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.