*I raised the matter of falsification of data - and you respond with bias. They are not the same categories, are they, Yabby?*

Alan, you got me to read an article by a guy who seemed to be whining
that everybody was getting it wrong, other than them. Press of
every colour, politicians the lot. All wrong. Come on. SPQR
posted an article from the Guardian, hardly the Murdoch press,
about every falsified document that money can buy, being freely
available in Kabul. You just ignored it.

There is plenty of data out there Alan, but I try and read less
biased sources, than your refugee action coalition.

Alan,

look I apologise. I truely forgot.

There is no point criticising the actions of your ilk.

You are of course never wrong.

Again I apologise for forgetting your omnipotence and all knowing nature.

However, nil refugees were sent home from Australia in 2011 - 2012, but nor were any people arriving on the SIEVs who were found not to be genuine refugees.

You must have known that Alan.

Hello again,

Well, as we wind things up the decision is confirmed that Australia will lift its refugee intake to 20,000 a year for the next few years. Still low by international standards, but an improvement.

Answers to the earlier questions are:

Australia’s immigration department assisted or enforced the departure of 10,785 people found not to be genuine refugees in 2011-12. This is up on 10,175 the year before. Next year's number should be higher still.

So claims that Australia is soft, has open borders, that arrivals are rubber stamped as genuine, that boat people who have failed the UNHRC test elsewhere are accepted, that people can bribe or bully their way in are false.

Yes, I know these assertions are repeated constantly in Australia’s newspapers and on talk radio. But they are still false.

The Refugee Council of Australia does not receive “tens of million $ govt funding each year” as also falsely claimed. Total income from all sources last year was $515,256.

Only $140,000 or 27% was funding from federal government with another 5% in grants from state and local government.

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

I see you are still befuddled.

<<Australia will lift its refugee intake to 20,000… an improvement.>>

Raising the intake to 20,000 will not stop the flow.
It’s akin to passing out free alcohol to alcoholics in the hope it will sate their appetite.

<<“Still low by international standards”>>

And I see you are still conflating the words “hosting” “receives” & “resettles” (as the Refugee Council would like you/us to).
They are NOT the synonyms. Australia is ONE OF ONLY TEN countries which RESETTLE refugees and people in humanitarian need each year.
And it is high on that list. Once again Alan I refer you to the DIAC link –which you apparently did not see fit to enlighten yourself with the last time: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/A_New_Life_3.pdf

@Alan (continued)

<<Australia’s immigration department assisted or enforced the departure of 10,785 people found not to be genuine refugees in 2011-12…. So claims that Australia is soft, has open borders,… are false. >>

No it does not.
The majority of those expelled were arrivees by jet.
They were people who had overstayed their visas.

On the other hand, the vast majority of those who boated in WITHOUT visas are still here. And even -–on those rare occasions when they can be shown to be NOT genuine refugees-- we often cannot return them -see here:
“Australia is scrambling to deal with 1500 Iranians who risk languishing for years in immigration detention because they cannot be deported. More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected. Because Iran will not allow Australia to send the Iranians home, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen faces the choice of locking them up indefinitely, releasing them into the community or attempting to reach agreement to transport them to a third country.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

<< The Refugee Council ... receive(s) …Only $140,000 or 27% was funding from federal government with another 5% in grants from state and local government.>>

WRONG!

I’ll take your “$140,000”, Alan, and raise it to $391,371.

See the below from their annual report (FYE30 June 2010)

DIAC contracts 192,705
Grants 155,805

I also have a question mark over this entry
Consultancies 44,279

(this in only the DIRECT benefits they own up to!)

What ever way you look at it. The vast bulk of Refugee Councils revenue is derived from government sources. And very much relaint on teh constant inflow of "refugees"

Which is why it seek to conflate terms like "hosting” “receives” & “resettles”.
To sell/misrepresent the case for more "refugees" -- but no one is buying it, other than the gullible

Hi again SPQR,

No, not befuddled at all. My information here is pretty accurate. Bemused a tad, perhaps.

Just to respond briefly to your information:

1. “Raising the intake to 20,000 will not stop the flow.” Of course not. We don’t want it to. The overwhelming majority of IMAs are genuine asylum seekers – that is, they are fleeing for their lives. They are welcome in Australia – and here in France and in all civilised, humane, wealthy, developed nations.

Any that turn up in Australia who are ineligible are sent home as soon as practicable. Simple as that. But most are found to be eligible.

If you want to “stop the flow” then you have to somehow stop the US and its allies waging war on other countries – or at least on poor, developing countries. And you have to provide workable queuing systems in refugee-producing regions.

2. The DIAC link you provide shows figures “published January 2004”. Things have changed since then.

3. Your second link is to an article in The Daily Telegraph. As we have discussed previously, SP, there is no wisdom or truth to be found in any Murdoch publication, is there?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

4. DIAC contracts are not the same as government grants. The former are payments for specific services. The latter are handouts for general operational costs.

5. You are looking at earlier figures again re RCOA funding. Latest figures are here: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/a/inc.php

6. Pretty sure these show the council does not receive “tens of million $ govt funding each year” - which is the main correction required.

Cheers, SP,

AA