It is a terrible question to ask, but why did we start having large numbers of refugees dying at sea since 2001?

Is it because we as a nation changed our priorities?
According to one report "The stated intention of the new, robust rules of engagement and the ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE and INTERCEPTION resources was to deter SIEVs from entering Australian waters. No longer would SIEVs be met and routinely escorted back to Australia for processing of asylum claims."

Although we increased our border patrols near Indonesian waters, in order to "encourage" boats to return to Indonesia, we suddenly had a spike of drownings? It doesn't make sense does it.

"Almost all the deaths at sea have been caused by
the appalling response of Australia’s search and rescue
services, who have been told to prioritise stopping
boats, not saving lives. Tony Kevin, author of
Reluctant Rescuers, has written that the “rescue response is ad
hoc and unpredictable... we act when we choose to”.
As a result, “Hundreds of people have died when they
could and should have been saved”.

As recently as June 5, 2013, at least 55 drowned due
to the lack of response from the authorities. Although
the boat’s engines were dead when it spotted on
Wednesday, it was only 40 hours later that Border
Protection Command alerted the search and rescue
authorities. This is a continual pattern. In July customs
waited over five hours after getting a distress signal
before directing one of its ships to go to rescue an
asylum boat. Nine people are thought to have died.

Senator John Faulkner asked AFP chief Mick Keelty several times about the disruption agreement between Australian and Indonesian forces and how far it went, but no answers were given, and no inquiry was ever established, despite it being requested.
Listen to John Faulkners "License to Kill" speech especially the last 2 minutes.
http://sievx.com/sound_clips/20020925Faulkner.mp3

HOW GOVERNMENT POLICY CAUSES DEATHS AT SEA
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Deaths-at-sea.pdf
How authorities decide to rescue asylum seekers … or not
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/13/how-authorities-decide-to-rescue-asylum-seekers-or-not/
SIEV X: 10 years on the questions remain
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-17/hutton-sievx-ten-years-on-the-questions-remain/3574870
Twisting tale of dog that didn't bark
http://sievx.com/articles/challenging/20020325CTTonyKevin.html

Hi Bob,

I think you may have missed the point of the article: there are two positions on the issue of refugee intake:

(1) that people should pay smugglers for positions on dangerous boats, and if they survive and are intercepted by Australian navy ships, their boats should be towed into an Australian port, from which they should betaken to a camp to be processed;

(2) people should be able to fly direct to Australia.

Okay, three positions:

(3) that only refugees who have been through the proper processes can be selected.

I'm presuming that you support the first position. But can you see that it slides very quickly to support for the second position ? Or are you happy that any illegal migrants should have to pay smugglers, that they should only get here by leaky boat, that they should risk their lives at sea, etc. and if they don't, they shouldn't be admitted ? You're surely not saying that people SHOULD risk their lives to get here ?

Can you see that, if it is okay for people to run that gauntlet, it really should be okay for them not to have to go to all that trouble, they should be able to avoid the smugglers, the leaky boats, the dangers of sea crossing - and go straight to the airport ?

And that we should take anybody who has the air fare, from wherever they may be, to Australia ?

Just trying to help :)

Joe

All true. But the loony, smug left survives only because of average people, who are not interested in left, right or politics of any sort, but who are all for getting something for nothing and plenty of welfare. Who is supplying these things, or promising them, the parliamentary wing of socialism, the Labor/Greens. We all know how destructive socialism is, and there is not much point in writing or talking about it until the average, a-political voter gets the message. Now that we have a socialist PM, with a clearly left deputy and foreign minister wanting more spent on foreign aid to pave her glorious way to joining the corrupt United Nations eventually, there might not be the money or the will for a Coalition government to drag us out if the mire of left-wing spending, as has traditionally been the case when the socialists are ejected, then the average votor might get the idea that socialism stinks.

In the meantime, while the money borrowed money flows, , people don't even think about unaffordable stunts like the NDIS, free tertiary education and incresed flows of alies who are a threat to everything we hold dear.

Loudmouth

The other option is for Australia to withdraw from the 1951 UN Refugees Convention, and for the government for the time being to accept whatever refugees it decides on whatever terms it decides.

The ultimate cause of the drownings at sea is the Convention, because by holding out to refugees the prospect of refugee status *that not even the Australian government can deny*, it caused the whole dynamic of trying to sneak in, and of applications for refugee status being determined on the basis of seaworthiness.

Ridiculous, but why do you both implicitly defend it? Why don't you acknowledge what's causing the problem, and oppose it, namely, the UN and its sacrifice of human lives for the sake of the posturing of politicians and the useful idiots?

I'll make the assumption that the author isn't the fictions person in the Jane Austin novels.

Apart for the massive straw-mans setup in this piece to make it virtually worthless. I would contend that it is clear the author has led a privileged life without any struggle.

so having established what would she do if she found her self with all her money in a war torn country.
Would she wallow in a refugee camp waiting her turn for resettlement, or would she use what means and money she had to get the the head of the queue.

No need to replies I know what your answer is.

So when you come at that answer honestly, and have a thought for how some people then approach their response, you might, just might be able to have an adult conversation.

Is this supposed to be an example of informed conservative or right-wing thinking?
Yes, as Cobber pointed out, this essay is full of straw-man setups. Such is of course a common gambit used by members of the right-thinking chattering classes.

Speaking of boats and, and compassion too, this essay describes the situation that we are now all in.
http://www.dabase.org/p3family.htm

Unfortunately of course, the problems that humankind altogether is faced with are so huge, and (all) inter-related too, that it is almost impossible to change anything for the better - because every action, and inaction too, inevitably has multiple unintended consequences.

Harriet
You share with the generous hearted( and generous with my taxes) idiots ( whom you misrepresent as the Left) a refusal to grapple with reality : the potential millions moving on Europe come from failing states from around the world- Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya – and through the latter, from Nigeria, Eritrea and others. None of these failing states, nor many others in Asia, Africa, the Middle East adjusted to the doubling or more of their population since the 1960s, the world’s population growing from roughly 3 to 7 billion over these five decades.
As the vast majority of the millions of migrants on the march word wide are young males without particular skills, and do not they share Western culture and principles, can suspend your moral preaching for a moments reflection to ponder the question of consequences

I had to rub my eyes: the author is accusing people of personal morality? is righteousness a crime?

Doing the right thing is always superior to getting a desirable outcome and the means are at least as important as the ends.

With some good points, the author could well and probably successfully argue the immorality of the actions of her political opponents, but blaming them instead for being moral is her knock-out.

Hound,

We all know by now that this 'straw man' rubbish is your way of dealing with those with whom you disagree. Time for a new slogan or sensible argument.

The road to Perdition(hell) is paved with good intentions

So goes the old saying.

This author is making the point that a lot of people are
More interested in their own sense of do-gooderness, than
In seeing the enormous negative results.

For instance how many people would be so keen to
Share their home with 5 refugee families and have the economic
Burden of feeding and paying for all their needs.

In this sense their moral self righteous behaviour is only a surface warm and
Fuzzy feeling for them.
They can be so generous because they themselves personally don't really
Have to pay or sacrifice anything,.
Different story if they were told by the government that every Australian family
Had to share their home and money with two or three refugee families.

Yup,

1200 or more people were killed by the greens good intentions, and thousands more are dying on the Mediterranean .