, win elections and arouse emotions.

It is a pity that you missed a news article, some years ago, about a young Australian single mother with two sick kids who was living in a car next to a park in Sydney, because she had nowhere else to live. (one of her children has since died.) Yet the Australian government has no trouble renting entire motels and filling them up with illegal immigrants, and buying dozens of suburban houses in St Mary's and filling them up with black African families.

THAT is the sort of thing which plays on my emotions, Saltpetre. It engenders enormous sympathy from me for her plight because I can relate directly to her and her children. While at the same time it engenders total hatred of an uncaring government which puts the welfare of foreigners above that of its own people. And it engenders loathing in me for these foreigners, who barge into my country, push deserving poor Australians to the rear, and who loot our social security system to who's upkeep they have never donated a penny.

Especially when these foreigners repay the Australian people with behaviour which is clearly unacceptable.

Sorry mate. In my emotional responses, in Australia, the welfare of Australians comes first. Perhaps you think that is hard, but I learned the hard way why this must be so.

SPQR,

People who think that the overwhelming majority of experts are likely to be right about AGW, and not stupefied by groupthink or part of some vast conspiracy, should be even more concerned about high immigration and open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. If our agriculture is at risk of a big hit from AGW, then we need even bigger safety margins. We currently export about 60% of our grain in an average year and 40% in a typical drought year. Production might halve with peak phosphate, etc., even without AGW. What killed all those Irish in the Potato Famine, when the late blight was repeatedly wiping out entire crops, was that so many Irish were living on plots of land that were too small to feed a family on anything but potatoes. (Potatoes had been a wonderful new superfood that could feed three times as many people to the hectare as grain under Irish conditions. The Irish then increased their population from about 1.2 million in 1600 to 8.5 million in the 1840s.)

Saltpetre,

Before you let your heart get in the way of your head, you should consider the facts about environmental limits and about how Malthusian trap societies (the sources of most of our asylum seekers) actually work. See this Nature paper on 9 serious thresholds that will put us out of a "safe operating space for humanity".

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Open version:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

See also the Global Footprint Network 2010 atlas, where they have actually done the math on resources and consumption.

http://issuu.com/globalfootprintnetwork/docs/ecological-footprint-atlas-2010/1?mode=a_p

The bottom line is that there isn't enough to go around even for the present gloal population, with the resources of about 3 Earths required to give everyone a minimally decent standard of living. We humans are also in danger of destabilising important natural systems that are keeping us alive. A nation state's first obligation is to its own citizens.
(cont'd)

(cont'd)

In Malthusian trap societies, people outbreed their resources and overexploit their environment, sometimes out of sheer greed as in developed countries, but often just to stay alive. Amy improvements to carrying capacity due to better crops or new technology simply result in more people living at the same bare subsistence level. See the graphs for the poor countries on page 26 of the Atlas I linked to. The ultimate result is a large population living in grinding poverty under a tyranny and liable to collapse because safety margins are so thin.

When there is no strong central government to stop them, people try to drive off or kill their neighbours to take what they have. All the land the Afghan refugees left behind now belongs to someone else. Although ethnic or religious tensions get the blame, religion and ethnicity simply function as good rallying points when people join up sides. In the Rwandan genocide, Roman Catholic Hutus killed other Roman Catholic Hutus in districts where there weren't any Tutsis, and the people who were killed were likely to have been involved in disputes over land.

The only cure is for the poor countries to get themselves out of the Malthusian trap, as many other countries have done before them, not for people like Marilyn Shepherd to coo over them and shield them from the consequences of bad decisions at the expense of the rest of us. Instead of telling us to take them in, perhaps you should be telling them to have fewer babies, support honest and competent leaders, and change cultural patterns that have become dysfunctional and are keeping them poor and miserable.

Hi Divergence,

I am reluctant to cross swords with you because I consider you to be one of the more enlightened posters on OLO --a white hat, whose posts are always well written & reasoned.

I agree that anyone genuinely concerned about the environment should be on the stop-the-boats side of the debate --as you clearly are.
Nevertheless, if you do a survey of posters on OLO & other sites you will find that the most ardent believers in AGW are also the most ardent supporters of (what amounts to) open borders. AGW & immigration are both convenient tools to bludgeon the "robber baron" West.

It is always a good idea to reduce pollution & minimize waste. But I don't think that your scientific consensus tells us that CO2 emissions are the ONLY factor affecting climate.Yet it is implied (almost daily) that if we control CO2 we would stabilize climate.

And far from solving problems, the IPCC potlatches have made things worse--see here:

"Changes in the weather and climate used to be blamed on gods or demons, but no longer. If something nasty happens - meteorologically and climatically - in the developing world today, a cacophony of voices invariably insists it is the developed world's fault. Most delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) seventeenth annual meeting of its Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, agreed with this alleged causal connection."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002

Now thanks to the IPCC & its acolytes, all other problems are *caused by climate change*--and we have a nice Little Red Hen situation:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/
We have most of the world, who when they're not hard at it making babies,are sitting on their hands waiting for an invite to the next free lunch.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is NOT the only contributing factor to climate change, that is the consensus.

It is however a significant component, that is also the consenssus.

"Yet it is implied (almost daily) that if we control CO2 we would stabilize climate."

A lie, distortion or misrepresentation from someone who clearly does not understand the science.

Some 'sceptics' only see and hear what they want to see and hear.

*The only cure is for the poor countries to get themselves out of the Malthusian trap, as many other countries have done before them, not for people like Marilyn Shepherd to coo over them and shield them from the consequences of bad decisions at the expense of the rest of us*

Great posts Divergence, well written and informed. But I suspect that
there is a certain percentage of the population, so overcome with
emotion and empathy, that they throw all reason and examination of
the big picture, clean out of the window. The Marilyn's of this
world come to mind.

Sadly it seems that our species needs pain to learn the realities
of nature. Perhaps that will be it's eventual downfall.

The question that the author seems to have avoided is this;

How can Indonesia refuse entry to passengers on an Indonesian vessel
even if those passengers are rescued by a ship of another nation ?

What would happen if an inter island ferry sank, could Indonesia
refuse entry to those rescued ?

Or is Indonesia using the nationality of the passengers to refuse entry ?

The navy is perfectly capable of stopping some of the boats. If a retired commander doesn't think they should, some captains will.