Labor has so totally stuffed up on this issue, it is no wonder that they have become an absolute no-goer at the next election, despite the quite terrible alternative.

Rudd’s stuffing around of Howard’s very effective asylum seeker policy was one of the stupidest and most inept political moves in the history of this country. And yet, he still looms as a likely leader and future PM !! !!

How can any thinking person possibly stomach this??

But I think Labor’s cause is not lost.

As I have said many times on OLO, what they need is to pretty profoundly reinvent themselves, and the way to do this is to get right away from Gillard, forget Rudd and bring someone new into the leadership, with the obvious person being Bob Carr.

They then need to embrace sustainability, which in the first instance requires a big reduction in the immigration rate.

And as far as asylum seeking and refugees go, they should simply put their misplaced pride aside and embrace Howard’s policies and implement mandatory detention, offshore processing and TPVs, and move to decisively shut down onshore asylum seeking.

At the same time, they should be espousing the big part that this country has always played in offshore refugee issues and the highest (or thereabouts) per-capita intake of refugees that we’ve accommodated for many years via our formal immigration program.

This should be increased somewhat and our international aid should be refined to deal more with refugee and sustainability issues.

If this is done well, Labor can convince most Australian citizens that we are indeed a highly compassionate country, that our precious aid money is being well-spent and that onshore asylum seeking will stop forthwith.

And Bob Carr, who is very knowledgeable in foreign affairs and sustainability issues, is just the person to do this!

What other alternative does Labor have?

Ludwig,you have to be kidding.Bob Carr is a Globalist and friend of Henry Kissenger who wants one world Govt and our CO2 taxes to finance it.

I don't trust the Coalition but Labor have totally sold us out. They cannot re-invent themselves when they have no moral or sound economic base to work from.They are totally devoid of any allegiance to the people of Aust and their well being.This party is finished.

There is another couple of aspects as well

First of all Labour has along history of doing things for spiteful reasons..both at the personal level and against the country.Rudd would have known exactly what he was doing when he unilaterally scrapped the working and functional Howard Govt policy.

A rational and pragmatic person would have said that it is working and not creating any angst so why change. Pure spite to suit their small minded egoes and petty thieveries.

Secondly, what Labour has done has played straight into the hands of Islamists, who have an agenda that is common all sects, of converting the world to their ummah, and Australia is their most fervent wish.

How do I know? well go and talk to the Imans in Indonesia and Malaysia.

There are is an unlimited amount of money in Islamic charities for expansion of the ummah by any means..so work it out for your self.

Good article Graham,
Big Mal, you said, "A rational and pragmatic person would have said that it is working and not creating any angst so why change. Pure spite to suit their small minded egoes and petty thieveries."

That is quite right, and is the same reason that the government will not revert to the previous position. Despite hundreds of deaths and it costing Ausssie taxpayers billions.

Any compedent government would swallow their pride and implement policies that would prohibit the illegals from coming, starting with the previous situation.

Australia deserves better.

People know that it is self interest by Labour that has got us in this mess. Mr Rudd tried to suck up to the UN and it came unstuck.Ms Gillard's pride has prevented the change back leading to hundreds of deaths. Many false teardrops but no apology for changing something that was working so well. Labour is without principle despite still having the arrogrance to claim the high ground. Their self interest is their undoing. Almost every decision this party has been made has been self interest. The carbon tax lie was about keeping power, the border control about trying to prove Howard wrong, the 'stinulus 'spending about trying to win votes. Nothing in the national interest just self interest. With so many feminist and trade unionist who have lived a life of entiltlement on other peoples money its no wonder.

We know what we want? Wot!

This depends on which day of the week it is, which cycle the moon is in, what's happening in the star constellations, whether the Eurozone is improving or getting worse, which war the Americans are getting ready to start next, what our mining billionaires say, whether Julia is getting her earlobes shrunk, whether we win a few more Gold medals, how our hormones are, whether we are suffering from constipation, what orders we receive from the White House, and whether our MSM actually print something truthful for a change.

I neglected to say:

Good morning Graham. Excellent article.

Hello Bigmal. You’ve got to wonder why Rudd tampered with Howard’s border-protection policies. My guess is that he wanted to put a Labor stamp on them by making them appear a little more humanitarian while not meaning to significantly weaken them. Crikey, how out of touch with reality was he!

The other thing that is absolutely amazing is that those closest to him, including Gillard, didn’t squeal loud enough to stop him doing this!

Was this because they were just as blind to the impact that such policies would have? Or was Rudd so autocratic as to simply tell them to shut up and butt out?

At any rate, for this reason, as well as a few others, Rudd is surely utterly untenable as Labor leader, and as a front-bencher in any capacity!

Now, I really can’t see why Labor can’t bite the bullet and embrace Howard’s policies.

If they were to elect a new leader and espouse a reinvention of themselves at the same time, it would surely work for them.

What else can they do?? They’re stuffed as they are!

It is surely of the utmost importance to them, and to the country, that they embrace a major change, in the ways I suggested in my previous post.

David G,
In relation to the illegal arrivals, we do know what we want.

Simply for them to stop coming.

We know they are shonks that fly to Malaysia and then choose to pay much more than the normal air fare so they can gate crash us. then lie to our officials and be given permanent residence so they can bring the rest of their brood out here. Most are on welfare for years.

Have a look at Paul Sheenan's article in the SMH this morning to see how generous we are.

We do not like to be conned as we are at the present time.

The most incompedent government since federation,

For me, the key issue in this 'asylum seeker' debate is the damage it is doing to Australia's highly successful immigration programme. Since the end of WW2, we have welcomed migrants from pretty much all over the world and their contribution to our national life has been extremely positive.

Despite the occasional outbreak of resistance, Australians have generally supported immigration with two provisos: first, that social cohesion is broadly maintained and second, that the Federal government is and is seen to be in control of the programme. The suddent arrival of thousands of boatpeople threatens both these perceptions. We now worry that the government is not in control of our borders and that some of the boatpeople want to challenge our way of life and the peacefulness of our society.

These two worries place the entire immigration programme under threat. The great danger is that an outburst of xenophobia initiated by the arrival of boatpeople will undermine one of the most successful programmes in our recent history. That's why we have to stop the boats - all of them, no matter where their passengers come from.

Yes but wanting something they don't understand at all doesn't make the punters right and it does not give any government the right to break the law.

1. there is no such thing as off shore processing, the idea is to push asylum seekers off to anywhere but here and make sure they never get here.
2. those refugees overseas have zero claim to come here - they are if you like the true queue jumpers because they already have protection in one country and want to move to another country as migrants - we know this at an intellectual level and the DIAC website says we will only accept them if we are the country of last resort.
3. we do not own the oceans and seas and cannot by law dictate to anyone who sails on them, why do we pretend so arrogantly that we do?
4. if a parliament cannot uphold it's own laws, and cannot uphold international law so it can appease peasants without a clue about the law then what is the point of calling this place a democracy?

And why do so many think they know what they are talking about when they don't?

Our internal law is that anyone is allowed to arrive and claim asylum.

Our internal policy is that we lock them up like criminals with less rights than mass murderers and claim it is legal.

We won't mention here that Pakistan is pushing out 3 million Afghans who cannot go home, what will we do if they come here?

. the ongoing human rights atrocities in Sri Lanka, we will applaud becaue the gangsters in Sri Lanka have arrested a few hundred refugees.

. the sectarian war we started in Iraq that has caused the absolute collapse of the christian churches that is sending the Iraqi christians fleeing.

. ongoing repression in Iran under the mullahs, the persecution of christians or the ongoing torture of Palestinians, the Syrian war, the Libyan war, the Egyptian uprising and return to islamism.

The alternative option was not included in the poll " do you support on shore or off shore processing " should have included or STOP THE BOATS.
A UN refugee camp was just set up in Jordon with TENTS while we give them better housing than lots of Australians have.
Also they said MOST that will arrive in the camp will be women and children, yet we seems to get boats loaded mostly with 95% men, this is something that the Government should be investigating why.

They know very well why Philip. And it makes not a jot of difference because no matter how much people whinge and whine it is a legal right which we cannot take away.

Is there something cretinous in this country that believes we have control over the world's borders and movement of humans around them?

We are whinging about .1% of the world's asylum seekers coming here by sea so I guess we are not that popular.

Why is it that so many in this country flatly refuse to understand that when the Universal declaration of human rights article 14 was declared in 1948 it actually did mean that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries?

The only execptions are those who have proven war crimes or crimes against humanity found against them under article 1 F.

The refugee convention only covers those who are seeking asylum, once people are refugees in any nation they are no longer covered but are under the protection of the state who accepted them.

Malaysia and Indonesia don't.
But why not be angry with the true shonks?

The record for the first quarter of this years shows that only 2% of Indian claimants are refugees, but 94% of Afghans are. We rage and rant about the Afghans and ignore the shonky Indians.

96% of Indonesian claimants are shonks, 94% of Iranians are genuine, 94% of Bangladeshis are shonks, 91% of Iraqis are genuine.

Yet we never mention the shonks who fly here and lie on applications.

We never talk about the 60,000 who simply can't be bothered going home each year yet they are lying about staying here.

We only punish and brutalise the honest and genuine.

Do you ever wonder why that is and why it is that Ludwig and co. still refuse to read the facts on refugee resettlement as distinct from refugee protection?

It's all available.

Marilyn Shepherd Quote "it is a legal right which we cannot take away." you are wrong what about the (forget what country he is in) man the UN organization tells Australia we must let him back into the country the Government tells them NO. It seems we can say no but selectively.

And I am frankly disgausted that Graham Young can publish this with so many untruths and absolute fictions in it.

So which nation residing on this continent has formed a national consensus on undocumented migrants?
Which Nation has the right to exercise freedom of choice in this matter?

Would Sinhalese choose to live next door to Tamils?
Would Sunni Afghans choose to live next door to Hazara?
Would Shia Iranians choose to live next door to Sunni Iraqis?
Would Uighurs choose to live next door to Han Chinese?
Would White Australians or Aboriginals choose to live next to any of the above?

This country is and always has been run by and for Anglo Saxon supremacists, "Human rights" and "equality" is part of their value system, the rest of us...you know, the "other", the stigmatised minorities don't share their world view and we resent the fact that we have no political representation and thus have no choice in the matter of who our neighbours are.
An Afghan has the choice to live his whole life seeing nobody but other Afghans, hearing nothing but his own language and sharing his life and practicing his customs with people he understands and relates to.
Nobody in Australia has that option.

Marilyn, you pay absolutely no regard to the numbers of onshore asylum seekers, the fact that arrivals will escalate if we make Australia inviting to them, deaths at sea, the discontent in our society that this is whole fracas is generating, the enormous cost to the tax-payer, the better accommodation and financial support that asylum seekers get compared to a lot of Australians, the much greater claim to asylum that those chosen via our offshore programs have, the right that we have to protect our borders, the fact that we can close down onshore asylum seeking AND continue to be a very good humanitarian nation, etc, etc.

In short, your whole argument is enormously blinkered and unfortunate.

<< there is no such thing as off shore processing… >>

What?? Yes there is, as there was under Howard

<< … the idea is to push asylum seekers off to anywhere but here and make sure they never get here. >>

Bollocks!!

Most of them will be found to be refugees and will become residents…until we reimplement TPVs.

Offshore asylum seeking is part of the essential strong deterrence factor.

<< those refugees overseas have zero claim to come here… >>

Whaat??

Those chosen to come to Australia for a new life are those in most need of resettlement. They have the best claim of all.

continued

<< we do not own the oceans and seas and cannot by law dictate to anyone who sails on them… >>

But we do have borders, and rules of entry. And we do have national maritime areas, with rules of entry. So in that way, we do own part of the oceans and can dictate the rule of law to anyone who is trying to come here illegally or unsolicited.

<< Our internal policy is that we lock them up like criminals with less rights than mass murderers and claim it is legal. >>

What an extreme view!! Onshore asylum seekers have been detained in centres with high walls and razor wire because we had all manner of problems with people initially absconding when there was no detention and continuing to defy authorities and disappear when we had low-security detention centres.

That’s enough. I could go on at great length arguing with you Marilyn, but there’s no point.

I’ll just note one more thing – you’ve written a couple of long posts here, but most of the time in our many previous encounters, you’ve been very sparing with your words (and very offensive on numerous occasions), and just not forthcoming with a response when I’ve picked you up on things.

So perhaps this time you might directly respond to the points that I've raised here, with a ~350 word response ?

Graham,

Your survey confirms what most of us have known for years, i.e. that Australians have faith that the pacific solution once reanimated will deliver the same results it did previously.

What I find amusing is the claim by the bleeding hearts that this is illegal. TPVs are perfectly legal and comply with the UNHCR charter, offshore processing also complies. Turning the boats around is not covered by the UNHCR or Australian law as the Boats are not in Australian territory. It does however, comply with maritime law.

Marilyn Shepherd is right

The asylum seekers are supposed to be granted refuge in the first country they land, in irrespective ....

The fact that both Malaysia and Indonesia shunt them on, is more indicative of them being Islamic states, and members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries OIC....and they clearly value their membership of the OIC more than they do the UN... and all its conventions signed and unsigned.

Dont forget it is the OIC that has been trying for years now through the appalling Durban 1 &2 Conferences to shutdown our freedoms of speech and making it so that we would be being unable to criticise any religion ..nudge ... nudge.. we mean ours.

Yet again with refugees, we are being played for suckers.

Do I have a problem with Australia taking in immigrants and refugees?.. no not at all. As long as it is done the way it was apllied to my parents and family years ago... orderly and on merit and through the front door ....fully security checked and validated with people who have not destroyed their documentation

Not sneaking in through the back door with ulterior motives pushing it along from behind.

Wake up Australia

Good post Bigmal… ‘cept I think you are misattributing similar opinions to Marylin!

She wishes to see completely free refugee movement to this country, no matter how many or at what cost, for ever more!

She writes:

<< Is there something cretinous in this country that believes we have control over the world's borders and movement of humans around them? >>

Wow!

Boat people will continue to come. The Pacific solution worked, but once most of the Nauru inmates were given residence in Australia and NZ the bluff was over.

Off shore processing has potential for stopping the boat traffic. But the politics surrounding it is poisonous. Labor can't back down, and Abbott knows he is on a winning streak by not giving any ground.

The populace has been sold on the undesirability of the boat people, the illegitimacy of the Gillard government, its incompetence, its chaotic governance ... thanks to the Murdoch media empire and agitators like Jones and Bolt.

It seems a hark back to C19 Brisbane.

On 5 May 1888 the Opposition Leader, Sir Thomas McIlwraith, won the Brisbane Elections by an unprecedented margin. He had campaigned on the total and immediate exclusion of the Chinese in Queensland. The Government Leader, Sir Samuel Griffith, had urged that the Chinese Question was largely settled by legislative measures. But the Opposition Leader was not giving up on a winning formula. For years the newspapers and social agitators had built up a hugely bloated case against the Chinese, and the populace was sold on it.

McIlwraith as Premier did not deport the Chinese. The Chinese have returned in recent decades, and they are okay now. But we seem to have moved on to a new scapegoat, the Muslims, since the Tampa. Regrettably some politicians have done even worse. "Human rights" stopped the Greens and Abbott from giving the Malaysia tactic a go, last month. Naivety, hypocrisy, or pure bloody mindedness?

Despite our Enlightenment beginnings, we seem to be still a people keen to find a scapegoat, as though we need to identify with the winning side, no matter what that does to our society, no matter the pain inflicted on the weak and powerless.

And the winner we are cheering on is a single-minded true blue boxer who shows little moral or ethical development despite his plunge in the seminary and the counsel of his confessor, Cardinal George Pell. Poor fellow my country.

CHEK

Unfortunately there is a mountain of information to show that Islam is not a force for good at all, and that over the years it has been very clever at subtle dominations of countries as well as outright violence...and it must prevail and dominate... that is its whole reason for being.

It is a backwards and evil cult based upon books that are anti kaffir (us)and certainly anti semitic.

Of course Christianity is not perfect either, and neither is the track record of western colonialists...and further not all followers of Islam want to be fifth columnists in an adopted country, but the reality is that the Koranic trylogy has more anti westeners violence in it than Mein Kampf.

I am well aware that Muslims have been in Australia with the first camaleers that helped with the first telegraph line, and there are some very old mosques in Adelaide...and thus far they have been a quiet and peaceful minority

But... wait until they get more numerous, and they then see it possible to do what they have loudly proclaimed to be the case, of dominating including through the bellies of their women...and mass migrations.

Sheik Hilali will then be seen as a comparative saint.

Just Google, Political Islam, or Jihad Watch, or the books by Robert Spencer or the recent main article in Quantum

Most of the refugees coming from Iraq and Iran today are christians pushed out by the war in Iraq that has sent christian groups running for their lives. Same is happening in Syria.

There has never been a law stating that refugees have to stop in the first country, it states the exact opposite - the idea of the convention is to spread the load all over the world so that first countries are not over burdened.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries.

Asylum seekers are not restrained from staying in one country, they are free to shop for the country that gives them the best benefits.

I see that in the past 2 weeks more country shoppers landed in Australia by boat than did during the last 6 years of the pacific solution.

Towing the boats back will be effective.
If they scuttle the boats, Indonesia will still have to accept them
back, they have no choice. The vessel and the crew are Indonesian,
and the nationality of the passengers is not relevant.

They have sent a false SOS in Indonesia waters mostly and the penalty
for that is many years in gaol.

There is the solution for almost all the problem.
It will stop them immeadiatly, once they get the word.

Marilyn Shepherd Quote "Most of the refugees coming from Iraq and Iran today are christians pushed out by the war in Iraq that has sent christian groups running for their lives. Same is happening in Syria."

WRONG AGAIN if that is the case can you explain why most boats are loaded with approx 95% MEN. The ones escaping Syria are nearly all women and children.

"but Australians, apart from the Greens and some on the ALP Left, actually agree on the bones of a common policy."

Just to be a spanner in the works, I am nether Green (though I support some of their policies) nor ALP left, (I don't support any of there's) but feel more libertarian so I support "the boat people" (a pejorative term these days) and wish more of them would come and actually be allowed to settle, by the 1000's I would bid them welcome.

I know, how horrible of me to want a better life for people from the shittiests parts of the world, how horrible of me to want to spend less money killing them with our War machine (I dont; want to tax people more, just spend less on War) and more on helping. I know this makes me some kind of freak, wanting to help the down trodden but none the less, there I am.

The thought of Australians, all clustered around, like a tribe of Golems, uttering "my precious" as they clutch an Aussie map seems to me slightly repugnant.

Valley Guy - I think there would not be a reader of this forum and very few Australians who do not feel sympathy for the plight of refugees. Many of us want to help - and do so through supporting organisations supplying aid. Everyone wishes conditions within the country of nationality or citizenship would improve, allowing those who have fled to return and rebuild.

At the same time our "War Machine" as you put it, can be found in troubled areas, Afghanistan for instance, putting the lives of Aussies on the line trying to protect ordinary people.

In the perfect world we wouldn't need a Defence Force, nor police or judiciary for that matter. Unfortunately this is a very imperfect world. Fortunately we live in a very lucky country where we enjoy a high standard of living and generally peaceful harmonious social conditions. I am one of the vast marjority who would keep it that way.

We can't save the world and his dog. We can take our share of genuine refugees. We DO need to be careful of the people we admit into our society. When we do admit refugees they must be housed, fed and otherwise supported until able to stand on their own feet. This can be a lengthy process which requires considerable resources and forward planning.

Not everyone who comes here is full of peace, love and gratitude. Unfortunately a significant minority of these 'refugees' coming to our shores via people smugglers would view you with the utmost contempt, simply because YOU are not one of THEM.

Don't lose your compassion - just the rose tinted glasses. And BTW - Australia IS precious. It you don't believe that, try living in some other less tolerant societies for a time.

Valley Guy,

Australia does not have unlimited resources to cope with this influx, as can be seen with the system resourced severely strained.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/release-from-detention-provides-small-comfort-to-some-asylum-seekers-20120802-23ih6.html

"THOUSANDS of asylum seekers are struggling to live on as little as $31 a day, less money than the dole, camped in hostels and boarding houses across Australia with no access to government language training or official job schemes. In what threatens to create a new migrant underclass, some people are forced to sleep on the floor without a mattress in share houses after they are given a meagre six weeks to learn English, secure work and long-term accommodation. The chronic overcrowding of immigration detention centres has led to almost 3200 asylum seekers being tipped into the community on bridging visas over the past eight months, putting strain on charity groups looking after their welfare."

Divine,

We don't live in a lucky country. There is nothing special about the soil, the air or the water in Australia. In fact many would classify Australia as unlucky in terms of our natural conditions, that why we all cling to a tiny area of the coast.
What we do have however is a population up until recently that believed in cooperation, the rule of law, giving other people a fair go etc etc. What you and others call our lucky country, is not the lucky country, but directly related to the people we are. If our population was somehow transported to another country I believe we would make that country the "lucky country" as well.
We need to protect our country from others, let others fix their own countries. Most of these problems we see are nothing to do with the soil, air and water in these other countries, but are a result of the people who live there.
By letting other into Australia, they bring with them the problems they have tried to leave behind, including violence, aggression and disrespect. We don't need it.

No argument from me on those points Ozzie except perhaps we ARE a "Lucky Country" due to the very people who live here? It might be that we are also lucky to have an abundance of mineral resources, exports of which drives our relatively robust economy despite a dysfunctional incompetent government.

Whatever way you want to look at it, you and I agree that our Nation and way of life MUST BE protected and preserved.

I was really just making a point as I often here it said by people from the left trying to make other Australians feel guilty. Stating that it is only luck that has given us a good country, and thus we should be sharing it with everyone else. Our luck is mostly self made.

What I don't get is why so many people think there is something orderly in the world of seeking asylum and I am puzzled as to why Graham YOung even bothered to write such tripe.

What we want is nothing to do with anything, it is what we are obliged to do that counts and it is not about our pathetic whining about our lifestyles.

Marilyn,

What we want is important. There is a huge spectrum of actions we can take whilst complying with the UNHCR charter. This includes the pacific solution which also complied.

Article 32 of the refugee convention stipulates that no person shall be expelled without due process of the law.

In Australia that law is the right of any person in our territory to appeal to the high court.

Sending people without due process off to Nauru was not legal.

Marilyn,

Once again you are misrepresenting the legal situation. It is perfectly acceptable to process asylum applicants off shore. It is only once they have been accepted as refugees that they have access to the legal system.

Labor and the Greens have the blood of nearly 1000 drowned women and children on their hands.