Craig
thanks for this. I was sceptical when I first saw where your argument was heading, but you make some good points, and your first-hand experience gives some interesting insughts. I hope you're right.

What nonsense. If it is so great why did you leave and since when is human trading legal?

Fair dinkum, the racism implied in this article is astounding.

When refugees ask us for help we do not get to flog them off to places we know they cannot be protected and will never be allowed to be citizens.

If every country decided to trade and traffic humans to win racist votes then all refugees would die.

Thanks Rhian. I hope so too. It's a beautiful place and it deserves more than the shallow reactionary vitriol of people like Ms Shepherd or the patronising faux analysis that featured in Mr Haigh's piece informing policy.

If it turns out I'm wrong, then so be it, but unless people of good will try to do their best, then there can be no hope at all.

Since the forced council amalgamation in QLD the islands to the south of new guinea are gradually falling into a similar albeit not as drastic a situation. Probably orchestrated by the very same australian expats.

It does make one wonder how anyone can make a case for the dumping of refugees on a country with limited infrastructure and a less diverse population than its nearest industrially developed neighbour...the neighbour who is doing the dumping and the exploitation.

I'm fascinated by Tony Burke's comments in 2008 regarding Howard's Nauru solution"

Here it is in all its glory.

"... the Howard government sought to outsource our international protection obligations to less developed countries when we should have been shouldering them ourselves."

".....The Pacific Solution was not about maintaining integrity or public confidence in Australia’s arrangements. It was about the cynical politics of punishing refugees for domestic political purposes."

Exquisitely hypocritical - an all in the service of getting themselves re-elected.

Already we've seen the mountains of Western rubbish adorning beautiful unspoiled Manus.....

.......our shadow has fallen.

Good stuff Craig. It would be most excellent if this policy both stopped the boats and significantly helped lift the quality of life in New Guinea.

But I guess it won’t do both. If it stops the boats, then the additional aid to PNG will not continue for long, I presume. And vice-versa.

then the additional aid to PNG will not continue for long,
Ludwig,
What do you think the $1.2 million/day since 1975 to New Guinea from Australia has achieved thus far ?

Hello Poirot, I was trying to make the point that this doesn't have to be thought of as dumping or exploitation. Doing so merely limits capacity to see opportunity and I think this presents a large potential opportunity to bridge the economic gap that exists between Australia and PNG without trying to rush the people of that place into changing their culture too rapidly, with all of the disruption that must entail.

Rubbish on Manus is a detail and a distraction, it's not illustrative of the broader issues. PNG has to develop or it will be ruined. That may sound counter-intuitive and it may not make Mr Haigh feel good about himself, but it's true. Resettlement of asylum seekers could be a means to achieve that and satisfy the needs of some people to move from a place where they aren't welcome to one where they are.

Ludwig, thank you. My point was that the aid can become unnecessary if the right approach is taken and that stopping the boats is not the only reason to resettle those people in PNG, although it is a good reason in itself. If asylum seekers are treated as an opportunity rather than a problem, then in quite a short while the program will yield positive benefits that will repay the cost many times over.

We have let our obligation to our little friend to the north slide and we should be ashamed of ourselves for that.

Craig,

Yes, I understood what you were saying.

"....I was trying to make the point that this doesn't have to be thought of as dumping or exploitation...."

My problem is that I "know" it is dumping and exploitation. I'm also cognizant of the common fact that when an advanced industrial nation seeks to exploit a developing country "for their own mutual benefit" it is seldom a positive move the country being exploited.

Furthermore, I don't see the rubbish issue as merely a detail and a distraction - I see it as an eerily accurate metaphor for what has already gone down there regarding Australia's detention centre.

I understand that you wish to see PNG prosper. I'm doubtful if this is the way to go about it.

PNG has to develop or it will be ruined.
Craig minns,
I agree but develop how & with who's help ? You pour thousands of Arabs into PNG & the West Papua border will shift east by 10 miles a day.
Australia needs to ask PNG whose help it desires & if it's not Australia then stop this huge aid. If it wants Australia then it has to let Australia go in as a kind of CEO for PNG. Aftyer all, I believe the australian Government is registered as a business with it's own ABN or so I was informed yesterday.

<< My problem is that I "know" it is dumping and exploitation >>

I don’t see it that way at all, Poirot. And I’m not sure why you would automatically view it as such.

It seems to me to be a pretty good idea all-round.

We’ve reached a situation where the boats have just got to be stopped. There are obviously no easy and entirely palatable solutions. So whatever we run with is going to have issues.

I agree with Craig that this policy has the potential to really help PNG.

Craig, your thoughts on this were my initial thought as well. It could be a very beneficial thing to both asylum seekers and PNG, if handled well. It could also be handled badly and, at least in the short term, be a disaster.

But yes, these are skilled people going to a country that badly needs skilled people. From the little I know of PNG's history at our hands, we have not left them with much to work with in the past and they are still suffering from it. Skills are what they need, as well as well-directed programs/projects that they can be a part of.

In the meantime, people should perhaps remember that we continue in Australia to take in a quota of 20,000 refugees per annum. These are individuals who come from all over the world where unendurable pressures exist. As I understand it, half of the quota is meant to come from Africa, where people can languish in horrific camps for years, often decades. These are the people likely to be more and more squeezed out while the $5billion smuggler trade takes over our refugee policy and reduces it to one group only, while being callously indifferent to increased numbers of drownings.

I am truly hoping that the circuit-breaker has been found and that it works out for everyone's benefit, because it really could do so. The sooner we break away from the nightmare of the last 12 years, the sooner we can return to a sane, balanced and humane system and start to educate the troglodytes away from bigotry and racism. Though that would necessitate bipartisanship, which is another story...

My problem is that this is not being done "to help PNG".

It's been done to appease the bigotry and whipped-up hysteria of Australians and to assist Labor to win an election.

Tell me how dumping traumatised people on a country that already has its own huge challenges, in a demographic whose people are less likely to absorb and integrate an alien culture, is going to work?

Here we go again. Is there no end to the disingenuous actions of rich countries pretending their populist and opportunistic policies are equally beneficial to the target of their exploitation?

Here's an interesting bit of news - which points to a belief that the PNG solution isn't actually in place to "stop the boats", but merely to win the election.

What's this about?

"The Federal Government has set aside tens of millions of dollars for a new immigration detention centre in the Hunter region of New South Wales.

The Government used yesterday's budget update to allocate $43 million for a new detention centre at Singleton.

It says the plan is to potentially house more than 1,000 asylum seekers at the Defence Force base there.

It has also allocated almost $90 million to eventually accommodate up to 1,000 people at Blaydin Point near Darwin."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/government-sets-aside-money-for-singleton-asylum-detention-cent/4862824

We're being sold a crock....it seems.

dumping traumatised people
Poirot,
And what precisely is the cause of people getting so traumatised in the first place ? Are you inferring it's Australia's fault & not those who tell,force,send these people here on a religious agenda ?
You starting to gradually expose yourself as a potential traitor to this nation.

Cor blimey! she's at it again.

<<we're being sold a crock>>

The real crock we've been sold is that we are part of this great fraternity of Asylum Convention signatories. And by naively resettling the highest number (on a per capita basis) we are just one of many doing our bit to make the world a better place.

However, whenever it comes to redirecting a portion of those "asylum seekers" to any of the non-Western member states in that great fraternity, there are, suddenly, 10,000 reasons why it can't be done(quite apart that is from the fact the "asylum seekers" only want to go to the five star, Western countries!)

For God Save! why would you sign up a country to the Refugee Convention if they hadn't the wherewithal to accommodate "refugees"?

It's rather like picking player X as part of your basket ball team but never having any intention of passing him/her the ball --what a crock --what a joke

For God Save s/b For God Sake

While writing it, I was thinking of how God might "save" Poriot, make her see sense --but that's even beyond him/her

Are we being sold a croc... I think Poirot raises a valid point.

Why would the government being doing this unless they plan to bring the refugees into the Country? But what about the numbers? $90 million to house 1000 asylum seekers is $900,000 each plus whatever social welfare benefit they receive. This seems way out of proportion. It would be nice to see this Government willing to spend that kind of money helping needy Australians.

The whole sordid nonsense is so that Australia can pretend we can limit humanitarian visas in the face of the world's worst refugee crisis in 20 years by wasting billions in the pretext that it is legal.

IN NEWS JUST IN

We might not know the date of the poll yet --but the UNHCR is already campaigning hard.

It seems that whenever we do anything to adjust our border controls we are assailed by a phalanx of special interest groups (many of whom we help fund!).

We've seen how the ABC and SBS have tossed out any semblance of balance to campaign for open borders --but now, the UNHCR has hit the campaign trail just like another political party --see here

<<Tonight, representatives from the Refugee Council of Australia and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees will be in Bathurst, in central western New South Wales, for a community forum>> and it'll be sharing the pulpit with << the Bathurst Refugee Support Group>> and << the Refugee Council of Australia>>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/refugee-discussions-in-regional-australia/4863046?section=nsw

Since when was the UNHCR registered as a political party in OZ?

Merilyn Shepeherd,
I wouldn't be too far off the mark by thinking that you lot won't be satisfied until we too are refugees in our nation.

As usual, I'm partly with Poirot on this - PNG is not the solution. Neither would Singleton be. Or Nauru.

So, forgive me for being thick, but what is the problem with negotiating with Indonesia to fly all asylum-seekers who try to jump the queue from there, back there, no recriminations, just assistance for them to apply properly, like (presumably) the other hundreds of thousands who have applied in the proper ways, from camps in Kenya and Tanzania and Jordan and Turkey and Pakistan. Ten years ago. Nine years ago. Eight years ago. i.e. a queue, Phillip Adams.

My point is that, if we flew people straight back to Jogjakarta or Banten or Solo or Malang or wherever in that beautiful country, with recompense for the inconvenience to the Indonesian authorities, to restore a sort of status quo ante, not only would people stop getting on leaky boats BUT they would also stop coming to Indonesia. What would be the point, except of course to enjoy the pleasures of being in Indonesia, which I admit would be considerable ?

As Poirot and Individual both point out, the PNG non-solution would be disastrous IF it somehow seemed to partly work, but it won't ever get that far. And don't even talk about Nauru.

So an early election, September 7, may make some sense from Tony Burke and Kevin-9-7's point of view. Before it all falls apart.

Joe

Here's a bit more to add to the Singleton detention camp story.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/joel-fitzgibbon-says-detention-centre-is-contingency-plan/4863134

And here's the really ridiculous bit:

"The Federal MP for the Hunter Valley says he was not told about plans to build an immigration detention centre in his electorate because the proposed centre is unlikely to be used.

The Federal Government's budget update has allocated $43 million to build facility with the capacity to house up to 1,000 asylum seekers at the Defence Force base in Singleton.

Local member and Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Joel Fitzgibbon, says the plans are merely an insurance policy."

A $43 million dollar contingency plan.

He wasn't even told about it!

High farce......

Poirot - Good to have a $43 million dollar contingency plan after all those LOW LIFERS on Nauru did $60 million dollars damage.

I personally would build a very high security facility for them for life or they can opt to go home.

A good place to build it would be Christmas Island just for the new arrivals, saves of airfares.

Some interesting comments, thank you everyone.

Poirot, I didn't examine anything about the motivations of the political players in my piece. They don't really have any bearing on whether resettling people in PNG is a good or bad thing, they're just about whether it is going to happen.

People from PNG are very good at negotiating. They come from a place where their basic survival is dependent on negotiating for resources that don't exist within their own tribal lands. everything from salt to new genetic stock in the form of brides is subject to trade and negotiation and occasionally physical conflict. Increasingly, conflict is becoming the standard method, because people see others getting something for nothing and they can't see why they should pay to get the same thing.

One of the rules of negotiating in that environment is to always be able to say "no" to a deal and keep the other side guessing about how much you need what they're offering, while making every effort to make them think you don't need it at all.

I suspect that's the real purpose of both the Nauru and the Singleton factors. The PNG government is playing politics on numbers, trying to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie for their wantoks, so the Australian Government has to make it clear they don't need PNG.

Joe, there is no future for refugees in Indonesia. It is very much like PNG in many ways - after all, PNG is just the largest island in the Indonesian archipelago - but it has a very well developed social/political/economic system that has little room for more groups to participate. Refugees would always be outsiders, just as the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia are still outsiders despite having a very long history in the place and a strong economic role due to that historic association. PNG is a tabula rasa by comparison and everyone could benefit. PNG people are respectful of those who contribute to the general good. It's a fundamental part of having a tribal culture.

Craig,

<<there is no future for refugees in Indonesia>>

I would have thought that being fellow Muslims they might have been a better fit for Indonesia than either Melanesian Christian PNG or liberal secularist OZ. And bear in mind that most have resided in either Malaysia or Indonesia for years.

The main barrier(s) to them settling in Indonsia is that neither they (the"refugees") nor the Indonesians want it that way.

<< Refugees would always be outsiders>>

Actually, they would probably be less like outsiders than the West Irianese or the Sumatrians (when faced with the transmigration of outsiders into their territories) or, their own local Chinese population (who have no own territory).

And, why are we/you making excuses for Indonesian boganism --would you permit/accommodate similair in OZ?

Just you all wait & see how PNG will be overrun in a few short years, courtesy Kevin Judas Rudd. The bloodshed will be horrific & then it'll be Australia's turn in earnest.

SPQR, thank you for your interest.

Indonesia is not "Muslim", despite having a very large Muslim population. There are 6 religions recognised by the State: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism.

As I pointed out above, the main problem is that there is already a sophisticated social/political/commercial set of structures within the country that acts strongly to exclude outsiders, especially outsiders without money.

Whether you or I agree with that doesn't matter, nor does whether Australia does the same. It's their country. Would you accept Indonesians telling you how you should act?

Besides, I'm interested in the pragmatic aspects of this, not in debating theoretical ideological arguments. In terms of achieving a good outcome, the PNG solution seems to fit at least some of the bill better than other courses of action that have been suggested, don't you think?

Individual, you seem to have a very high regard for the capacity of these refugees. That's encouraging.

Hi Graig,

I think you have an overly rosy view of things on the ground in PNG.I seem to recall fierce inter tribal rivalry, and deep antipathy towards its Asian minorities which has led to recent burnings and beatings.

However, my main intent was to expose the hypocrisy of our advocates & fellow travelers who are quite eager to excuse PNG & Indonesia any little peccadilloes like chauvinism or xenophobia,but would not tolerant similar for one moment in OZ. And, if anyone were to suggest that:
<< the main problem [with Oz accepting "refugees"] is that there is already a sophisticated social/political/commercial set of structures within the country that acts strongly to exclude outsiders, especially outsiders without money>>
Holy Moses! They'd be straight off to the International Court of Justice or something worse to overturn it (and the taxpayers of Oz would be paying their costs)

The best solution would for OZ to tightening-up of our processing system/procedures. Not an easy task, I acknowledge, since so many in Oz stand to benefit(in a corrupt way) from the constant inflow of "refugees". But if we were to derail that gravy train, take the sugar off the table and grow some balls we could stop the inflow overnight.

We'll have to agree to disagree on some things.

Still and all anyone who can come up with an assessment like this:<<shallow reactionary vitriol of people like Ms Shepherd or the patronising faux analysis that featured in Mr Haigh's piece>>
Must have his head screwed on right!

Cheers

a very high regard for the capacity of these refugees.
Craig Minns,
How much more evidence do you require that they're making headway in their mission. I bet Australia couldn't manage to send that many troops into the countries these people come from & get them slowly set up for the big day.

Have we gone stark raving mad ?
Dumping a moslem population onto a Melanesion country.
If they do end up settling there it will be the starting gun for years of troubles.
I certainly don't think the women of PNG will thank us.
Into the bargain do we really need another Moslem country on our doorstep ?

Face it, everywhere moslems interface with other cultures and religions
there is more trouble than enough.