We need a regional solution that sees people processed in Indonesia, Malaysia and perhaps Thailand, the latter being a signatory to the human rights convention.
Most of the boat people have already found comparatively safe sanctuary in so-called transit countries.
While it can't be peasant eking out an existence in a refugee camp, it's probably better than the alternative.
And we are talking about ten million people!
We can't treat these people differently.
But rather, do what we can for as many as we can.
This may mean years spent waiting in camps, or going back home, once it's safe to do so?
Those that ignore their only legal options and chose instead the people smugglers route, unsafe boats, and arriving in our jurisdiction minus a visa and their identification papers.
[Papers which they need to transition through the so-called transition countries.] Shouldn't be then rewarded with preferential treatment!
Identification papers are the GENUINE asylum seekers most precious possession!
Those that have deliberately destroyed them ought to face automatic repatriation, as soon as it is safe to do so.
Others, sometimes third generation camp dwellers, wait for their turn in camps in Malaysia and Indonesia.
We simply cannot and should not contemplate/allow their legitimate places being effectively stolen by people, who simply won't wait their turn; and or, have the means to circumvent lawful arrival!
Sure, it's tough waiting for your legitimate turn in a refugee or interment camp.
And compared to places in Africa and or the middle east, which also house hundreds of thousands of children; Mannis Island and or Nauru, are paradises!
So let's stop falling for the blatant humbug, of some very cunning queue jumpers?
If they sew their lips up, burn their camps down, break our laws, etc etc, all they should ever win is indefinite interment followed by automatic repatriation, however long it takes.
Rhrosty.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Our recycled PM, Kevin Rudd, was renown for being big on promises but short on delivery. He could not even keep his promises that he would never challenge Julia Gillard again, and that he would not support same-sex marriage.

As displayed since his return as PM, he is spinning and exaggerating better than ever.

Given his history of incompetence when it came to developing and implementing policy, one would have to be naive to seriously believe that Kevin 13 will improve on the Kevin 07 version in these areas.

As he is moving to reform Labor so as to give himself more power, we can no longer count on any men/women faceless or otherwise to sack him as PM should he win the election and resume his dysfunctional ways.

Marilyn Shepherd - To quote you "Another far right wing nut job allowed to spruik mass murder by the Australian government."

I see it differently, the author has used PROOF that what the Government representative are saying about the dire consequences of turning back boats etc is exactly what they themselves proposed some 6 years ago.

I commend the author for showing the hypocrisy of Rudd and Company.

Howard did not kill anyone THEY made the choice to get on boats, I say bad luck, my only sympathy goes to children forced on by there parents greed.

Maybe I'm a simpleton but can't the Government just write new immigration legislation that prohibits illegal arrivals from ever obtaining permanent residency? If the word was out that arriving by boat automatically disqualifies you from ever gaining access to Australia, wouldn't that be a huge disincentive to get on a boat?

sbr108 - I think the TPV was something like that, I also think one problem is once here they are our problem and no other country wants them so we are stuck with them.

How do other countries deter asylum seekers ?

individual "How do other countries deter asylum seekers ?"

By telling them they are not wanted like New Zealand did and Israel + Israel built a dirty big long fence to keep them out.

By not giving them what they want ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE like Germany and few EU countries do they get like 32 pounds (very low figure) and food stamps.

Indonesia and Malaysia don't need to deter them but they give them NOT ONE CENT so it does not matter plus the businesses get VERY cheap labor because they are not supposed to be working. Although in Indonesia some of the are starting to be not happy with them.

Take away the golden hand on arrival make them work for the money etc they get and most important GET RID OF ALL THE APPEAL processes.

Temporary Protection Visa ONLY

That will stop LOTS but not all

Would you guys be ok with 'genuine' refugees then?

If the Government said no to all boat people becoming Australian Citizens, in order to prevent them making more suicidal journeys here by sea, but instead agreed to take 10,000 Muslim refugees from camps overseas, would you be happy with that?

I think this may stop the boats from coming, and the drownings like the poor baby on the boat that sank today near Christmas Island.
If Australia was to take on similar, but 'genuine' sorts of refugees instead, then we wouldn't be thought of as racist by other countries....

I see yet another 9 boat people died at the hands of Labor's border protection collapse.

Suseonline,
I don't think for one moment that anyone would reject a genuine refugee. As for your play at Muslim refugee I say of course we should let a genuine refugee in Muslim or not. The issue we have is that those refugees from Muslim countries are not running away from Muslim ideology but from the economic effects of the mayhem that is brought on by this ideology yet they refuse to reject or denounce it. If they did no-one, not even the economic refugees would be unwelcome. What is unwelcome is the backward ideology they are enforcing on everyone to achieve world domination.

Well their ideology doesn't seem to be 'dominant' in any countries outside their own, Individual, so they aren't really doing very well so far are they?

England, on the other hand, has managed to spread their 'ideology' to many countries in the world over the past few centuries haven't they?

"Well their ideology doesn't seem to be 'dominant' in any countries outside their own, Individual, so they aren't really doing very well so far are they?"

Suseonline, you obviously have not been following how the Muslim influx in European countries has reached levels causing great concern to their respective governments. The concern arises from their failure to integrate into the community, and their push for the introduction of Sharia law.

Geert Wilders is one brave enough to make his views known about the Muslim influx. See the following conservative and politically-correct references respectively for what Wilders stands for.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/cowardly-critics-of-geert-wilders-shame-our-country/story-e6frfhqf-1226584547791

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/after-the-wilders-trip-multicultural-australia-can-take-a-bow-20130224-2ezgg.html

spread their 'ideology' to many countries in the world
Suseonline,
Correct. Two wrongs don't make a right. England has learnt it's lesson, the other still hasn't seen the folly of their ways.
Civilisations have & will come & go. Some good some bad. The new aspirers aren't of the benevolent kind.

Susie on line

The British spread capitalism, christianity and democracy. They have evolved too form liberal democracies which have prospered, become better educated and much more charitable than any other form of social organisation. You should celebrate your right to hold your opinion. In many countries where the religion you champion holds sway that does not exist. And girls can be shot for
daring to want an education.

I reject your argument even though there are many muslim societies that do not embrace extremes.

Imajuliarnutter , I am hardly 'championing' any religion at all, as I don't believe in any Gods. I am against racism though.

I doubt the Indians, Aboriginals, Black Africans or American Indians would have welcomed the Christian British invaders in their countries back then, and I doubt they saw democracy as the great saviour of their lands either.

Years ago, people like you ranted and raved about the Vietnamese boat people too... but amazingly, the sky didn't fall in, and Communism didn't take us all over, and they did integrate successfully.

I don't really care much about what is or isn't happening back in the 'Mother Country' Individual , we can take care of ourselves over here now...

we can take care of ourselves over here now...
Suseonline,
For how much longer do you think we live on borrowed money ?

Suseonline,

<<I am hardly 'championing' any religion at all...>>

Hells bells, lassie!

I a'maist chocked oah mah haggis whin I be readin that.

Thare ye be a sproutin things 'bout <<Western imperialism, open borders and white guilt>> and still ye be atellin us ye hae nae religin!


Why lassie ye kin ainlie be a member o' the Pollyanna Orthodox Church or kirk as we ca' it.

A word of warnin though:be canny, be very very canny with the : <<we can take care of ourselves over here now..>> bit.On account of it be soundin too much like wee Johnny Howard's <<We control who comes to this country>>. And ye other Congregationalists will not take kindly to that --aye lassie, nae yin bit!

Here's a reality bite into how Mr Abbott is going to "tow back the boats."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-copycat-towback-plan-wont-stop-the-boats-20130714-2pxyg.html

"In recent weeks, the Opposition Leader, the shadow immigration minister and others have compared the federal Coalition's policy of ''turning back the boats'' carrying asylum seekers with similar practices used by the United States.

The US has had a ''Migrant Interdiction Program'' since 1981......

.......What the Coalition has not acknowledged is that the US program has failed to stop the boats and contravenes international law in several ways. The Coalition has also failed to acknowledge that its proposal would be even further in breach of international law than the US program, and certainly no more effective.......

.......There are other aspects of US practice that are unlawful, but are even worse under the Coalition's proposal. For example, under international law, a state can interfere with a vessel outside its waters only if it has an agreement with the country in which the vessel was registered (the so-called flag state). The only exception to this is if a state is rescuing a vessel in grave and imminent danger. The US generally abides by this requirement except in the case of Haiti, with which it has only an informal agreement. As it stands, the Coalition policy appears to interfere with all vessels, in clear contravention of international law.

Finally, as the Coalition has itself acknowledged, the US practice of trying to stop sea vessels has been going on for more than 30 years. Had the boats stopped as a result of the policy, the US would not need to continue this costly practice. After more than 30 years of ''tow back'', the US is no closer to stopping people from taking to the sea in an attempt to enter the country. Nor has the practice of ''tow back'' prevented thousands of people from reaching the US every year. In other words, the US practice has not achieved what the Coalition hopes to achieve. There is nothing to indicate the Coalition would have any more success at stopping the boats than does the US government."

Poirot,

Azadeh Dastyari is a refugee advocate, and is known for bending the truth. The reality is that the coalition will follow the original tow back procedure they followed previously, which complied with international law. Having read some international maritime law since the last time this tripe was presented, the following needs to be clarified:

Boats on the high seas cannot be intercepted without the permission of the country of the flag the ship bears, with the exception of when the intercepting country has reasonable belief that the vessel is headed for its shores with criminal intent. A boat engaged in human trafficking headed for Australia clearly meets these requirements.

Towing the boats back to the edge of Indonesian territorial waters violates no Indonesian or international laws, and worked last time.

SPQR, what ARE you on about?

So Scotland is your 'Mother Country' then? Lol.

"Thare ye be a sproutin things 'bout <<Western imperialism, open borders and white guilt>> and still ye be atellin us ye hae nae religin! "

Um, no I didn't...