Noel,

Even if you did increase the refugee intake to 30 000, what would discourage people smugglers from bypassing the system again.

Are you prepared to have the blood of 1000s of asylum seekers drown in your name?

More double-talk and self-serving moral gibberish from the parasite class.

Noel ignores the fact that all the policies he advocates are to be funded by coercive means. What happened to compassion and ethics?

Perhaps Noel should propose that he, and everyone who agrees with him, should voluntarily fund the full costs of his proposal. That should solve all issues of compassion and ethics, shouldn't it Noel?

Noel?

Well, a seemingly Kudos grabbing/blame shifting, reticent, reluctant, recalcitrant Mr Morison is not my cup of tea either; but I'm inclined to disagree with the Author's principle premise on these grounds.
Every successful people smuggling exercise, displaces an equal number genuine refugees, living, most often in far more distressing conditions, and for far longer, as is the case of some Burma refugees, marking time in Malaysian refugee camps, for literal generations!
Genuinely compassionate people, simply would not be able to make a case for a policy, which allows undocumented irregular arrivals, to displace even more worthy applicants, and at considerable risk to their lives.
For heaven's sake, economic migrants, who have the means to pay considerably more than first class air fares, to people smugglers, have no more rights than those 40-50 millions waiting their LEGITIMATE chance in refugees camps!
Undocumented economic migrants, who indubitably have quite deliberately destroyed their ID documentation, however seemingly desperate, [and given their outlays, they all likely are,] shouldn't be able to displace GENUINE asylum seekers!
No documents, no resettlement, no ifs, buts or maybes!
That said, I'd welcome a change that included far more regional cooperation and regional processing, that gave legal claimants a much better chance of far more timely resettlement; and see no reason, particularly, with worker shortages in many of our farms or seasonal harvest industries, for allowing in as much as three times the current limit, of GENUINE asylum seekers!
Always provided, they went and worked, lived and played, where directed; at least for a decade, and for the minimum wage! Let them earn their place!
And certainly, not in any of our overcrowded capital cities, already full and overflowing, and or gridlocked with already insufficient infrastructure/public transport etc/etc!
Rhrosty.

While ever Sarah Hansen-Young infests Australian politics, we have an over-supply of disingenuous, whining lefties. You are surplus to requirements, Noel.

You quote a criminal like Tutu, and you mendaciously state:” one of the most shameful and cruel public policies ever operated in the name of the Australian nation – “.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Noel.

Noel Preston wants to provide a moral, ethical and compassionate case for the action plan he proposes at the end of his article. I think his arguments are ad hoc and his action plan lacks a logical consistent basis.

Nevertheless I believe it is possible to develop a compassionate humanitarian refugee policy within a consistent ethical framework. Here is one such approach.

Let me suggest that the overarching objective of any Australian policy should be to ACHIEVE MAXIMUM GOOD FOR REFUGEES GLOBALLY. Accordingly Australia should OFFER REFUGE TO THOSE IN GREATEST NEED. Here we have an objective and a strategy that can and should guide everything we do for refugees.

First step is to set a refugee intake based on humanitarian grounds. Noel suggests 30,000. Maybe 100,000 is preferable. Whatever, the number needs to be argued and justified as part of any policy.

Next, how do we assess need? This means answering questions like: Who is suffering the most? Who is the most oppressed? Who is the most frightened? Who has been in a refugee camp the longest? The list will be big. Priorities, assessment methods and selection processes will be required. It won’t be easy but there must be many active in this field.

With such a rational framework the critical question becomes: Where do boat arrivals fit? Well, nobody knows. That’s the problem. They have bypassed any assessment process. We don’t even know whether to offer them compassion and refuge or congratulate ourselves on having attracted, say, a bunch of brilliant entrepreneurs.

One thing I can say with certainty. If, as the UNHCR says, the world has something like 10.4 million refugees, the statistical chances of any random boat arrival falling into most needy group as measured above are very remote indeed.

One conclusion is unavoidable. A refugee policy that fails to discourage self-assessed, self-funded asylum seekers also fails to meet the most basic test of a sound compassionate refugee policy. It fails to OFFER REFUGE TO THOSE IN GREATEST NEED.

Declaration of interest: I arrived in Australia as a refugee.

Personally, I see no justification for Australia accepting ANY refugees whatsoever.
We have major problems with our current population level, our infrastructure is decrepit and failing, our unemployment is about 10% and rising, there are serious problems with supply and cost of basics like housing, water, and power, why are we inflating our population in the face of these?
We should declare a moratorium on immigration at the very least, and reject refugees at the same time.
Far better would be to withdraw completely from the UN, it's an extremely expensive self-serving exercise in futility, and has done Australia NO good at all.
Remember the old saying..Charity begins at home..?
Let's get our own house in order before we bring in more people who inevitably bring with them, and cause here, more problems that we DO NOT need.
We should bring our Indigenous Australians into the mainstream, educated, working and housed in better than the Third World conditions most of them now barely survive in, before we start playing the good guys for other nations' needy.
Why are we wrecking our own nation just to appear to be nice people, that's insane.
I can't see any sense in a program the brings US down to their level, as adverse to them coming up to OURS!

I wonder when people thought that allowing people in the country who love our welfare but often hate the freedom of the West is compassionate. I would of thought true compassion comes from individuals who give of their own resources rather than spending other peoples (tax payers) money. The left seem to be champions at spending other people's money while sucking on the public purse.

Occasionally you have to be cruel to be kind.

How I wish we could run a separate section of Australia and fill it with all the compassionate lefties like Noel. They would be free to import all 30 million of the world's refugees. They would be free to spend all of their government's money on feel-good policies. They would be free to eliminate industry and business in favour of saving the environment. They would have no need for coal, oil, plastic, metal (or any mining), transport, weapons, domestic animals or agriculture. They could pray to their god Gaia. The boys could be free to marry all the boys and likewise the girls (and the animals). They could restrict speech to nice words only. Nobody would ever be insulted. They would speak all the well known Aboriginal languages which are so often used in international diplomacy. They wouldn't need democracy because all of us on the right will have been eliminated leaving only the fully enlightened.

And then we realists would be allowed to control OUR borders properly.

Make sure you keep up the good work "Mr Morrison" in my name, & in that of all sensible Ozzies. You may have caught the rot, just before it became unmanageable.

Don't pay any attention to clowns like Noel. If he had any real interest in ethics, he would be trying to tear the global warming fraud apart, not worrying about gate crashing illegals, after our welfare.

Vitally important principles:

We should be offering refuge to those in the greatest need, as Tombee says.

We need to head towards a stable population and concentrate on the declining state of our infrastructure, services, environment and resource base, in line with G’dayBruce’s sentiments.

And we need to shut down onshore asylum seeking once and for all and regain full control of who comes to this country.

We’ve got to head towards a sustainable society, which necessitates a stable population. So we need to progressively reduce our immigration intake down to net zero. We could raise the total refugee intake as we do this. Ultimately, the refugee category should be the biggest category of our immigration program, with skills being reduced to only a small component, and family reunion likewise.

Immigration should not exceed net zero. That is; a given year’s intake should not exceed the emigration total for the previous year. Even at a stabilised net zero immigration rate, we would be able to take in about twice as many refugees annually as we now do.

This would give us the best balance between looking after our national future and being a compassionate global citizen.

But again; there should be NO onshore (or fly-in) asylum seeking, and those who try it on would need to be smartly repatriated or perhaps settled in New Guinea or elsewhere if those countries will take them, if it is too dangerous for them to be sent home. Anything other than this, which would mean settling people in Australia, would prompt another big movement of people on rickety boats heading our way… and displacing refugees in greater need of resettlement.

Noel Preston’s eight 'Proposals for a substantial change in policy on asylum seekers' are just extraordinary. He says that he does not envisage an open door policy….. but this is EXACTLY what these sort of changes in policy would achieve!

Just the opposite is needed - A decisive policy shutting down onshore asylum seeking. The more decisive it is, the less people are going to get caught in the middle of it.

This is what Abbott and Morrison are trying to achieve. And I say good on them for that.

Dear Noel,

Thank you for a timely and compassionate piece. You have reminded me of what Australia and Australians once stood for, a real sense that human beings should be treated with care and respect.

I'm afraid the new 'chattering classes' are now made up of those like the posters before me on this thread. Selfish, strictured, grasping, whingers with little moral fibre and a deep need to see the reputation of this once proud nation squandered in anti-refugee rants and actions that only bring shame and rightful condemnation. They are not the majority but their fears and prejudices have them screaming the loudest and we have a government acting in their name.

For us to be now in bed with a nation almost universally regarded as a continuing abuser of human rights, of torture, of summarily executing its citizens is absolutely mortifying. Well Noel, not in my name either.

Steele, what a shocker of a post.

There are some good thoughtful contributions on this thread.

So…. could you kindly tell me what it is about my post that is…

<< Selfish, strictured, grasping, whingeing [adapted] with little moral fibre… >>

What is it about the necessity of achieving a sustainable society and a stable population and doubling our formal refugee intake that you disagree with?

To the author
OH how easy it is to be generous when you have wealth and good pensions,
for every economic invader that just takes potential help from an Australian most who have worked hard to get to pension age.
Why is the pension so low, partially because these economic invaders 50,000 + just because of Dudd and Dillard (it's okay they still get there taxpayer indexed for life pension around $200,000 per year).

Remember the ones who had been in Australia more than 5 years and 85% were still on welfare.

If you want more will you provide money out of your pocket to support them, bet you will not.

Must admit did not read your whole article, just the start and title said it all.

My vote counters yours I say do whatever it takes to stop them. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

More sanctimonious than Noel, Steeleredux? Gee, you must be such a perfect person.

BTW, we ARE the majority. Check the results of the last federal election? Or did you miss the fact that this government was elected to do precisely what it is doing? And it has the unwavering support of we good and compassionate (but in a different way to you) Australains.

Dear phillips,

You wrote;

“Remember the ones who had been in Australia more than 5 years and 85% were still on welfare.”

You still trotting out that chestnut? I answered that piece of poison over a year ago.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5656#157568

The unemployment rate of refugees after 5 years is 12.5%. Pretty amazing considering all the issues around language and past trauma. It is something this country should be rightly proud of. Not you of course because your nature does not seem to permit it. You demean us all.

I believe this author is voicing what most intelligent Australians do believe.
There is disquiet out in the wider community about the way this Government are supposedly 'turning back the boats'.

These asylum seekers are being judged as non-refugees before we even hear their stories or check out any evidence.
It is un-Australian not to give someone a fair go.

Captain Col thinks this behaviour is what 'we' elected this Government to do.
Yes, it was certainly what the nation's rednecks, racists and bigots wanted them to do, but for the majority of the voters it was simply because the Labour Government was so dysfunctional!

Yes, we all (well, most of us) wanted the drownings to stop, and the people smugglers to be brought to justice, but we didn't want the navy out there being judge and jury, throwing possibly genuine refugees into expensive orange lifeboats and making presents of them all to our nearest neighbours.....

@Redux & Suzy,

ANYONE WITH MORE THAN HALF A BRAIN could have quickly determined that the latest two boats were packed full of economic migrants.

Boat one:
--mostly all ethnic Sinalees (whom advocates assured us up to now were the ruling class!)
--The father of one of scammmers *intereviewed by the ABC* admitted "they were just after work"
--The one found to warrant further investigation opted to return to Sri Lanka when told he would NOT be given plush accomodation on the mainland.

Boat two:
--Originated from safe haven India FFS! (I guess Oz welfare was more enticing)

Yet Suzyonline and Steeleredux want to hold fast to their hackneyed old fairytales.

To do a Foxy (though I promise this reference will be a lot more incisive than anything Foxy would bird droppings like dump on us)
: a good espose of the hypocracy and shallowness of those like the abovementioned is found in a piece by Nick Cater in the Australian JULY 15, 2014 -- titled "Reality bites the compassion-mongers" it is well worth a read.

SR,

Where are you getting this rubbish. It is clear from The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia that the majority of boat people join the long term unemployed sucking on the Centrelink teat.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-the-boatpeople-centrelink-cycle/story-fnbkvnk7-1226476061727
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/research/lsia/
http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/new-migrant-outcomes-results-from-the-third-longitudinal-survey-of-immigrants-to-australia

"The report, Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals: Report of findings, was released last year by the department. The report's bland title is a give-away - vacuous, alliterative titles for government reports are virtually de rigueur these days. (Think: Smarter Manufacturing for a Smarter Australia.) The results on settlement outcomes are ugly.

Using the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, the research describes the position of the three key groups of migrants five years after settlement: skilled, family and humanitarian.

In keeping with the findings of previous research, it is absolutely clear that refugees fare very badly in terms of employment and financial self-sufficiency. And note that this study was conducted during a period of low overall unemployment.

For example, the employment rate of humanitarian migrants from Afghanistan was recorded at only 9 per cent - note this is not the unemployment rate - five years after settlement and nearly 94 per cent of households from Afghanistan received Centrelink payments.

According to the report, "Afghans have a different settlement experience compared with most other cultural groups, such as having poorer English skills and lower qualifications levels. Yet they are more likely to borrow money, obtain mortgages and experience difficulties in paying them."

Those from Iraq did little better, with 12 per cent employed and 93 per cent of households in receipt of Centrelink payments. Interestingly, those who did best in the humanitarian group were from Central and West African countries such as Sierra Leone. Note that these refugees are the least likely to have arrived by boat."

Not in my name either.

The act of forcibly picking up people at sea and locking them up is defined as PIRACY.

If they drown - let them drown: then it's them versus nature and our hands are clean.
If they arrive - let them arrive in the Australian continent, but there is no need to admit them into Australian society as well, including its welfare system.

Assume they were animals. When wild animals arrive:

* If they harm nobody, then they should be left alone to roam the country.
* If they pose a danger to humans, their property or their livestock, then they may be shot, but not treated cruelly.
* They may not enter cities unless adopted by people as pets, in which case their owners are responsible to ensure they cannot leave their property unleashed.
* They receive no public benefits - financial or otherwise: if individuals or charities wish to feed them, then they may do so at their own expense.

People arriving by the sea should be treated no worse.

Question for Steeleredux:

Does fighting jihad count a gainful employment?

If mean if it does, your high level of "asylum seeker" employment might be right--because it appears that there are quite a few who are listed as unemployed --but are actually off fighting jihad!

Noel, thank you for a thoughtful and compassionate piece. With the honourable exceptions of sue online, yuyutsu and steeleredux I invite you to disregard the comments your article produced. they demonstrate beyond all doubt that there is a nasty element in Australian society whose membership of the human race is open to question. Fortunately they are a small, albeit noisy minority.

@James O'Neill,

True to form (or lack of it) James is all moral condemnation and not iota of argument or evidence.

Yes indeed, SPQR.

James, is there any substance behind your seemingly blithe support for Preston?

So you'd disregard my comments would you?

You’d disregard my ‘vitally important pirnciples’?

You’d disregard my promotion of a balance between looking after our national future and being a good global citizen, which includes doubling the current refugee intake, would you?

You’d agree with Preston’s 'Proposals for a substantial change in policy on asylum seekers'. So…. how could these be achieved without opening the floodgates to onshore asylum seeking?

Or isn’t that something that concerns you?

I would love to know how you can justify your position. At the moment I can’t imagine how you could once it is exposed to a bit of scrutiny.

Dear SM,

Oh come off it mate. We both know the report shows the humanitarian migrant unemployment rate is under 12% and that Centrelink payments include things like childcare rebates.

With humanitarian migrants as opposed to skilled migrants I would have thought the question was not what they could do for us but rather what we could do for them. We are giving them resources to make new lives in a country where they are not in fear of their lives. Our expectations of course need to be different to other streams and the numbers are really very small.

I and so many other Australians are proud of the help we are able to extend to these people. It is part of what makes us a great country. You and others want to tear this down and it is shameful.

SR,

No we don't. Where do you get your information?

Try the dept of immigration latest report:

http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2014/settlement-outcomes-new-arrival_access.docx

The employment stats have a lot to do with the motivations of the refugees and their impact on Australia. Those that gain employment contribute to the country and the community, those that are unemployed are burden to the taxpayer and unemployment does little for them or the community.

While Australians are generous, there is a limit to the load they are prepared to carry. Someone paying taxes is a far lighter load than someone purely on welfare. Skilled migrants generally pay far more in tax than they get in benefits and refugees quite the opposite.

SteeleRedux - Quote "The unemployment rate of refugees after 5 years is 12.5%."

As you would say - where is you source for this?

No you did not counter the fact from the Government dep't that 85% were still on welfare after 5 years. In your deluded mind you may not believe it but it but it was a fact.

Yes, Steele, I miss the good old days of our once proud Australia. We had a White Australia policy and a simple dictation test rid us of any undesirables.
These days, we let Muslims in, and the South Western suburbs are shot up, on weekends. We can thank the bleeding heart clowns like Steele, and Noel, and every Green voter, for the mess we have. James O’Neill, self appointed representative of the pathetic minority, invites Noel to ignore every sensible comment on this thread. Better advice to Noel would be to wake up to himself and try to have some sense, by ignoring the anti-socials, who wish to thwart the democratic process which put Morrison and Abbott in charge. They carry out the will of the Australian people, in our name, despite whingers like Noel.

Dear phillips and SM,

The information is in the link you provided. Perhaps you could read it. Try Table 9: Employment category by migration stream.

Tomorrow is the third anniversary of a certain massacre in Norway. That man was also trying to get rid of 'undesirables'. I will be remembering the victims. I will leave it to you and certain others posting here to spare a thought for the gunman, everyone deserves a friend.

The delusional Steele has found a connection between a dictation test and a massacre in Norway. He has posted it to remind us that he is generally referred to as “Witless”..
Whenever he runs himself up a blind alley his posts descend into this style of gibberish.

SR,

31% employed where this includes people up to 5 years afterwards. The category "other" is not employment. Compare to skilled migration where there are 84.4% employed.

SR,

How many of the 1200 were drowned in your name?

Dear SM,

<<How many of the 1200 were drowned in your name?>>

People drowned because they decided to sail the big wide ocean in unseaworthy vessels. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Steelredux says: <<Tomorrow is the third anniversary of a certain massacre in Norway. That man was also trying to get rid of 'undesirables'. I will be remembering the victims....>>

Steelredux, do you also remember those who died in the twin towers, or the TWO London bombings, or the Kemyan US embassy bombing, or the Uganda shopping centre massacre, or the dozens of massacres in Nigeria?

Just wondering?

SPQR, violent people are violent people, regardless of their religion or culture, and you know it.

How do you stand with all the deaths in Ireland and England due to the many decades of 'troubles' between the Catholics and Protestants? Were these killers any better than the others?

I agree with keeping violent people out of Australia if we can, but where does it stop?
Do we ban ALL the Irish and English people because they 'might' bring their long-running feud here?

What about all the Israelis or Palestinians?
Maybe the Germans will see a resurgence of their bad Nazi war days?
Shall we ban all of them just in case?
What about Japan?
Even the US is not blameless after they dropped the atomic bombs that killed thousands of predominantly civilians in 2 large Japanese cities years ago.

Violence is a human condition, not just a non-white, non-Christian condition.
Anyone who disagrees is an out and out racist and bigot.

@Susieonline,

<< violent people are violent people, regardless of their religion or culture>>
So, you see no relationship between what someone believes and how they act?
Hmmmmmmmm!

Whilst you will see violent acts throughout human history. You will see a greater concentration of it where cultures or religions which preach violence dominate. And as UN-PC as it is, some creeds are more violent than others. And Islams history is one of the most violent.

The big advantage that Islam has is that people like you either don’t know about its past, and ongoing bloody history –and more often than not don’t even want to know.

<<Violence is a human condition, not just a non-white, non-Christian condition.Anyone who disagrees is an out and out racist and bigot.>>

Where did I suggest it was associated with the colour on ones skin?

HOWEVER! if you ever have the misfortune to undertake “Whiteness Studies “at some of our major universities (as thousands of unsuspecting undergrads have) you will indeed be told that racism is endemic to the white race and practically all of the woes of the world emanate from white colonialism --AND I AM NOT JOSHING!

The elected government of Australia is (for once!) implementing the policies endorsed by the majority of the electorate.

The more that people like yourself claim to be morally superior to the majority, the more the majority are inclined to give you, and people who think like you, two fingers full of righteous indignation.

Australia for the Australians. Prosperity is not a natural law of nature. We should not bring people into this country who can not contribute to the Commonwealth. The importation of certain "refugee" ethnicities that have no cultural affinity to our own has been a social and economic disaster for this country. All it has done is to fill our jails and our dole queues while causing our governments to implement laws contrary to our western ideals of free speech, freedom of association, habeas corpus, having our cars, homes and person's searched without a warrant, electronic surveillance of citizens by government, and other serious reductions in our civil liberties.

Dear LEGO,

<<We should not bring people into this country who can not contribute to the Commonwealth.>>

I agree. But neither should people be forcibly removed if they arrive uninvited. Let those who come come and let those who drown drown. Treat them at least as well as animals - do not disadvantage them because they happen to be homo-sapiens: let those who threaten the peace be shot rather than jailed, but let those who do not threaten the peace live on this continent of Australia, free as any other wildlife, which also receive no social benefits.