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.