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?