In the very first line Kali uses "flout its voluntary legal obligations"

No Kali, it is either voluntary or legal enforceable, it can't be both.

From my brief reading of the UNHCR convention, the Coalition's actions comply with the letter of the convention. That it does not comply with activists implied interpretation is irrelevant.

From what I can see the TPVs are far better than Labor's bridging visa's that by restricting the right to work violates the convention.

Shadow Minister, what I mean by "voluntary legal obligation" is that Australia voluntarily ratified the Refugee Convention in 1954 and thus from then on is legally bound by it. Australia was not forced to sign it, thus it was a voluntarily assumed legal obligation.

If someone arrives by plane complete with passport and a visa of some sort, we at least have reasonable assurance that they are who they say they are. This is not the case with most boat people, whose background may be very difficult to reliably establish. The visa system itself is designed to filter out persons likely to over-stay but can never be 100% effective.

There are two big issues with recent waves of asylum seekers (irrespective of how they arrive).

Firstly, the system across the globe is being abused on a grand scale by those primarily seeking a higher standard of living rather than mere asylum wherever they can find it. For a person in a third world country, gaining permanent residence in Australia or a similar high income country is like winning the lottery.

Secondly the post-arrival experience of recent refugee settlers in Australia has generally been very poor, with very high rates of dependence on social security and low employment rates even five years after settlement.

What has become increasingly obvious is that that vast majority of those arriving by boat are not fleeing persecution as so many would have us believe. A recent four corners program and an article by two american journalists who made the trip from Indonesia confirm this.

The assertion is also made that the huge influx under labor was due to "the fluctuation of violence around the world, rather than policy". This is patently false. The new government managed to cut the arrivals dramatically in a matter of weeks.

Then we have an excerpt from the convention. "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened . . . provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

So these people might not be illegal but their entry is. We also have a proviso to "show good cause". Destroying one's passport etc would not seem to be a good start.

Omkali,

The present government is presently complying with the letter of the convention, with the exception of the bridging visas. The TPVs which replace the bridging visas will comply.

Detention until assessed is not forbidden, neither is off shore processing and TPVs. Etc.

Oh, I luv ya Kali.

Let's get a few things out of the road first. The UNCHR Convention is just that. It is purely a voluntary "CONVENTION" set up specifically to deal with the myriad of Refugees & misplaced persons after WW2 in 1947, amended in 63. It's not a "LAW." It also states, later, that no Country is "compelled" to comply with all the paragraphs there-in. Now let's take your example, of which you have made much.

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened . . . provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

Notice the words, "coming directly from a territory." What does this mean exactly? Just what it says, "Directly." It does say later that crossing multiple Borders to shop around for the best deal is not on.

Kali: Rod St George who worked at Manus Island says "it is not even fit to serve as a dog kennel." He has "never seen human beings so destitute, so helpless and so hopeless before."

Obviously Rod's never been to one of their Countries. The accommodation on Manus, for most of them, is the equivalent of an Aboriginal stepping up from Doomadgee to the Sheraton Penthouse in Surfers. This is a ploy to tug at the heart strings of Australians who think everybody live as they do in "Days of Our Lives." A good example of this is the makeshift shanty towns blown away in the Philippines.

Cont.