Maybe the question of dealing with these boat people will be the one that will show us to ourselves and the rest of the world as who we really are, not how we imagine ourselves to be.

The captain of the Tampa did the right thing, but he was reviled for it.

If we continue to do the wrong thing, one day the consequences of our cruelty will catch up to us, and we will be asked to prove to others that we are genuine refugees, and not just out to make a quid.

British Columbia takes in many such arrivals, but does not demonise them but allows them to retain their dignity and work for a living.
Why can't we allow some common sense and compassion to guide our decisions?

Everald, I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong!

You say that the Tampa incident… < …was one of the most shameful weeks of our history, and it achieved absolutely nothing >

Not at all!

It was a new circumstance for which we did not have a plan. Keeping the asylum seekers on the Tampa until the best course of action had been worked out, then taking them to Nauru, processing their claims and accepting most or all of them as refugees, was NOT shameful.

But to have just simply accepted them straight up would have been fraught with problems, as we have come to realise, thanks to one recycled PM, when pull factors are tampered with.

< …Nauru and Manus are hell holes that reduce people to the status of animals. >

Excuse me, but that is extremist rubbish!

Your whole tenet appears to be one of totally open borders, no offshore detention centres, no onshore detention centres, just completely free movement in our society straight up…. and with an unlimited number of asylum seekers coming here, for ever more!

Everald, I’ve got to say that this is one of the most unbalanced articles I have ever read.

Surely it is just so obvious that we should regain full control over our borders and exercise our humanitarianism through formal channels; via the refugee category of our immigration program and via international aid programs.

We need to completely STOP the boats! Turning some back when it is safe and pertinent to do so, and if it doesn’t create problems with Indonesia, should be an option.

Put the facts on the table first please.

<During the rescue, Rinnan received a call from Jakarta advising him to disembark the passengers at the ferry port of Merak, Indonesia.

About half an hour after the Tampa had set sail toward Indonesia, a delegation of five asylum seekers visited the bridge to demand passage to Australian territory, specifically Christmas Island, or any western country. The group was quite aggressive and agitated and Rinnan agreed to alter course for Christmas Island.

When interviewed by UK newspaper The Observer, Rinnan explained: "A delegation of five men came up to the bridge. They behaved aggressively and told us to go to Australia. They said they had nothing to lose.">
and

<Captain Rinnan, concerned that if the ship continued to sail to Indonesia the asylum seekers could jump overboard or riot and harm the crew, decided to head back towards Christmas Island.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

So the captain of the Tampa was subjected to threats and force. He was responsible to the owners of the vessel to return it, the cargo and the crew unharmed.

God knows what diplomatic advantage the Danes had to gain by not acknowledging that the Tampa was hijacked.

Should any nation give in to threats? Imagine if the threats were made to Japan. Or for that matter to Denmark.

Would that Australia had Denmarks agreement with surrounding countries to deter and manage economic migrants. Denmark will not accept any who have resided in a safe country before choosing Denmark. That is a flat "NO". Denmark turns them back at its border and there is no avenue for appeal of its immigration department's decisions.

Footnote to OTB's post:

<<About half an hour after the Tampa had set sail toward Indonesia, a delegation of five asylum seekers visited the bridge to demand passage to Australian territory...>>

And it's been a tactic employed many times since.The last being only a matter of days ago with a Maltese ship.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/suicide-threat-fuels-indonesia-asylum-row/story-fn9hm1gu-1226675669041

Funny that Everald Compton left that little detail out of his narrative, ay?

Can boat people be turned back ?
Yes ! If they can continue to impose themselves upon us we can continue to work on rejecting them.

...Quite obviously, the problem Australia has with boat people is "Indonesia".

Can boat people be turned back?

A better question might be: does anyone *really* want to stop the boats?

From ABC Lateline last night --an interview with Major General (retired) Jim Molan.

Indonesia has 150 naval vessels but NOT A SINGLE ONE of them is positioned in the south in the stretch of water favored by people smugglers and the HMAS courtesy bus service.

Denmark doesn't have any appeals process against decisions by its Immigration Department.

Denmark has no qualms about returning economic migrants to where they ccame from, or to any other safe country.

Australia allows appeals, which are enormously expensive to the taxpayer and fether the nests of a gaggle of lawyers, advocates and bureaucrats. Appeals delay processes to months and even years, which Denmark can complete in a matter of days. Where is the sense in our complicated and hugely expensive appeals and reviews?

Politicians are supposed to be working for Australians and should be representing the views of the electorate, not kow-towing to lobbyists and activists.

If uninvited people arrive here by irregular means, minus either a visa or identifying documents, they should be immediately repatriated.
Failing that, abandon them in the transit lounges of their home countries?
Foreign citizens are invariably, someone else's responsibility!
Just after the second world war, Europe was literally awash with displaced persons/refugees. Their most treasured and prized possessions were in fact their identifying documentation.
This was their only ticket to eventual relocation and or migration. It should also be the same today!
Even then, if we have no other choice but to accept some of them under enduring temporary protection?
It should never ever also include family reunion or "unearned" permanent residency.
This would send an uncompromising message, and indeed, shut down the people smugglers business model completely and for all time?
With the billions we could save just by taking this one irrefutable stand, we could affordablely and quite dramatically, increase our "GENUINE" refugee intake.
Those refugees could help themselves by learning English and accepting mandated relocation address outcomes and assimilation?
We also need to avoid simply creating more no go ghettos!
People who can actually afford to pay passage of around $4500.00 per person, for a single one way fare from Indonesia to Christmas Island, are economic refugees.
Genuine Asylum seekers escaping, often with what they stand in, simply do not have that kind of money or resources?
If things are so bad at home for economic migrants, the obvious course for us, is to do what we can to improve their economic prospects at home.
Rather than leave them with few other choices, but to possibly drown themselves or family members at sea!
Micro loans and improving educations outcomes for females is part of the answer, as may be a much more direct funding model for our current foreign aid; and, wherever possible, exposing official corruption and human rights abuses.
Rhrosty.

Everald you said "The Law of the Sea" that is a ship must rescue you, true enough. The rescued then go where the ship is going.
In this case those miserable pirates threaten their way to where they wanted and never mind the ship. Disgusting conduct by them should have been rewarded by instant deportation.
Disgusting conduct by you, telling lies to bias to your opinion. First mate tell the truth and then your opinion can be listened to.
Who do you think you are some lawyer?

People such as the author need to recognise that there are two, and only two alternatives that we can pursue:

1. To permit an unlimited number of these people to enter Australia.

2. To place a limit on the number allowed to enter.

To enforce option 2 you must have an effective system that prevents any persons above the limit from entering. Otherwise you are operating system 1.

Too many people seem to think that this is a minor temporary problem that will soon go away. How wrong they are. The world cannot cope with its current population of 7 billion, and when it gets to 9 billion it will be much worse. To see the wave of the future in most of the underdeveloped world you just have to look at Egypt and Syria.

I agree that the current situation is untenable. What the government should do is abrogate all asylum treaties, and authorise the navy, in the last resort, to use lethal force to stop the boats. All current detainees should be immediately deported, and if their country of citizenship will not accept them, the country forfeits its foreign aid.

We would most probably only need to fire on two or three boats for all the others to stop.

It is not a pleasant world we live in, and it is going to get much worse. To avoid the fate of Europe we need to act now to keep out such of these people as the government has not permitted to enter.

I have nothing against refugees, wherever they come from. Australia has admitted many thousands since WW2 very successfully. However they all came with permission. As John Howard said: We will decide who enters Australia and the circumstances in which they come."

Can the boats be turned back? Of course they can.

First, the Australian government must inform the Indonesian government that it regards the Indonesian government involvement in the people smuggling trade a hostile act, and it will regard Indonesia as an enemy country if the Indonesian government does not stop the obvious connivance with the illegal immigrants who are headed for Australia.

However much Australia would like good relations with our neighbour, we should not let a hostile neighbour take our good intentions (and our money) while doing everything it can to annoy us, and at the same time using the "who me?" defence.

In the case of Sri Lankan boats, which are now bringing Sinhalese illegal immigrants as well as Tamils claiming persecution, put them in a camp and wait until enough of them are there to charter a ship large enough to send them back to Sri Lanka under armed guard. If the ship is not allowed to dock by the Sri Lankan government, then this in itself is proof that the Sri Lankan government really does want to get rid of Tamils by sending them to Australia. The same sanctions which should then apply to a hostile Indonesia should apply to Sri Lanka.

<< We will decide who enters Australia and the circumstances in which they come. >>

I am fascinated that such a simple and obvious and totally correct assertion from our former PM has earnt him utter loathing from some quarters.

Of COURSE we, the Australian people and our government, should be totally in control of who comes here.

<< People such as the author need to recognise that there are two, and only two alternatives that we can pursue:

1. To permit an unlimited number of these people to enter Australia.

2. To place a limit on the number allowed to enter. >>

Yes Plerdsus, it is as simple as that.

The first option is the hopeless current state of affairs. The second option is the way it would be if things happened entirely according to our immigration program, with its refugee category of 20 000 pa.

I agree that we need to stop beating around the bush and act decisively. Declaring a date in the very near future after which no boats will be accepted and all arrivals will be quickly returned without processing, is what we need to do.

But I wouldn’t go as far as firing on boats.

Isn’t it the most amazing thing that this enormous debacle was directly caused by the utter stupidity of one KRudd, who is again our PM and is set to win the next election! How is this possible?? It is absolutely flabbergasting!

If ever there was someone who should absolute NOT be in the position that he is in, nor anywhere remotely near it, it is him!

onthebeach - SPQR - Good to see others pointing out the bias in some peoples articles and the fact that IMPORTANT facts like the boat was turned around after the threats and intimidation by the so called refugees.

The intimidation and threats are increasing to ship captains, to which our Government does nothing, charge the instigators with something then deport them. It will get to the point where commercial ships will not go to there rescue.

When will our Government wake up we go 250 to 300 KM's into Indonesian waters to pick up people 42 Km's of Java then have to bring them to Australia. This one needs to be stopped let Indonesia get them or tell them if we pick them up in Indonesian waters they will be returned to Indonesia. As SPQR stated "Indonesia has 150 naval vessels but NOT A SINGLE ONE of them is positioned in the south"

It is blatantly obvious Indonesia do not want them but does nothing much to stop them getting to Indonesia in the first place. The only way to stop that attitude is if we stop the boats and they see they will be stuck with any that arrive in Indonesia.

It is depressing to read most of the above comments because they betray an almost complete inability to see things as they really are. Australia signed and later ratified the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.

that Convention imposes certain obligations on all signatory states. To adopt the majority of the solutions posed by the above commenters would require as a minimum step for Australia to withdraw from the Convention. No Australian government is likely to do that in the foreseeable future.

Those obligations are not limited to Australia's territorial waters, but include the high seas. The territorial waters concept is limited to 12 nautical miles, so the fact that potential refugees are picked up closer to, say, Indonesia than Australia is irrelevant.

Most of the above commenters also completely fail to acknowledge the distinction between those who seek refugee status and those entitled to it.

The so-called boat people are entitled as a matter of law to have their claim for protection examined. That requires a fair, effective and speedy mechanism for determining the validity of their claims. If those claims are found not to be valid or justified then they can be and are deported. In fact, more than 90% of claimants have been found to have valid claims.

(To be continued)

(continued)

If the claims come within the provisions of Articles 1 or 33 of the Convention, then there is an absolute prohibition on them being expelled or returned to their country of origin.

It is irrelevant whether the would-be refugee arrives by sea, land or air, and whether they arrive legally or illegally. The right to have a claim properly evaluated exists irrespective of the mode of arrival.

It is obvious most of the above commenters do not like to face these facts. Half baked political slogans always have a greater measure of comfort for the ignorant and ill-informed. They are however, no substitute for a properly thought out and executed policy consistent with our international obligations. To succumb to anything else would be a travesty.

By way of addendum I would make two further brief points.

The first is that a significant proportion of recent refugees originate from countries where Australia's foreign policy has been no small factor in creating "push" factors. The second is that notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing the refugees arriving in Australia are a tiny fraction of the total refugees created in the world each and every year.

These people are actually seeking asylum from Indonesia. By accepting them we are saying that the conditions are so poor in Indonesia that their survival is in jeopardy. The reality is that welfare and other economic conditions in Australia are far more favourable and attractive.

True asylum seekers mostly end up in neighbouring countries, not countries half a world away.

John Howard broke every law in the world to turn away the TAMPA after asking them to rescue the passengers.

Australian racists seem to have this delusion that we own the oceans and all who travel on them, we don't .

Howard knew he was breaking the law before he did it, Indonesia had already told Downer the TAMPA could not go to Merak, why are cowards here still trying to re-write history?

James O'Neill - It appears you do not know that there is a difference between what is considered territorial waters and Indonesia's search and rescue zone.

Quote "In fact, more than 90% of claimants have been found to have valid claims" Nice fact but you need to clarify it with only 10 to 15% were checked properly. Would you like the 85% who were not checked living next to you?

By way of addendum - When will enough be enough, after the next 30,000 arrive or the next 40,000 or will it be when one is released and commits a crime against YOU or a relative because they were not checked properly.
Or will it be when your pension or welfare entitlements are cut to pay the BILLIONS of dollars the figure was just revised up another 1 billion dollars a few days ago. Or maybe when your taxes go up.

To me enough is enough NOW.

Re: James O’Neill,

James tells us he’s depressed because people are not able to <<see things as they really are>>,but it’s James who can’t see –or tell!– things as they really are.

He reminds us of our obligations <<the fact that potential refugees are picked up closer to, say, Indonesia than Australia is irrelevant>>. And ,just like the author of the article he has sanitized the incidents leaving out the embarrassing high seas piracy bits: overlooking the fact(s) that the rescue ships were sailing to the nearest Indonesian or Singaporean port when their crews were either personally threatened or threats of self hard were made to force them to turn towards Oz. Pretty clear evidence for anyone who is interested in <<reality>> that we’re dealing with bargain hunters not poor little sheep seeking the first safe haven.

One wonders where James has been for the last few months when he says: <<more than 90% of claimants have been found to have valid claims>>.Could it be that he has not heard Bob Carr explain again and again and again that the reason why so many are getting “passed” has little to do with their bona fides and much to do with how low we’ve set the bar?

He continues: <<The so-called boat people are entitled as a matter of law to have their claim for protection examined>>
It all sounds very cut and dry: we “examine’ them and if they pass they stay, if they fail they go. However, the <<reality>> is a lot different. We currently have over 4,000 Iranians who were "examined" and found –even under the old easy standards --not to be genuine, but we are still stuck with them and are likely to be come better or worse till death do us part.They cannot be sent back--leastways that's what we are told. And once more, people who appear to see <<reality>> the same way as James, are hard at work trying ensure they all get released into the community.

Re: James O’Neill( continued)

In concluding, James adds two good old make-them-feel-guilty end points:

<<The first …a significant proportion of recent refugees originate from countries where Australia's foreign policy has been no small factor in creating "push" factors>>

A nice safe waffley word “significant” . But for someone who sees the 911 twin towers attack as the work of The CIA —as James does— it must be pretty easy to trace every “significant” piece of unrest to US or Oz foreign policy dabblings.

And,
<<The second … the refugees arriving in Australia are a tiny fraction of the total refugees created in the world each and every year>>

Again James exhibits his inability to <<see reality>>. The majority of his greater fraction of “refugees” will end up back in their countries of origin (few of the countries --outside the West--currently habouring them are likely to grant them full citizenship). But telling us that would spoil a good story and the feel guilty factor he was trying to instill.

@SPQR Your inability to see what you prefer not to see remains as boundless as ever. Put to one side the unreliable bleating of bob Carr. The "bar" as you call it is set by the terms of the Convention, and as set out in numerous cases determined by the Court. If you are truly interested in the issues, read the recent unanimous decision of 14 Judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirsi Jamaa & Others v Italy. They set out the issues in clear detail, and incidentally knock out the multiple red herrings raised by you and your like minded commenters on this site.

Your love of red herrings also remains as boundless as ever. Why you should raise 9/11 in this context is a typical example, as is your wilful disregarding of my actual position on the events of that day. Not that I want to disturb your prejudices more than usual, but I happen to think that (a) the official conspiracy theory about that day is a load of rubbish as even a passing acquaintance with elementary physics will tell you; and (b) like a lot of people I think there should be a proper investigation. I don't know who did it: I do know that it wasn't what the official story would have you believe. Given that the events of that day have been used to justify (so far) at least two illegal wars and the greatest assault on civil liberties in the modern era, finding out what really happened is really not such a big demand.

Senator Humphries asked the following question at the hearing on 16 October 2012:
Senator HUMPHRIES: I understand. Have any Customs vessels intercepted or assisted boats arriving from Sri
Lanka outside our territorial waters? If so, how many?
Mr Pezzullo: We would not intercept vessels outside of the Australian contiguous zone. It is not practised and
indeed it is not consistent with our international legal obligations to do so. We might have rendered assistance at
the request of the master and, more often than not, under AMSA tasking, outside of the contiguous zone. I might
see if the admiral has got any details on that.

See that, it is illegal to intercept any vessel outside our contiguous zone which is 12 nm from shore.

James O'Neill - To quote you "Your inability to see what you prefer not to see" Funny you should say that because you conveniently or deliberately failed to see my post to you just above the one you responded to.

@James,

<<The "bar" as you call it is set by the terms of the Convention>>

So that would mean, would it not, that ALL of the signatories to the convention demonstrate approximately the same level of approvals re asylum seekers?

But we both know that isn’t the case, don’t we!

If fact, there are frequent cases of “boat people” being rejected by the UNHCR in Indonesia --but hopping a boat and being approved/ "found to be genuine” in OZ!

<< the official conspiracy theory about that day is a load of rubbish as even a passing acquaintance with elementary physics will tell you…..>>
Just tell us straight James –do you believe the CIA instigated the twin towers attack?

@PhilipS: I didn't respond to your comment because it was incoherent nonsense not deserving my time or effort.

@SPQR. No, I don't believe the CIA organised 9/11. I don't know who did, although there is good evidence in support of some suspects (and that doesn't include the alleged 19).

James O'Neill - To quote you "I didn't respond to your comment because it was incoherent nonsense not deserving my time or effort."

If the following 3 comments were incoherent to you it says lots for your IQ and I can now understand why you so blindly are led down the path that all refugees are genuine and good people etc.

1st "there is a difference between what is considered territorial waters and Indonesia's search and rescue zone." Plain English to anyone with a junior secondary school education.

2nd "only 10 to 15% were checked properly" Again plain English a primary school student would be able to understand the math.

3rd "When will enough be enough, after the next 30,000 arrive or the next 40,000 or will it be when one is released and commits a crime against YOU or a relative because they were not checked properly.
Or will it be when your pension or welfare entitlements are cut to pay the BILLIONS of dollars the figure was just revised up another 1 billion dollars a few days ago. Or maybe when your taxes go up."
Again basic question to anyone sorry your education level does not allow you to respond.
Basically it is asking at what point do we say NO MORE.

James O'Neill,
You believe Osama Bin Laden was a liar then,
considering he went on Al-Jazeera Television and
claimed responsibility for the Twin Towers.

Being a Saudi Prince, part of the royal family of Saudi
Arabia who are richer than even a lot of the richest
American Families, he had the money to bankroll 9/11.

Most of the bombing attacks in America and Britain since
then have been home-made bomb, cheap-affairs,by terrorists living in those countries, because most terrorists wouldn't have the
bus fare to catch a bus down the road(not even a bus either) let alone afford to fly to foreign countries.

Osama Bin Laden however, was a regular tourist and traveler to America and countries around the world from an early age with his rich family. He was educated in America and knew the lay of the land
and the way things worked in Western countries. How to enroll men
and pay for them to be trained as pilots etc

The Australian Navy should take or tow a sound fishing boat of the
needed size out to the refugees, pick them up out of the water put
them in the sea-worthy boat and monitor their progress by radar all
the way back to Indonesia. If they turn around keep turning them
back. Make sure there are world headlines about it, especially
plenty of outrage because that means the message is getting through.
There should be armed navy guards on board to send a message that
the boat will not be hi-jacked by any kind of intimidation.

We will have no more problems with Indonesia or the boat people because once the message goes out that they won't make it to Australia, they won't bother coming to Indonesia because that is not their desired destination and there is no way they want to live in
Indonesia. End of boat people problem.

The actual boat people are only obeying orders to come here so what's needed is strategy to make the poor buggers see the folly of the agenda forced upon them & fight back by denouncing their beliefs. Give them an ultimatum, denounce the believes & stay here or get deported.

Individual

If the boat people are obeying orders to come here, then
who is ordering them to go to Indonesia. None of them have
any desire to live in Indonesia and most would rather
be flown back home than live in Indonesia.

Not so, if they are allowed to stay in Australia though,the last
think they would want to do is leave. This indicates that they
choose to go to Indonesia to get to Australia and nobody is
ordering them to do so. It is their own choice.

Therefore if the message goes out around the world that they
will not get to Australia and will be turned back they will stop
coming to Indonesia. End of boat people problem for Indonesia and
Australia.

Although it is not any problem for Indonesia, certain of their officials are making heaps of money out of it. Including Indonesian Police, security, and Politicians. They are laughing all the way to the bank and treating Australians like the gullible fools they are for letting them. I bet they have a good laugh about it amongst themselves.

Cherful,
nobody is ordering them to go TO Indonesia, they're told to go to Australia where there aren't enough Muslims yet.

As KRudd said in 2007

"Labor's policy" he said, "is that if people are interdicted on the high seas, then these vessels should be turned around" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, February 23).

Everald Compton appears to be confusing Indonesian boats piloted by Indonesians deliberately breaking the law with a Norwegian vessel.

PS. Only about 43% of those shipped to Nauru reached Aus.