The only case for moving to a massive increase in humanitarian immigration (say a five-fold increase on our most recently adjusted figure) lies in the answer to Burke's 2008 question regarding its value:

"We need to make the economic as well as the humanitarian case for an increase in numbers. Part of the economic case is that our migration program, considered as a whole, has a positive nett impact on the economy. Even considering the humanitarian program on its own, there is after time a positive economic contribution."

This last sentence is a presupposition, as Burke then goes on:

"What we need is a more comprehensive understanding of the contributions that Humanitarian entrants make to Australia. At the moment they are too often seen only as a cost".

Australia still needs to populate (sustainably)or perish, especially given our age demographic. If there is to be a massive increase in the humanitarian cap and hence the total cap, a massive reason must be given. Much comment on this forum goes against it, attributing a theocratic and poor employment mindset to new arrivals. However, this forum does not represent a fair cross-section of anecdotal public opinion and hard data is what's needed.

I raise the above because this is where Greens should attack the problem rather than from its narrow, emotive base. Give Australia an incontrovertible economic case for wedging its door wider. None of it will stop the boats, however, as 45 million displaced is too massive to dent.

Regarding comparing Burke's 2013 principles with those he held in 2008, he has clearly grown "the hell up".

humanitarian immigration
Lucy,
Is that what they call it now ? Why didn't they use that word for the Allies going into Iraq instead of illegal war ? If the silent invaders can be called humanitarian immigrants then why can't we be called humanitarian defenders of this country to protect it ?

Ask yourselves what is it these refugees are running from?
Millions & Millions of them.

Most often persecution from other tribes, religious tribes, included.

Why do you believe that that could never happen here, in future generations?

Why do you want to set big tribes up in this country seeing what occurs in places where big tribes exist?
The holocaust included.

Graham Young-- makes the following observation:-

<This shows itself in the fact that the policy is a net vote loser for Labor. Given that both the major parties are a long way short of 50% of the vote the next election is about preferences. So, while Liberal voters are more turned-off by the policy than Labor voters are turned-on, the real electoral pain comes from the fact that Greens voters are a net 50% less likely to vote Labor and the other minor parties net 26%.>

I think Graham is absolutely correct in this assessment. There is a big chance that Labour will lose the election because they have a situation where if they don’t deal with the boats they lose their grass roots supporters and if they do try to deal with the boats re: this PNG solution, they lose the votes of the Greens and minor parties which will cost them the election anyway.

As a Labour voter, who was angry when the Howard boat solution was overturned, I have begun to think that I would rather vote Liberal in the hope that they will have enough seats to govern without a hung parliament. So the country won’t be at the mercy of the Greens and minor parties again.

This would free the Liberals up to actually make some tough decisions about the boat arrivals. I have been mulling this change of vote for Rudd over in the past few days because of the above thinking, so I immediately understood what Graham was saying as true, in my case anyway.

I still haven’t forgotten the Oliver Twist, “Work Choices” though.

However, this boat people thing and the thought of a hung parliament again, may cause me to swing to the Liberals this time,
just to get this boat problem sorted again by an unfettered parliament. Hopefully.

I must say I have been very favourably impressed by many of the successful asylum seekers who have been resettled in Oz (as seen in TV interviews); and I have also been greatly dismayed by the accounts some have given both of the conditions they experienced in their 'home' countries and, perhaps even more so, of the conditions they suffered in detention (at 'our' hands) and the psychological problems they now suffer in direct consequence of that detention.
It would appear that as bad as conditions were 'at home', they could be accepted, for they were 'the norm'; but the conditions they experienced in detention were totally unexpected, and to their thinking, irrational and inexplicable - thus, akin to prolonged and unaccountable torture.

Where does this lead me? I think we fear these people unnecessarily (just because they are 'different'), and fear 'invasion' by them irrationally. I can see them being assimilated and integrated without any great problem, with many of them becoming fairly quickly a contributory asset to our nation and our society.
But, prolonged detention mitigates directly AGAINST their potential for assimilation as contributory members of our society. So, prolonged detention must cease, as it creates many more problems than it can ever hope to solve.

Rather than focusing on stopping the boats, or turning them around, I think we would be far better served by assisting Indonesia to accommodate, educate and find constructive employment for these refugees, whilst they are being 'processed', and perhaps even for the long term. (And this would certainly cost us less than our 'detention' non-solution.) At present it would appear that Indonesia treats such refugees harshly, with the obvious result that they attempt to 'flee' to Oz - by any means available. We could stem this, by cooperation.
TBC>

>Cont'd>
With a more 'managed' and manageable approach, we would have far better opportunity to select genuine refugees for resettlement in Oz, and without causing the high levels of stress, distress and financial burden associated with our present unsatisfactory arrangements.

We are not about to be 'overrun', and we are in a position to both assist in easing the plight of refugees in camps around the world as part of multinational endeavours, and in building our societal strength and diversity by assimilating reasonable numbers of various minorities who have escaped persecution in their former homes.
We can be a better Oz, if we choose to do so.

However, our 'resettlement' program in Oz must include constructive education from day one, in language and in skills suitable both to the individual and to our employment needs, and this program must lead to constructive paid employment as quickly as possible.
Idle hands make for mischief, as has been amply demonstrated by our piecemeal and, may I say, lousy, present approach.

Whether it's Abbott or Rudd, what we need is jobs, industry, housing and education, with resultant constructive and meaningful employment for every capable individual.
A million worthy new immigrants can help to build a stronger and more resilient and diversified Oz - if we can get off our butts to make it happen in the right way.