sentiment good. But ask Indonesia if they will run a centre again - no. Coalition and Labor have tried for years. Indonesia is just a furphy being brought up so that no-one has to do anything. And how is it humane to tell people they ahve to make it all the way to Indonesia to be processed? all the expert commentary is burying us

"Processing on Indonesian soil would eliminate people smugglers putting people on boats."

Only if one accepted everyone processed.

The ones not accepted would then get on the boats to get the 99% acceptance of the Australian courts.

The Greens have proven themselves to be completely politically inept on this matter. As have the other Parties as well but we already knew that.

Sarah Hanson-Young's "tears" were a smokescreen to cover the fact that their Party would rather hold on to their mad rhetoric than save lives.

An utterly hopeless mess created by the Labor Party and maintained by the Greens. Both will be obliterated at the next election. Thank god for democracy.

Oh Hell.

The fairies are getting together.

God knows what's likely to be going on down the bottom of the garden. Best barricade the garden path, who knows what could come of this.

While I agree that there needs to be an offshore solution I do not think that Indonesia is the best choice as it may well still involve risky boat journeys from Malaysia, Singapore, etc. It would be better done in Malaysia, if anywhere, only if the UNHCR was properly resourced and places like Australia were willing to increase their humanitarian intake. As Australia is the only nation within the SE Asian zone that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention this should have nothing to do with the practicalities of humane and safe refugee processing.

However, this presumes that we can somehow de-politicise the Department of Immigration which fulfills its political role by pretending to process refugee applications but actively works to deny visas to those coming from "the wrong" countries, i.e. those places that people from western Sydney and western Melbourne in marginal seats do not like, whether they be Hazaras from Afghanistan or Tamils from Sri Lanka or Karens or Rohingya from Burma. Politicians and the Department of Immigration staff know that they "have" to keep these people out because of the political costs of telling the public the truth.

The real truth is that getting on a boat and getting to Christmas Island or even the mainland may be the only way to get anything even resembling a fair hearing. It would be simpler, cheaper and far more humane send over some officials and a couple of Jumbo Jets and bring these people back safely. Whether fleeing political, ethnic or religious persecution or fleeing extreme poverty, these people, for the most part, would be considered genuine refugees.

As for the anti-immigrants, could I suggest you check your own family history. I come from a mix of convict stock and those seeking a better life than they were experiencing in England; how much different is that to the experiences of any other so-called "economic refugee"?

Perhaps it could be said that we brought these problems on ourselves. In the 1950s we insisted that Britain transfer both Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Australia. What use have they been? Just problems - not withstanding hints from the US that they might be strategically useful! If they were still a British responsibility would they (the Brits) be more persuasive with the Indonesians?! If not, the boat people would then have to seek a passage via Timor and/or perhaps PNG. From PNG, if they survived, it would be easy to enter Queensland!

Of course, my above comment was simply an observation. If we can't get the Indonesians to accept that they have a joint responsibility, and provide accordingly and if Malaysia's position remains as it is (vis a vis the UN Refugee Convention), then given the 'push' factor in all of this, we may just have to accept on-shore processing and be brave about it. Afterall the Europeans and the the US have far greater problems and burdens in these matters than we do. It is a reflection of the times, globally speaking. This is another world-wide mass transmigration of historical proportions which will change the demographic landscape for all time - or lead to such a reaction that the holocaust will look like child's play. Don't discount the possibility. Hence the enormous responsibility on countries like ours in handling these issues to be aware that what we do may have quite different but equally difficult downsides. We don't want to fall between the two. We can't reform bad countries so the push factor will be with us for all time.

Why don't we look at the reasons why people
are fleeing their homelands and see what we can
do to help fix those problems or whether we want
to fix those problems.

We're told that
many Tamils flee Sri-Lanka because of the fear
of persecution. Why not see if this problem can
be fixed? We're told that many Iraqis and Afghanis
also are fleeing their homelands for fear of
death. Yet our soldiers are there some are giving
their lives to improve the people's lot. Yet we're
not too keen to welcome these people into our country
while we help destroy and ravage their homeland.

The whole business
is crazy. We as a nation have to decide just exactly
what we want, where we stand on this issue, and whether
we want to be a part of the solution or continue to
be a part of the problem. And we should elect our
politicians accordingly. This has gone on for long enough.
Australia must decide what it really wants - and cut out
the BS. We don't want you here - but we're concerned
about your safety on humanitarian ground. What nonsense.

@jimoctec

<<we can somehow de-politicise the Department of Immigration which fulfills its political role by pretending to process refugee applications but actively works to deny visas to those coming from "the wrong" countries... like... Hazaras...Tamils... Karens or Rohingya>>

ROFL

You are joking surely, jimoctec?

The ones you have listed are precisely the *right* countries/identities (to claim) if you want an easy passage into OZ.

That is why all opportunists (aka asylum seekers) strive hard to rebadge themselves as one of the aforementioned on your top-of-the-pops list.

Yup, Lexi you are right.

What we need is world peace. Juliar will appoint a committee and get right on it.

While a political refugee can get into trouble in almost any sort of society, Malthusian trap societies are the main reason for the refugee crisis. Before about a hundred years ago, all societies were like this, and many still are. In such societies, people outbreed their resources and overexploit their environment, so that living standards deteriorate, finally stabilising under conditions of grinding poverty and oppression, where deaths are in balance with births. Any improvements due to new crops or new technologies, such as we saw with the Green Revolution, are short-lived, because they just lead to more and more mouths to eat up any surplus and restore the accustomed level of misery. In his 'A Farewell to Alms', economic historian Gregory Clarke makes the point that the palace at Versailles and other extravagances of the French aristocracy cost the peasants nothing - without them, there would have simply been more hungry, miserable peasants.

When there is no strong central government to stop them, people try to drive off or kill their neighbours to take what they have. Ethnicity and religion make good rallying points when people are joining up sides, but there are plenty of other excuses. The last issue of Discover has a map in an article by Prof. E. O. Wilson that shows archaeologists' estimates of continuing death rates due to tribal warfare in past societies. 20% and 30% rates were common, and one was as high as 46%. By comparison, our bloody 20th century was less than 3%. Books on this by archaeologists, such as "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc and "War Before Civilization" by Prof. Lawrence Keeley are full of accounts of massacres, headless bodies, projectile points in skeletons, healed parry fractures, execution style killings of children, collections of trophy skulls, etc., etc.

(cont'd)

Smugglers are not putting anyone on boats, Bruce you should know better. It is the right of the refugees to do what they can to be safe and it's not like we bothered to even try and rescue people for 41 hours after the may day went out.

Tony Wright is now reporting that smugglers are bringing Tamils to Cocos Island even though records in DIAC show that no Tamils have done any such thing, they simply sail themselves.

How about we stop dictating to the neighbours and acting like colonial spivs. and accept our own laws?

I think Peter Van Onselen has the best break down of the lies and spivving I have read to date, it should be mandatory reading so we stop this crap right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/02/iraq-parliament-deported-nationals-europe

Europe has again been stopped from it's own brutal practices, in recent times they have been stopped from forcing asylum seekers to places like Greece and told to do it in Britain when people apply. Ireland, Belgium and the entire EU tried it on and got knocked back so why is it whiney Australia thinks we can do things on our own.

The conventions and laws are binding contracts between us and 147 other nations and the UNHCR and while not perfect it has saved tens of millions of lives over the 6 decades of it's existence.

I wonder though when our whinging media and politicians are going to wonder out loud ""what if the neighbours demand we do it all here"" and send us their 8 million refugees.

What would or could our media cretins and others do then?

Recriprocity seems to be missing though as we pretend we whitey's own the neighbourhood.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/australian-politicians-are-adrift-on-a-sea-of-hypocrisy-writes-peter-van-onselen/story-e6frezz0-1226413146824

The last few sentences are worthy of printing out and putting on the fridge.

@Marilyn,

Hang on a cotton picking minute!

You told us all in an earlier post (actually, many earlier posts) that there was no such thing as a people smuggler.
[It was up there on the black (whoops, sorry, naughty) list with that other pariah word *illegals*]

Yet you have transgressed TWICE in your first three lines!

You and Bruce really need to get your alibis straight before you come onto OLO.

(cont'd)

There are 7 going on 10 billion people on a planet can sustainably support perhaps 1-2 billion in modest comfort. 5 billion live in countries poorer than Mexico. How many extended families do you think could scrape up an air fare to Indonesia to establish a bridgehead to Australia or a source of remittances? If only carefully vetted refugees are allowed on the planes, what stops the others from still getting on the boats and tearing up their travel documents so that they cannot be repatriated? What about countries such as Iran that refuse to take back failed asylum seekers, according to the Immigration Minister?

Numbers of asylum seekers started small in Europe as well, but they snowballed - to the point that there were half a million asylum claims in Britain between 1997 and 2004, not counting dependants who arrived later. (Asylum seekers were allowed to bring in spouses, children, and sometimes parents and grandparents.) From Home Office figures, only 23% were found to be genuine, including after appeal. Another 14% were given leave to remain, even though not accepted as refugees, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but often because it was practically impossible to deport them. The rest - the failed asylum seekers - only had a 24% chance of being deported, so the vast majority of them are enjoying "a better life" in Britain at the expense of the locals.

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

What assurances do you have that it can't happen here? We aren't responsible if other people outbreed their resources, hang on like grim death to cultural patterns that have become dysfunctional, or support leaders who are religious fanatics, only care about their own group, or are just plain corrupt and incompetent. If the CEO of a big company gave most of his salary to starving Africans, we would call him a saint. If he gave his company's money to the Africans instead of his own, at the expense of his shareholders, creditors, etc., we would put him behind bars.

@Divergence,

A great post.

Cheers

No I said people smugglers are not doing anything because there are no people smugglers.

Out breed their resources? What a disgusting thing to claim.

I wonder though how you feel about it being the catholics who out bred their resources and simply looked to other countries for more.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I forgot that you prefer Direct Action.

@Marilyn.,

<<No I said people smugglers are not doing anything because there are no people smugglers>>

So they are “people smugglers”, but at the present time they’re not involved in their trade (perhaps because they’re watching Eurocup replays)?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Yes they are people smugglers.