Rhian

If it costs $100 per refugee under your proposal, and, say $4,000 now, that means, according to your proposal, you get paid $3,900.

Neat.

Rhian,

An economist would suggest, from the point of view of consumer satisfaction, that the consumer of a service must get something out of it to get satisfaction, in order to be willing to repeat the transaction.

The point surely about boat-people is that they come once, not again and again. If they don't get satisfaction the first time - i.e. they arrive, not at their paid-for destination, but back at the hotel - then they won't repeat the process. And they'll pass the word around.

Paying crews to take people back may have that sort of effect. Paying the crews means the death of the smuggling business.

It means effectively 'stopping the boats'.

Now we can focus on increasing the annual quota of genuine refugees, without any perturbation caused by queue-jumpers with money. We can focus on refugees without money.

You know, - the out-of-sight refugees, in Turkey, Kenya, Jordan, Egypt, Tanzania - the people who will never have enough to get on a boat.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi JKJ
Yep, that’s my point. Except you can multiply those numbers by about 1000!

Hi Joe
I agree that diminishing the chances of getting though might affect the decision to try, or try again. But I’m not sure that failing to get through once would be enough to deter refugees from trying to get through again. Many are persistent and resourceful. Even the risk of drowning doesn’t deter them, and I guess the same grapevine you describe means they are well aware than some boats don’t get through.

cheers

The AHRC has a link to some numbers that might be relevant to the discussion

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-statistics

As at 31 May 2015 there were: 2,026 people in immigration detention facilities, and 1,598 people in community detention in Australia

Looking back a bit
http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/immigration-detention-statistics-20130131.pdf

As at: 31 January 2013 There were 5697 people in immigration detention facilities and alternative places of detention, including 4526 in immigration detention on the mainland and 1135 in immigration detention on Christmas Island as at 31 January 2013.
Separately, 2178 people have been approved for a residence determination to live in the community.

I assume statistics for other periods are available with some more digging.

R0bert

Dear Rhian,

But why not receive the whole $1,600,000 rather than $1,440,000?

Birds who fly over the ocean and fish who swim here do not receive a cent! - What then, other than the refugee convention, forces the Australian tax-payer to provide arrivals with even $40,000/person?

The cheapest way, which perhaps just hasn't crossed your mind, is to simply ignore them who arrive - let those who set sail sail, let those who drown drown, let those who manage it ashore come ashore, let those who starve after landing die, let those who find Australia inhospitable leave or swim away, let those who wish to support them support them, let those who like a human pet tie a collar around their neck and keep the on leash, let those who want to save fuel ride their back, let those who wish to eat them cook them for dinner then hang their bones in school for the study of anatomy, etc.

It's only the united-nations and its refugee-convention that require that anyone who arrives must be treated as a human, thus refugees are worse-off because the government prevents them from coming even in their capacity of animals.

Why should it be the government's business in the first place? It's all about that bigoted and sick idea of "sovereignty" which we pay for dearly.

---

Dear Bjelly,

<<All I know is that most people believe what they have been told repeatedly by politicians and the media for over a decade>>

Well I never listen to either. Why would anyone? My good education tells me that when the devil speaks one should fill their ears with wax.

<<I would just like my government to stop lying and do the right thing by vulnerable people by simply abiding by its commitments under the Refugee Convention - nothing more or less.>>

But abiding with the Refugee Convention is not the right thing! It's what started this cruelty rolling on to begin with.

Off topic again, in answer to LEGO's accusations above, I realise my views are almost always opposite to yours on most issues LEGO, but climate change is not one of them.

I am not that interested in that topic, and rarely say much about it, so run along and annoy someone else for a change...