Poriot,

<<I'm referring to official policy, procedure and protocols "within government departments">>
And that is what Bob Carr was referring to,also.

He was telling *anyone who wanted to listen* that the mere fact the department's “official” figures showed over 90% had been rubber stamped “found to be genuine” had little to do with their bona fides – it was rather evidence of how low we have set the bar.

<< Where's your hard evidence that asylum seekers are not being processed properly?>>
Here is a very recent example of someone who was checked and cleared –but should not have been.

“A convicted Egyptian terrorist who arrived in Australia by boat as an asylum seeker was mistakenly cleared by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be released into the community even though he was on an Interpol red alert list.
http://www.mailtimes.com.au/story/1539749/terrorist-was-cleared-by-asio-as-asylum-seeker/?cs=8

But of course you(Poriot) will say that was only ONE –not so!

Here is evidence that it is not an exception –and from the ABC itself:

“There are claims that hundreds, if not thousands of people living in Australia may have committed crimes against humanity in different parts of the world, and their communities believe they know who they are.”
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/war-criminals-in-australia/3099724

And here are some reasons why it might happen:

<< the Immigration Department …often [gave] ASIO ''incomplete'' or ''poor-quality'' information about the people it wanted checked.>>
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-lacks-staff-to-vet-refugees-20120625-20ykq.html

And more reasons why our processes are inadequate:

"The revelations came on Thursday when ASIO director-general David Irvine was questioned in a Senate estimates hearing, which also revealed that only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat receive a full ASIO security check before they are given protection visas."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/call-for-inquiry-into-terrorist--asylum-seeker-20130530-2neu2.html

And here it is again:

"somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent of irregular arrivals are given a full security treatment"
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3771462.htm

But I am not naive enough to believe that any of this will move you --a coal truck full of proof wouldnt budge you.

SPQR - Thanks for the links I have saved the pages but did not have time to find the specific articles.

I am sure Poriot knows the 10 to 15% to be fact but is playing dumb.

SPQR,

So it appears that you are saying that unless ASIO processes "every" asylum seeker with full security treatment (not just those that immigration deem need "checking"), then asylum seekers are not being processed properly...?

Surely that comes down to a matter of "your opinion" regarding the standard of DIAC processes - and is not a general indication that those processes are sub-standard.

SPQR - With his answer now I am convinced he is playing dumb.

It does not matter if it is procedural or not If you only properly check 10 to 15% NO MATTER how you look at it that means 85 to 90 were not checked properly, would you like to be living next to them Mr Poirot.

You could statistically go further and check to what extent the refugees who have committed crimes were checked if not checked properly it says a lot for the system put in place by LABOR.

That would then be a system that does not fully protect Australian citizens.

Poriot,

<< you are saying that unless ASIO processes "every" asylum seeker with full security treatment (not just those that immigration deem need "checking">>
Nice twist, Poriot, but, how on Earth can anyone determine with any level accuracy who “needs” checking, when the illegals have conveniently “lost” their ID’s/papers and the dept. only has their word for who they are and where they come from?

You saw from the ABC report/link –or you would have done if you have read it with and open mind -- that there are 1000’s of people who entered OZ at a time when the our processes weren’t as stretched i.e. more able to check their backgrounds ,and they were cleared “found to be genuine” only for us to subsequently discover they had sallied backgrounds.

The processes you pretend to put great faith in ---and I emphasize *PRETEND* because I don't really think see them as adequate --are full of holes.

<<Surely that comes down to a matter of "your opinion" >>
Only my opinion? hardly so! by all accounts Bob Carr and the ALP after reviewing them-there immigration proceedures and processes have come to the same conclusion.

Which is why the majority of electors-- whether they vote ALP or NLP --will be voting to put an end to the scam and send the illegals offshore -- doesnt it just smart(ouch!) that the majority get to over-rule your Pollyannaish opinion!

SPQR,

What it comes down to is a definition of the term "checked properly".

You don't believe asylum seekers are checked properly because ASIO is not involved in a blanket coverage of investigation.

Fair enough - that's your opinion.

As for Carr....let's face it, as it stands, Labor believes that its chances of re-election will be best served by adopting a more ruthless line on asylum seekers....these days....

Of course Bob Carr would say what he said in the lead up to the announcement to fling asylum seekers full pelt onto Manus. If you're going to those lengths to keep refugees at arm's length then you need to first establish that you are being taken for ride and these people don't deserve your concern.

That's what Carr effected when Labor decided to take a leaf out of the LNP book on asylum seekers - for the purpose of making themselves more electable.

(You're right that for the majority of Australians, he was telling them what they want to hear. It doesn't mean he's accurate though)