You are right, Kerry.

Another excellent argument for Australia withdrawing from the Refugees Convention.

<<Kerry Murphy is a partner in D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers and an accredited specialist in immigration law>>

Well,well what a surprise that s/he should be seeking weaker border controls.

Why talk about temporary protection visas? The Rudd government had already set up system that would prevent people arriving illegally by boat from EVER settling in Australia. Whether that was another lie, we will never know, but the talk was nobody arriving illegally would get a visa of any kind; they would be sent elsewhere and never live in Australia.

Abbott ‘promised’ to be even tougher, turning boats around, sending them back, stopping them altogether – blah, blah, blah. So far he is not doing all that well at anything he said he would do, but the idea still is, you will not be stopping in Australia if you arrive by boat.

So, surely moaning about TPV’s is irrelevant?

The author is in the big-money area of immigration, so it is natural that she cares more about her career than she does about Australian border protection; but waffling on about the ‘terrible human rights’ issue of something that no longer exists speaks volumes about her ineptitude in law.

If she is talking about ‘genuine’ refugees who have been processed offshore, and are accepted in Australia’s quota, there is nothing to say that even a country silly enough to adhere to the Refugee Convention has to provide permanent residence. Remember the people from Kosovo who were given TEMPORARY asylum, then sent back home when it was safe?

Finally, who says that TPV’s would be used for any refugee who came here through the proper channels? After all, both sides of politics have again decided that they will be deciding who comes to live in Australia.

It is becoming patently clear that a lot of the UMIs are not genuine refugees. The recent four corners program and the article by two American journalists confirm that many of these poeple are not being persecuted. They just see Australia as some where better to live and they have the financial where with all to afford the fees the smugglers charge.

Come off it Kerri. You say "A major problem for the refugees on TPVs was they could not sponsor their spouse and dependent children from the TPV. This meant that families were forcibly separated for years".

Will you please advise which Ozzie forced these people to abandon their family in the first place.

By the sound of this article you have recently completed acting lessons, the better to jerk tears.

Rather than TPV send them home, remember that 95% on most boats were men. If they do not want to assimilate just return them.

The recent 4 corners documentary about the ones that were from Lebanon on the boat that sank clearly showed they were Economic Invaders. If they were genuine then the whole village would have to have been considered as genuine (to bad the rest could not afford the $60,000 like one family did).

Here is a link to what has and is happening with some.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-19/refugees-targeted-as-gang-takeover-sparks-bloody/5103606

What is it going to be like in 5 years or so with thousands more here?

I don't see how! Given that Temporary protection continues as long as the danger or persecution!?
People need to understand, that seeking legitimate asylum, doesn't automatically confer any inherent right, to also claim citizenship!
But particularly, if the applicant doesn't qualify for character reasons?
Rhrosty.

My main concern with TPVs is that the govt of the day will use them as a way of putting off making tough decisions. That, after the temporary protected persons have been here a while some "specialist in immigration law" will argue that since little Ali has had most of his schooling in Oz it would be cruel and inhumane to send him home, and equally inhumane to let him stay and make his family return, so little Ali and family will by default get permanent residency.

A highly technical article most notable in that the author "is a partner in D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers and an accredited specialist in immigration law."

Wondering whether the author was paid by D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers to write the article.

There may be a conflict of interest in providing advice on its humanitarian merits and spruiking for business.

I presume SPQR, the idea of TPVs is no family reunion, & thus no little Ali to get in the way of proper justice & removal of the boat person.

human rights as defined by the UN or more drownings? A no brainer.

Well done Kerry! Now what about no lawyers allowed in immigration tribunals set up to either accept or reject people presenting as refugee's.
Here is one for you Kerry a real doozy. SC who has been bankrupted 4 times. Every time for non-payment of taxes, how does that work?
I remember in the 1970's in Victoria there was the Solicitor's guarantee fund that paid out if a lawyer robbed you. There were so many millions stolen they ran out of money and it was all dropped. How about a sturdy defence of those two cases Kerry?

Kerry Murphy is an immigration lawyer touting for business.

“Kerry Murphy is an immigration lawyer touting for business.”

LOL Kerry, you walked right into that one.

I happen to know that Kerry Murphy is a man of true humanity and highest professionalism and I doubt his motivations are anything but sincere. The fact is, Australia has signed the Refugees Convention which says the government won’t send back anyone who meets the definition of refugee, and Australia has also signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

So it is logical to conclude that Australia’s human rights policy is self-contradictory as concerns refugees; and contradicts the standards of human rights which Australia has solemnly declared to be “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” and “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

The main problem with the Refugee Convention is precisely that it enables the lowest motivations of false piety and parasitism to go masquerading as the highest motivations of concern for suffering humanity. As we can see from the comments so far, the public are onto it, and are sick of it, and are calling it for what it is.

Every time the Greens or any refugee advocate cries that “we” should be providing this, that or the other for refugees, they are actually talking about forcing everyone else to pay the costs of their own professed values and thus in practice they are displaying fake moral superiority, no matter how sincere they are.

It’s time to consider a re-think of the entire policy area. Enough of the Convention’s tokenism, double standards, parasitism and waste. If Australia withdrew from the Convention, it would in no way restrict Australia’s humanitarian ability to accept refugees. The system should be re-structured so that the costs of accommodation, processing, re-settlement and indemnity are borne entirely by those who voluntarily undertake the charge. Only then will we be able to distinguish the true humanitarians from the despicable fakes.

"TPVs breach human rights"

What bollocks! The conditions for TPVs are far better than for people on 457 visas, and if these illegals want to be reunited with their loved ones, no one is stopping them going back.

The world has enough trouble enforcing the existing human rights without Kerry and other activists dreaming up new ones.

"Kerry Murphy is a man of true humanity" is he, Jardine K. Jardine?

Recently, Gulgong hospital closed down for want of funding from the NSW Health department with existing patients transferred to Mudgee hospital where there was already serious overcrowding, and where the medical staff complained that they would be unable to handle the increased workload. Previously, Gulgong hospital had taken the overloading from Dunedoo hospital which was also overcrowded and threatened with closure.

As an Australian, I am incensed that your "humanitarian" friend has more compassion for foreigners barging into our country with their hands out, than they do with the Australian people who's taxes will be supporting them. As a former resident of Gulgong, I would love to see your friend stand on the main street of Gulgong and tell the residents there how they have to sacrifice their hospital to help the poor Hazaras If I know my former neighbours, Murphy will get run out of Gulgong after being tarred and feathered.

In Australia, Australians come first. Or the term 'Australian" does not mean inclusiveness and concern for our own. it will simply be a geographical address.

Lego I agree with you that anyone calling for government funding of refugees is displaying fake moral superiority and fake humanity. But the the point is, that moral chaos is inherent in coerced funding of things that don't justify coercion. It's not an argument against Kerry's humanitarianism, it's an argument against medical communism. So far as Kerry is advocating government funding of refugees, yes it's facile and fake. But that doesn't mean that his concern for people at risk of persecution, and willingness to help them at his own cost, is not fair dinkum.

Over the last twelve months or so I have become friends with about fifteen asylum seekers from Iran. They are in community detention on bridging visas, waiting for a TPV decision. My friends and family have been trying to help them in various ways, materially, lodging them in our houses, finding rental properties, teaching English, learning Persian, and trying to prevent their slide into depression in the face of an uncertain future and an indefinite wait for permanent residency. For them, voluntary return to Iran is out of the question.

It is safe to assume that my general thoughts on asylum seeker policy is at odds with the majority who comment here. Nevertheless, I think I might find agreement on one particular issue...

One of the conditions on those with bridging visas is the restriction on the right to work. In the legislation (Migration Act), work is defined as any activity for which they would expect to receive remuneration. Even though they wish to work, they are not allowed to.

There are comments above who bemoan the government expenditure on refugees - the sentiment is that such expenditure should be decreased. One way to decrease the government's expenditure on asylum seekers would be to relax the "no work" conditions

One possible scenario I think would find broad support is to allow those in community detention to work, but to tax their income at the highest marginal tax rate. The government would receive revenue, asylum seekers would have a source of income, and also increase their sense of contribution to the community (improving their mental health), and if they ever do get granted permanent residency, then "the longer one is unemployed, the greater the risk of being unemployable" is mitigated.

So, my question for those who wish the federal government would spend less on asylum seekers: are you in favor of having those on bridging visas be solely dependent on government welfare benefits? Or do you think that the restrictions on the right to work ought to be relaxed?

There are some interesting points raised within this post.

I am making a new documentary series for SBS covering various
contemporary issues in Australia i.e. boat arrivals. In our show,
each of these issues will be examined by participants from either side
of the divide. They will spend time in each other's worlds, directly
exposing them to lifestyles and beliefs which contradict their own. The
idea is that by the end of the time spent with each other, we will have
examined and tested each participant's opinions and values. The aim of
our series is to create a space for discussion and raise understanding
of each subject both for the participants and the community at large.

I am looking for some people who have views on boat arrivals to contribute. If anybody is interested please contact me on jake.smith@shineaustralia.com

All the best

Jake