The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The 'Malaysia solution': has its time now come? > Comments

The 'Malaysia solution': has its time now come? : Comments

By Clive Kessler, published 27/6/2012

The 'Malaysia solution' could encourage Malaysia to act in accordance with international human rights law.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
...Well, like Labor, if you live in a lemon grove, it becomes essential to advertise lemons!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 9:32:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”

In 2001 53 boats brought 5516 people.

The Pacific solution was implemented and in 2002 1 boat brought in 1 person.

The Labor Governments have changed the policy.

In 2011 69 boats brought in 4,572 people.

In the first six months of 2012 64 boats have brought in 4,587 people.

When the Rudd Government was elected there were 4 people in mandatory detention.

Currently the number exceeds 6,500 despite nearly 100% immigration approval.

The Labor policy has been a complete failure and Gillard's stubborness in refusing to revert the policy to what worked is why she and all those like her have blood on their hands.

This is a wonderful example of why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by EQ, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 9:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaters that have spent their last dollar on a tour, only to find they are sent back to Malaysia, in exchange for some refugees that have been processed, would soon wake up that the tour would be a waste of money.
MR Rabbitt knows this as well, but doesn't want that to happen.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 9:59:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I see it we have just two choices?
If we are to see less human beings drowning at sea, we have no other choice but to choose one or the other?
I can't really judge people who want to live in the land of the free or milk and honey? I wouldn't want to live anywhere else either!
So, the two choices are, the Malaysian solution. And God willing, the international spotlight that comes with it, will ameliorate against any remnant human rights abuses?
Or, we could simply run a very safe, fare free, bi monthly, fast ferry service from an agreed Indonesian port, exclusively for documented claimant refugees?
It would probably cost us less than the existing patrol and or rescue missions that currently put Australian lives at risk also!
Either solution is acceptable, albeit, the latter has to be accompanied by far more professional identity checks and conformation, that must be assisted by non invasive space age lie detection!
Never ever again can we allow our egos to assist (a) criminal people smuggler(s), preying on human misery, to migrate here, posing as (a) bona fide asylum seeker(s)!
Clearly, criminal psychopaths can easily deceive our best interrogators or interrogation methods?
But even the most accomplished bare-faced liar, cannot deceive space age thermal imaging, or commuter assisted facial recognition, that picks up the micro facial movements, that tell us that we are listening to a lie. Liars must either come clean when challenged, or face being repatriated forthwith, no ifs buts or maybes!
If intending asylum seekers pass our health and intergrity tests, I see no valid reason, why they can't live, work and play amongst us. Albeit, wearing a compulsory ankle bracelet and required to reside in the community or rural property that welcomes/wants them?
At least that way, we would no longer be creating even more postcode poverty traps/ghettos!
Moreover, they would be able to work and or, pay their way, while their claim(s) was/were being processed?
There are plenty of jobs, and some seasonal harvest related work, going begging in the bush! Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 10:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who thinks the 'Malaysian Solution' is a solution to anything has rocks in their heads. It's another Gillard 'moment', a silly scheme that profits no one.

Australia has to grow up, become mature for a change, accept responsibility, discover compassion, contribute to world peace and cooperation instead of dancing to America's imperial tune.

Getting rid of Gillard ASAP is the first step towards our deliverance!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 11:46:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only reason, I believe, we still see asylum seekers drowning and or, boats overfilled with irregular arrivals, is because and for patent partisan politics, Tony Abbott said, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! To changing the law, to allow offshore processing to resume!
Self evidently, he seems to believe more boat arrivals suit his self serving political purpose and, is patently terrified that the, never ever tried or given a chance, howled down Malaysian solution, will be far more successful than the, [as determined by the highest court in the land,] illegal pacific solution.
Even were the Labour party to cave in to his seemingly inhumane and patently unchristian intransigence, he would still have to agree, to a legislative solution to legalise his preference.
One notes, that the multi billion dollar pacific solution, didn't stop the flow of genuine refugees to this country, just paused/parked and or rerouted it!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 12:14:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/people-smuggling-crisis-advice-given-on-duping-officials/story-fn7x8me2-1226406361180

What no party is addressing is the reality that the UN Convention
is 60 years out of date and people are jumping through big holes
in the sieve. So rather than accepting the neediest 13000 people,
we accept those with the money, who can play the system like a
fiddle. Australia, the gullible nation!

Our politicians need testicles. Update our agreement to the Convention, as the UNHCR is not going to do it, without it being
pushed.

Until this is done, the present jokes will continue. We really need
a bipartisan approach to that, so that it can happen and finally
a solution be found which matches the reality of 2012, not 1951.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Juliar should simply stop saying Noooooooo to the proven pacific solution. Until she tries this, she has no leg to stand on.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:33:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Orwell is reported to have said (it may be apocyphal) that "some ideas are so stupid only an academic could believe them"

Emeritus Professor Kessler surely exemplifies that statement with this offering:

"Implementation of the “Malaysia solution” would soon put enormous pressure on Malaysia to treat all refugees there in the same, more “enlightened” way, in accordance with the basic requirements of international human rights law and practice."

"Beyond that, this liberalising momentum would, in turn, further increase humane pressures on Malaysia to act in general in accordance with international human rights law and practice, not simply in refugee and immigration matters but towards its own citizens, all of them"
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 2:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IF off-shore processing,

then why not Nauru ?

Nauru has signed the necessary human rights conventions. Malaysia hasn't.

But of course, as Dr Kessler suggests, we can tell Malaysia to (a) take our refugees and (b) sign the necessary conventions.

And quick-smart too.

So that's the European economic crisis sorted, the refugee crisis sorted AND Malaysia's human rights agenda improved.

Not a bad day's work, Julia :)

When will they ever learn from us ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 3:48:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No. It is illegal, we don't trade and traffic in human beings and break the law and our own constitution to do it.

We want to let people get here and then send them away to die.

Is there something in your brains that makes you cretins.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 3:48:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Marylin, but despite you wanting to bemother them all,
Australia cannot save the world.

We need to come clean on what we actually believe. We'll accept
13000 a year and it would be nice to think that these are the
most deserving, not those best able to manipulate the system to
their advantage.

The present UN Convention is a joke, we need to update it.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 4:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is not how it works Yabby.
We can choose to only accept 6000 from over seas but we cannot dictate how many arrive here and ask for protection.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 4:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree wholeheartedly with Rhian. Professor Kessler's grossly idealistic espoused 'Utopian' derivatives of his proposed 'solution' totally defy credibility.

One undeniable truth in this piece:
>..even the refugees themselves are acting with an undeniable and pronounced degree of similar premeditation in their plans to reach and secure asylum here.<

Can we blame the "refugees" for their motivations? No, of course not. Can we blame their countries of origin for generating that motivation? Yes, most certainly - as we can also blame all of those countries who have passed 'the problem' on, one after another, perhaps sifting the chaff on the way, retaining cash handouts and perhaps some 'worthy' souls, and then passing on the 'detritus' to the next way-station. A stream of human misery preyed upon mercilessly by all concerned, and far from least by Indonesia - as it purportedly harbours and even promotes the 'people smugglers' - and Malaysia, whose treatment of non-residents is abysmal.

I agree with Rhrosty that space-age lie-detection should be employed to determine the bona fides of all asylum seekers - preferably at their country of origin, or at first port of call outside those borders - with genuine refugees given safe harbour and given a UNHCR 'green card' for early placement in an acceptable host nation - and with miscreants either placed in detention or repatriated immediately.

Action: International pressure must be put on Indonesia to stamp out people smugglers and smuggling, to stop the boats at source, and to implement effective 'refugee' processing, and international aid provided to assist both Indonesia and Malaysia with such endeavours and with managing their overall refugee or alien intrusion problems - as also to all countries in the exodus pathway.

In the end result, the only solution is to facilitate the earliest possible repatriation of as many refugees as possible to their home countries - by all countries participating in resolving the problems causing the 'refugee problem' in the first instance - and with only 'endangered' refugees relocated to host nations.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 5:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*but we cannot dictate how many arrive here and ask for protection.*

We certainly can Marylin, that is purely up to our politicians.

At the moment we abide by the out of date convention, because its
easier to do so, not because Australians accept an open door policy
to millions.So like it or not, you won't save the world, as they
are breeding far faster, at a quarter million more people per day, than
you or Australia can ever save them.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 5:17:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Yabby we can't decide how many people can claim asylum because everyone has the right to do so.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 5:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can change that very quickly Marylin, by changing the terms
under which we abide by the convention. A bipartisan approach
by the two major parties would ensure that. The Australian
public would be overwhelmingly behind it, bar a small number
of dreamers. Enough boats and that is exactly what will happen,
as public pressure rises. But at the moment Tony and Julia are
so eager to outsmart one another, its not yet being considered.
It will, when it needs to be. People learn by pain, after all,
including Australians. Sorry Marylin, but you won't save the
world, no matter how much your heart bleeds.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 5:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can determine how many stay and how many are removed to Malaysia, Marilyn, not how many come.

Reinstatement of Howard's legislation will not make a difference, so why waste time over it? The naval blockade was easily circumvented by either reaching waters or using the UN maritime convention outside them.

Nauru detention was no more daunting than anywhere else under Australian care. in fact, they desperately fought to be taken there rather than be turned back.

TPV's saw higher proportions of women kids coming.

Any supposed success of the legislation in the past was due to push factors waning and people drowned under Howard's legislation.

Why would the Mad Monk, who knows all this want the Gov't to accept this path? Morrison was skitish about whether it would even be acceptable if the Gov't agreed to it, and the High Court has to like it too. Anyway, it's too good a crisis-creation device to let go of now, with an election around the corner.

The Malaysian swap, with UN and Greens and High Court blessing, is the only solution that has a chance of effectively stopping unsafe boats and drownings other than laying out a welcome mat and allowing the running a safe sea-shuttle and flight services into Australia.

Incidentally, I think we can increase our intake of all migrants, asylum seeking or otherwise, to a higher finite limit than currently, and the Greens should pursue this as a condition of their agreement with the swap.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 6:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can and should send asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for five times as many genuine refugees.
Yes, the Malaysian solution only returns men.
However, we can reopen Nauru, as a temporary detention centre, exclusively for women and children.
The centre has a village like atmosphere, a health clinic and a school.
Neither Malaysia or Nauru hold people behind razor wire, and the enduring shame of the Howard admin.
We are just one of 3 countries that resettle significant numbers of refugees.
There are 15 million people currently residing in hell hole refugee camps, sometimes for many decades!
Each and every one of the boat arrivals, potentially deprives a genuine legal refugee of a resettlement place.
Hardly fair, particularly, when recent revelations have established that people smuggling criminals, were allowed in and given refugee status and family reunion entitlements.
How many other non genuine extremely deceitful refugees, have slipped in under the postured guise of genuine legal asylum seekers? [And Marilyn wants an open door policy?]
It really is time we took full control of this problem.
In conclusion, family reunion ought only be progressed, when and if intending refugees become committed fully accepted/sponsored, integrated/assimilated Citizens?
This will also act to slow down the irregular arrivals, who basically have more money and means, than those confined for desperate decades in very very basic/primative refugee camps, and then rely on family reunion to bring other family members here, which in turn, compels even more genuine refugees, to wait even longer!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 6:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby what is the most deserving and what does that have to do with anything?

I am more deserving than many but that means nothing at all.

When people have protection in one country they are not covered by the refugee convention.

So why do people in this country think we can unilaterally break the law and expect our 147 partners to agree with us.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 7:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "Malaysia Solution". We send a lucky 800 back to Malaysia (instead of Indonesia, from whence they probably came), and of course to wonderful 'new age' living conditions, as assured by the fully honest, compassionate Malaysians - and what sort of tortuous process will be used to select those 'lucky 800' anyway?
And then we receive 4,000 'genuine' approved refugees, to be housed in the community, supposedly, and under conditions which some homeless Aussies would give their eye teeth for. And then it starts again, 800 back, 4,000 in - or 4,000 in and then, maybe, 800 back. 20,000 in, to 4,000 back? Malaysia will be pleased.

My what a lovely circus, while many thousands or millions sit in desperate squalor in refugee camps elsewhere in the world, many even more worthy than those who have had the means to make it to Indonesia or to Oz. Many with families and therefore unable to embark on such a treacherous journey even across one border, let alone many - and with border personnel with their hands out at every crossing point.

Even from Malaysia we are looking at those who have forced their way to the head of the queue - with next stop Oz. Fully fair? Don't think so.

So some families send forth one or two pioneers - mostly young men - but of course the rest of the family stay at home 'in obvious peril for their lives', as we have so often been assured, but of course these pioneers are 'genuine refugees'. Yeh, right.

But of course we helped generate this crisis through our assistance with invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our support of incursions elsewhere, so of course we have to take all the displaced persons we can possibly house, in view of our guilt? The best of intentions gone badly astray, and now we have to pay. I remain unconvinced - except for the possibility that in our generosity we may end up importing some of the sectarian hatreds directly responsible for so many of these displaced persons in the first place. Buyer beware.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 28 June 2012 12:03:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

What law has the pacific solution broken?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 28 June 2012 7:41:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Malaise solution; a mere bagatelle. With the first 800 landing Christmas Island week likely to occur soon the rerouting of 2% (for the innumerate, 1 week of 52, less religious holiday celebrations is 2%) is a rounding quantity. Plus the evil of sending people to a non UN signatory country, especially an officially Racist one such as Malaysia (status of Bumiputra) just shows Labors contempt and indifference for ordinary people.
Labor admits to drowning 1 in 25 of boat people, given their facility in lying what is the true value, 1 in 20, 15 or even 10?
Posted by McCackie, Thursday, 28 June 2012 10:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have as much sympathy for asylum seekers as you could get, but am not happy with the alternatives offered by anybody.
I strongly suspect that by increasing the numbers accepted, as the Greens wish us to do, you would also increase the demand - hundreds of thousands more people would clamour to be let in. We risk establishing a third world type slum if we take in so many. Australia is an expensive place to live! I understand the reasons behind the various parties' policies but none of them seem to be good value for money, or particularly kind to asylum seekers.
Let's be very careful what we agree to, as once all these people arrive there is no sending them back again. Would we make a rod for our backs which is irreversible?
I have another suggestion here - as costs are so much cheaper in third world countries, let's find a third world nation who is willing to accept the refugees on our behalf, in exchange for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would cost us to accommodate, feed and support them. We take our businesses offshore, including printing and various other things as it's so much cheaper. Let's take our asylum seekers permanently offshore as well - let them find new homes in cheaper countries and give those countries the money we would have spent. Everyone would be much better off!
Already I put a large proportion of my wages into assistance for charities in third world countries. We would get far better value for money and it would create more jobs in the third world country of choice
Posted by JudyMacD, Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The high court told us what law we had broken. It is illegal to expel any person from our shores without due process of the law and under our constitution we cannot make that law anything we deem it to be.

Under the constitution anyone has the legal right to appeal to the first court of the land, that is what law it broke.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 28 June 2012 4:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marylin,

Obviously you read a different judgement. There is no constitutional prohibition, neither was there any direct criticism of off shore processing. The judgement was directly aimed at the Malaysian solution and the lack of legal guarantees.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 28 June 2012 5:37:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I understand that with the Malaysian solution we ship 1200 boat people to Malaysia and in return accept 5000 refugees held in Malaysia. At the rate the boats are coming we will receive an additional 5000 refugees vetted by Malaysian officials every 2 or 3 weeks. I would call this a ridiculous solution. Rudd dismantled the Pacific solution which was working fine BIG STUPID MISTAKE. The Malaysian solution looks equally as stupid.
Posted by SILLER, Thursday, 28 June 2012 5:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JudyMacD,

I like your idea, but can't readily think of a country which might be interested and suitable - one not already bursting at the seams with overpopulation, or not suffering the sorts of tribal or sectarian strife which has created all these refugees? Some countries could certainly do with the development this sort of arrangement might afford - with the right level of investment - like PNG, West Papua (with Indonesian and local approval) or East Timor, and maybe parts of Africa. A hard sell, but the idea has merit.

The only answer I can see for actually stopping the boats (and embarking on organised refugee placement) is to take all boat arrivals back to where they came from immediately, no questions asked, and to take an equal number of screened genuine refugees from the same country by return flight - preferably including an equal or greater number of non-Muslims as Muslims - to maintain a reasonable balance in our own community - and as ethnically mixed as possible. (As I don't think we need more ethnic enclaves, and would prefer to maximise potentials for integration.) Getting sent straight back would soon get the message out.

Some will argue my suggestion is 'heartless', but really I think those who don't have the means to pay for boat passage should have an equal chance - and those 'returnees' can just get in line like everyone else. We can then also take additional numbers, as need and accommodations enable - by way of an organised immigration program, and not with a gun to our heads.

To those who say 'returning' these boat people would be illegal, I would answer that they left their departure point without proper papers or clearance, and therefore illegally, and we are just returning them so they can go about it properly.

Nevertheless, we (Oz) cannot solve this world refugee 'crisis', and only a concerted international effort will have any hope of doing so.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 28 June 2012 8:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was a mistake to ask the high court for a decision; in cases like this the high court should be left out of the equation. Their decisions are based on legal precedents and point scoring by the legal fraternity. I am sure the government can legislate around these rulings as courts are lost in their own loop in these matters.
Posted by SILLER, Friday, 29 June 2012 9:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last case was not decided under the constitution, any further cases would be and they would fail because the constitution guarantees any person here the right to appeal to that court.

None of you bogans have a clue about law or human rights or even human decency.

What gives us the right to decide we can dump anyone we like in any other country without actually bothering to ask them or the people we want to dump?

What if all those other countries decide to teach the racist nitwits in our parliament a lesson and dump their 8 million refugees here and tell us we created the problem so we should fix it.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 29 June 2012 5:03:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Marilyn,

There are more than forty million refugees across the world. Do you propose taking them all - no waiting, no 'queues', all welcome ?

Or do we actually have to make decisions, selections, to set limits and targets ? It's very touching for that silly girl to weep over a particular case, but all of those forty million have their legitimate stories.

So let's get serious. Let's double or quadruple the annual intake, certainly - that should kick it up to about fifty thousand. But how many are actually on the list, how many have applied, how many of these desperate people have been in the queue for ten years, five years, two years ?

I am beginning to suspect that Greens, and professionals generally, are not too bright: they seek happy answers and simplistic 'solutions' to incredibly complex - and inevitably unhappy - problems. Hence, their childish and blinkered notion of on-shore processing, which would do what for the leaky boats ? Stop them coming ? Encourage them to keep coming (at least, as far as they can get before they sink) ?

Would the prospect of off-shore processing only, and many years spent in some other hell-hole while their names are put at the back of the queue, encourage people to simply wait their turn ? If people knew for sure that they would be sent to Nauru or Manus Island (i.e. territories of signatories of the necessary UN Conventions), and that their names would be THEN put at the end of the list, so that they had done their dough as well as put themselves off-side with Australian authorities for no real purpose - would they be still tempted to get on old boats ? To put their kids on such boats ?

There are no happy stories here. To weep and wail over this person or that simply means that some other person, unknown to the weeper, misses out, Pollyanna notwithstanding.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 30 June 2012 1:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, at last a voice of reason.

The only concern I have with your plan is the necessity for Nauru to be a place where it takes as long to be processed as some UN camp in Asia and beyond. If Greens got wind of this notion you'd have problems straight up.

I agree with a substantial increase to a new finite limit on immigration intake, favouring refugees in particular, and I don't know why Greens didn't sue for this on Friday. Perhaps they think they can block the coalition's attempt to reinstate Howard's legislation should they achieve gov't, but they don't seem to understand that, by their current performance they're paving the coalition's path to a ruling majority and their own demise so that they can be ignored. Babes in the woods

Under Howard's legislation, the prospect of only a year or two on Nauru was no impediment to IMA's, who dangled their children overboard for the opportunity to be taken there.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 30 June 2012 8:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive has the answer! http://www.news.com.au/national/let-asylum-seekers-fly-in-palmer/story-e6frfkvr-1226412973378
Now that's sorted, on with solving solving global warming, fossil fuel depletion, USA and Europe.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 30 June 2012 10:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, so how many million does Clive want? If you want millions,
I could easily backload on a sheep ship and make huge money in the
process, safer and cheaper than airfreight.

People need to get real here. Australia cannot save the planet and
no matter how much the hearts of the Marylin's of this world beat,
closing their eyes and wishing for reality to go away, ain't gonna
happen.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 30 June 2012 10:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Luciferase,

There are two inescapable realities:

(1) Life as a refugee anywhere must be miserable, in Africa, Indonesia, on Nauru or stuck up near Port Hedland or in Villawood.

(2) With forty million refugees in the world, and perhaps a hundred thousand who have applied over the last few years in all the 'right' ways to come to Australia, there is a waiting list, a queue.

So when you suggest that Nauru (or Manus Island) is

" .... a place where it takes as long to be processed as some UN camp in Asia and beyond...."

- if refugees, out of their terrible desperation, try to jump the queue, are plucked out of the sea and end up in Nauru, then if others knew that their names would be simply re-ordered, and put at the back of the queue,

and that they would have to start their wait all over again, but this time on some poky island in the middle of nowhere,

then they may not decide to fork out thousands of dollars and risk the lives of their children on the seas.

There is no easy way out of what is a huge problem. A Senator can weep all she likes over this one or that one, but there are millions scattered across the globe with equally legitimate concerns. Every refugee is a person like you and me, of equal value, and in a fully just world, they would be able to exercise all the rights and opportunities that we can. But the world is not like that. Some problems don't have easy or quick solutions. Some don't have solutions at all, in an unjust world.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 1 July 2012 9:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We agree that there are millions of displaced persons in the world. The two questions for us is how many should we accept, and which ones?

It is possible that these questions can only be answered by a referendum, as it is clear that democracy by political parties is letting us down and the majority will is being denied.

Question 1. Should the annual migrant intake be increased by 20% to include a higher proportion of refugees?

(note that this would be a total of approx 35-40000 refugees p.a compare with approx 15000 now)

Question 2. Should refugees who find their way to Australia be considered for resettlement ahead of those waiting in UN camps in other countries?

Question 3. IF your answer to Question 2 is NO, should arrivals be transferred to UN camps in other countries by arrangement with the governments of those countries?
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 1 July 2012 10:02:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

Yes, you're right - yes, we should kick up the refugee intake, and no, no government can afford to reward people for jumping the queue.

And yes, there is a queue, let's not talk rubbish about that: have some people had their names down for years ? And others for not so long ? And others for a very short time ? Then that's a queue.

On-shore processing would do two things: encourage more leaky boats; and presumably increase the pressure for early release of those processed into the community, which of course is quite proper for legitimate refugees. So the Green's non-solution would both give great heart to people-smugglers AND help people effectively jump the queue.

And the consequence ? Legitimate refugees who have had their names down for years would be pushed further down the queue.

So yes, how to make the option of getting on leaky boats as unattractive as possible ?

Malaysia is not a signatory to the necessary UN conventions, so that's out. Nauru is, so that's still an option. Are there other island nations who would be interested ?

Why an island ? Because focussing on mainland-based processing centres, in Asia or elsewhere, would complicate issues.

Even East Timor - because all people would have to do in that case would be to get to Indonesia, travel to its province of WEST Timor, cross the border, find the Australian-funded processing centre, put their hands up and claim refugee status.

That would cause all sorts of problems for the East Timorese if they were knocked back, and for Australia if they weren't.

In a sense, Nauru is the most heartless, but administratively-easy option.

And it won't go off the table soon.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 1 July 2012 11:05:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

Answers to your questions are:

1 Bump up the numbers of refugees by about 20% from 13000 to 15000 p.a.

2 We have to, only a sick bastard would consider sending unaccompanied minors to a non signatory of the UNCHR charter to be beaten. Even Julia promised not to do this in 2010. But I guess that was before the election and is just another lie.

3 Ship them to a UN supervised camp in a signatory country say in Nauru.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 1 July 2012 11:53:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know, SM, for the most part I consider your myopic input to be mere annoyance on this thread or any other. You are simply incapable thinking beyond the mantra or conceding a point of fact. The conversation has moved way past you so get out of the way.

Loudmouth,

I am, and hope you are, talking about not turning back boats by force.

I do think limiting ourselves to Nauru will only bring about problems and that once Question 3 is answered in the affirmative that any destination with UN blessing should be acceptable.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 1 July 2012 12:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

There is a host of uncertainties about what might happen if Strategy A or Strategy B or whatever is implemented. But I'm hoping that once something like the Nauru solution is tried again, the boats won't leave their ports at all. Of course, if a boat is already on the seas, it can't be sent back once it has been confronted, that should be taken for granted.

I guess the premise of the 'Nauru Solution' is that the boats will stop coming once people realise that there is no quick way to get to Australia, that they can't jump the queue, that they will do their money for nothing AND risk their own lives and those of their children as well, so what is the point ?

After all, the premise of the 'Malaysian Solution' was something similar, that people would quickly understand the futility of trying to get to Australia by boat if they knew that for sure, they would be sent to Malaysia instead. The inconvenient problem with all that is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the necessary UN conventions.

But Nauru is. So why not ? If 'Malaysia' is okay for those supporters of the current government, then why not 'Nauru' ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 1 July 2012 1:22:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF, I consider your myopic input to be mere annoyance on this thread or any other. You are simply incapable thinking beyond the mantra or conceding a point of fact, such as the Pacific solution reduced the boat arrivals by 96%, and the removal of the pacific solution increased boat arrivals by 5000%.

Likewise your hypocritical assertion that Abbott is blocking a solution to the crisis when you don't support the Malaysian solution, you direct none of your vitriol at the greens, and Juliar can have off shore processing tomorrow if she allowed the coalition's amendments.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 1 July 2012 1:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve always accepted that forcing unsafe boats back out to sea was a deterrent. IMA’s who got past that were happy to be taken to Nauru or to live under TPV’s which were likely to be made permanent with whole family groups involved.

If you look at my last dozen or so longish posts you won’t find me blaming the Mad Monk, but I am quite bilious towards Greens.

Labor compromised on Nauru but unless the ALP adopts Howard’s legislation, the coalition won’t “compromise” and even then I have doubt as the Mad Monk’s sole aim is to have the government in gridlock to improve his election prospects. That’s why I not blaming MM for the debacle this week as he’d only be culpable if he cared. Turning unsafe boats back to Indonesia, a non-signatory to the UN refugee convention, but voting against a contract between Oz and Malaysia on the basis of UN status is an indication of this, as well as the fact that under Howard’s solution with MM’s involvement, Nauru was a non-signatory.

Joe Hockey’s performance was stellar, I think he’d even convinced himself! Sarah, oh sad Sarah, she had ‘em bawling in the aisles.

I will never support turning boats away by force. My three “referendum” questions are predicated upon this. The offshore destination for IMA’s is not important, a multiplicity being perhaps the best solution. What is important to me is that IMA’s should not usurp the rights of those awaiting resettlement around the world and that we significantly up the refugee intake by setting a new annual total migration limit.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 1 July 2012 8:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

You have made the assertion previously that turning the boats around was the sole reason for the success of the pacific solution. However, this is at conflict with reality.

The total number of boats turned around was 9. 4 in 2001, 4 in 2002, and 1 in 2003. However, the massive drop in boat numbers coincided with this and the opening of Nauru. The number of boat arrivals stayed constant from 2003 to 2008 without a single boat turned around, with 4 boat people in detention in 2007 when Rudd took office. The fact that the boats started arriving in colossal numbers after 2008 kills your theory stone dead, as there was no change in boats being turned around whatsoever.

The main problem in the argument against Nauru is that at Nauru 30% were refused asylum (with only 43% making it to Australia), whereas when in Australia the number is initially 30% but the courts take a far more lenient approach and the final number is about 1%.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 July 2012 5:22:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When everything that can possibly be said is said, by all sides and by the Immigration Department, by there is SM saying his bit again as if the last man standing wins. Congratulations on being the last man standing, SM.

We're beyond the question of where and the the important point now is that refugees understand they must await their turn to be resettled, wherever they wait. The focus of the Australian refugee industry would be upon Nauru, however, as it would be under Australia's direct control (oh yeah right, the Nauru gov't controls it, tee-hee). It would also be the most expensive solution with the need to renovate and augment the entire infrastructure and supply lines from the mainland on through. The per capita and total cost of the Pacific so called "solution" was immense.

Whatever results in the end, whether before or after the next election, it must not involve turning back boats, and it may be that Clive Palmer also has it right in suggesting allowing arrivals by air, although I don't think he's thought through the equity issues for refugees wallowing in wait for resettlement in UN camps around the world.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 2 July 2012 9:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

Again with the misrepresentations!

In 2007 the cost per asylum seeker in Nauru was estimated at $600 000. For about 100 people this comes to $60m. Compare this to the present detention system where the average cost of rejected asylum claims is costing $500 000 with close to 1300 p.a. What we have now is by far and away the most expensive.

The cost of "boat people" has increased more than 10x since the idiots ditched the pacific solution.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 July 2012 12:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Again with the misrepresentations!" The status quo is very expensive, I agree, but I was clearly saying the Nauru solution, going forward, will be the most expensive of possible offshore destination options.

Latching on to a few of my words, adding your own context, then claiming I am guilty of misrepresentation, that's vintage SM! Why use the whole truth when you can make the point you want with only half of it, eh?

SM, the essential difference between us is you support blocking refugees from seeking asylum by force, I don't, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Try advancing from your petty, closeted position to embrace the entire issue if you expect any further response from me, or stay on mantra if you want to remain irrelevant.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 2 July 2012 1:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

Half truths are your specialty. Perhaps you could try and point out where I have specifically proposed turning the boats around?

Your tacit approval of labor's policy puts you in the invidious position of supporting the Malaysian solution which is sending unaccompanied minors by force to be beaten in Malaysia.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 July 2012 3:36:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

1) You support the Pacific solution which incorporates the use of naval force.

2) You have defended the legality of using naval force when it is challenged by other posters.

Ipso facto, you support the use of force against asylum-seekers.

Why play ducks and drakes? Simply answer the following question "yes" or "no". There will be no response from me either way.

Shadow Minister, do you support the use of force to block the entry to Australia of asylum seekers?
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 9:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is darn silly to blame Australians for the regretful loss of life of boat people. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have the view that the legal principles in our constitution are paramount. If we were to disregard these then we can be subjected to the wimps of any country and lose the freedoms we now have. We cannot and must not subject ourselves to the ills of other nations. Whatever Malaysia may or may not do as to human-rights, etc, never should govern how we protect our borders.
We will prevent more loss of life by making sure that people smugglers are so to say put out of business. As Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal rights I have for long promoted that all refuges or so called refugees are to be handed over to the UN (United Nations) and it and it alone should deal with those seeking another country to live in. This post doesn’t allow me to set it all out how to put it in place but I have published it also on my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati.
By refusing to accept anyone not coming directly through the UN we actually will save more lives in the process because then a person seeking to live in another country will be aware that travelling by boat to Australia will be fruitless because they will still end up being housed in a UN designated facility which may very well be in a country near where they had their domicile.
The more you give in to boat people the more will seek to make the dangerous trip and the more people will lose their lives in the process. All those good doers who pretend to wanting to safe lives are in fact the very people causing tragedies of sinking boats to eventuate because those on board are lured by their softly, softly approach.
And why do we have armed forces if now any country can flood Australia with its citizens and gradually by this can be ensured to take us over from within?
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with the Malaysia solution article is too much advertising in it. As is now with other articles.
Seldom do I go these days to onlineopinion because I view it has too much advertising that one has to go from page to page to read a particular article. It is a turn off and in fact puts me off of considering what it being advertised.
While making money may be an issue just to go through numerous pages to read one article is a bit rich
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

Because I dismiss the wildly inaccurate claims of "illegality" by those intellectually effete that haven't bothered to read the laws or charters, does not mean that I actively promote naval interdiction of these vessels on their illegal journeys. Unlike you I don't believe that the turning of the boats was the sole or even most significant reason the pacific solution worked, and certainly from 2004 to 2008 it played no part in the success of the pacific solution. And I would not promote this action unless it could be done safely without active resistance.

I support the police, traffic control, customs and other security agencies in up holding the law, even if they occasionally require the use of or threat of force. Do you? This would certainly apply to mandatory detention, shore processing, and the Malaysian solution which you support.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister, do you support the use of force to block the entry to Australia of asylum seekers? "Yes" or "No"
As I said, there will be no response from me whatever the answer.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 12:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF

You must be a lawyer, wanting a yes/no answer to a multi faceted question.

My answer is yes where appropriate.

If your answer is no in all circumstances, then you are essentially against all off shore processing, all detention, against the arrest of the people smugglers and the confiscation of their boats.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The person so lamely playing at being the lawyer is you, SM. The question is not in the least multi-faceted, for all your obfuscation.

Your refusal to answer the question actually reveals more about you than a simple answer of "yes" or "no".
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

I did answer the question. Maybe you didn't understand what you were asking.

The question I have is whether you support arresting the people smugglers and confiscating their boats?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy