Shhh..... a message from the land of Nod!

More foolish bleating. Illegal arrivals are not 'migrants'. Migrants are and always have been, people who apply through proper channels to come here and those of such applicants who comply with the laws of Australia. As with all sovreign nations, Australia SELECTS which applicants it will accept. It has been made quite clear that no one who comes by boat will be permitted to settle in Australia. The same rules apply to visa overstayers. The latter are harder to catch, but that is no excuse for not treating people who employ people smugglers to get them here illegally the way they are treated now, even though we have to feed and house them, when it would it would be cheaper and easier to simply turn back the boats. But, at the moment, that is the price we have to pay for having weak politicians who allow themselves to be deterred by Wailing Willies and and traitorous activists.

Just how hard is it for people such as this writer to get that? Are they really as dumb as they appear? Do they really think that they have some special power or influence that that most Australians do not have? Do they think that they are better than the rest of us? Probably 'yes'. They have to be shown that they are wrong.

No, the same rules don't apply to visa overstayers; the offshore detention centres are only there to deter people from arriving by boat.

One practical change we could make is to restrict offshore detention to those who have attempted the dangerous crossing in unseaworthy vessels. Those who got here in seaworthy vessels, or used the much safer route from PNG to the Torres Strait Islands, should be treated as if they'd come here by plane.

And changing the rules would subsequently enable a one off resettlement of those who arrived before the rule change, without encouraging anyone else to risk their lives trying to get to Australia.

An even simpler solution to that proposed by Aiden is to simpoley collect them. Put them on a plane, preferably without windows and take them back where they came. Save on an awful lot of fuss and expenses. Could even save on landing fees. Use the time in the air to teach them parachuting and give them a free parachute.

I am happy to have migrants BUT only if they knock politely at the front door asking to come in and then respect all the rules etc like the rest of us.

Otherwise it's target practice at 21 miles for the navy. I'm sure they have plenty of ammunition that has reached its use-by date.

WE WILL DECIDE WHO COMES HERE AND THE MANNER OF THEIR ARRIVAL!
Alan B.

Dear old dear if living in Paris has not convinced Rodney of the stupidity of open borders I doubt whether any reason will convince him.

People in immigration detention centres receive over and above what many people in Australia receive, and they get it for free.

This includes: -

"- accommodation including bedding and bathroom facilities
- catering, which includes the provision of a minimum of three meals per day and the accommodation of particular requirements such as halal, kosher, vegetarian
- access to religious practitioners, prayer rooms, services and other religious activities
- access to television, library services and other educational and entertainment facilities
- access to visitors (including visitor accommodation), a mail service and to telephones, computers and the internet
- access to interpreters
- excursions to locations or venues external to the immigration detention centres (for example fishing and shopping trips)
- a schedule of programs and activities (participation in which is voluntary) targeted at enhancing the mental health and wellbeing of detainees (for example, cultural and lifestyle classes, sporting activities)
- an income allowance program and operating shops and a hairdressing service
- recreational and sporting facilities
- supplying and replenishing clothes, footwear, toiletries, hygiene products and other personal items"

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees#_Toc336609242

All this is provided for free, and provided after these people illegally came to Australia.

And Australians who have carried out no illegal activity are required to pay the costs of those who have carried out an illegal activity.

Perhaps the illegal immigrants should be put to work to pay for the cost of their illegal entry, and after that, Australia should see if they are entitled to come into the country.

Interactive: Yes and not a bad idea. But not here, somewhere comparatively close, like inside East Timor sweat shops and for the same dollar a day dawn to dark gut bust that's common fare there? As are tin shanties and bicycles! And not so much as a single Mosque in sight?

Moreover, nothing to prevent the ultra religious attending local church services and joining in Christian prayers and hymns? After all there is but one God, regardless of preferred regional differentiation labeling

And East Timor is a signatory to the UN convention! Even so, shouldn't be asked to provide better conditions or amenity just not available to their own nationals! The problem previously?

I wonder how long it would take our "guests" to decide they wanted to return home or to Nauru? If they decided they would return home? Economy air travel could be provided along with a generous grant of around fifty thousand AUD or so, to set them up in some Family enterprise?

And a dam sight cheaper than simply housing them on Nauru, Where we apparently supply the world's most expensive economy class, family friendly, tropical resort style accommodation? Of the stories of abuse emerging? who are the abusers? Family? Friends? Other detainees? Employees? Guards? Aliens? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I would want to test these claims with the aid of unbeatable space age lie detection technology! And if proven? Result in heads falling! Even Nauruan Nationals, even if that required gunboat diplomacy!?

These folk take our money, shoveled by the shipload for a product! Namely safe and secure haven for a medley of uninvited guests and need to be held accountable for that delivery!

Ditto Manus! Whose courts and latter day finding was extremely convenient! And where getting it overturned by legislation ought to be the price they're willing to pay for the continuance of billions in aid money/current defence arrangements/assistance?
Alan B.

Rodney,

The moment you tried to show that detention was not a deterrent based on research into the death penalty, you revealed a vast ignorance. The reality is that illegal immigration dropped by 98% when detention and tow backs were introduced and increased from about 100 p.a. to 1000 per week after the incompetent labor government removed it.

The disaster that has hit Europe is entirely due to the same left wing idiocy.

With Europe falling apart with civil unrest, terrorism, mass rapes, bankruptcy, and now talk of civil war, it is just incredible that Rodney Crisp is still pushing the line that open borders is the way to go. I would have thought that Rodney and his friends would be scuttling back under their rocks and hoping that nobody remembered that they once pushed an ideology that ensured social self suicide?

The repeal of the White Australia Policy has seen.....

Armed guards outside of Australian newspaper offices and Jewish schools.

Six Sydney schools in the "troubled" (read "Muslim") Southwest of Sydney now have permanent security guards to protect teachers and students from violent imported students.

Australian soldiers, SES volunteers, ambulance drivers, and Rural Fire Service volunteers advised to not wear their uniforms on duty to minimise the risk of being beheaded.

More Muslim "Australians" fighting for ISIS than in the entire Australian Armed forces, with Imam's claiming that "thousands" more want to go.

Several mass murder terrorism plots foiled by our alert security police.

Freedom of speech in Australia is now banned, and other cherished civil liberties in Australia being curtailed because of the negative effects of non white immigration.

Cabramatta the heroin capitol of Australia.

Sydney being Balkanised into ethnic ghettoes, some with high rates of welfare dependency and violent crime.

African gangs in Dandenong out of control with the police advising residents to flee them on sight.

The Minister for Education in Victoria, James Merlino, has just issued a directive to public schools that “praise music”, being “any type of music that glorifies God or any deity ( meaning Jesus and Santa) is now banned. So Christmas carols are not to be played or sung in Victorian Socialist Republic public schools from now on.

I think I would prefer the White Australia Policy, Rodney. Australia would now be a much nicer and prosperous country if we had. I don't care about what the rest of the world thinks. They all just want to go to a white country because we know how to run a country, and they don't.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The reality is that illegal immigration dropped by 98% when detention and tow backs were introduced and increased from about 100 p.a. to 1000 per week after the incompetent labor government removed it »

So far as I am aware, none of our successive governments ever intended to open the flood gates to illegal immigration. I think that is crystal clear to everyone.

Managing the problem has not been easy. Governments (both left and right) have had to feel their way, navigating between the imperative of maintaining effective control over our borders and humanitarian considerations for the migrants. It has been pretty much a case of trial and error all the way for the past fifteen years.

Sometimes they got it right, sometimes they got it wrong – each of them, alternatively – neither one more than the other. Lives of real people have been lost due to errors and omissions on both sides of the political floor. There has been an overall increase in our migrant intake but no more than we can handle so far.

The Howard government set up the so-called Pacific Solution for offshore migrant detention centres and it received bipartisan support from the Liberal-National government and the Labor opposition. This has now proven to be a mistake because Manus has to be closed as it has been declared unconstitutional by Papua & New Guinea where it is located. It is by far the largest offshore migrant centre of Australia with its 854 detainees.

The second largest offshore centre, of course, is Nauru with its 442 detainees. Here is what Joshua Dale, an Associate at Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and Chair of the Australian Lawyers Alliance Human Rights and Criminal Justice Committees has to say :

http://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/opinion/australias-opaque-offshore-asylum-policy-on-nauru

Let him (the political party) who is without fault cast the first stone.

Also, allow me to suggest that the only way to avoid deception in government is not to place so much hope and trust in it. Best to be pragmatic and remember what Churchill said about democracy.

.

.

Not surprisingly, the comments posted here so far are essentially manifestations of the territorial instincts we human beings have inherited from our common ancestors with the chimpanzees.

Research in human ethology has highlighted behavioural patterns in relation to territory which extend to the defence and control not only of physical space, but also of concepts and non-spatial, non-physical entities. It includes “that area of an individual’s life which he experiences as his own, in which he exercises control, takes initiative, has expertise, or accepts responsibility”.

Personal space acts as protection, a safety device, and a status marker. People with a highly developed territoriality instinct tend to place greater value on possession than on actual usage. They prefer to own rather than rent or borrow. They mark their territory and seek to control and defend it.

However, the territorial instinct plays a less important role in some individuals than it does in others. Many are willing to share territory with others, cooperate with them to find alternative solutions, and settle territorial conflicts and disputes peacefully rather than by force and aggression.

According to the latest anthropological estimates, the first wave of migrants arrived here about 60 000 years ago after a 40 000-year trek by foot from Africa. The second wave sailed in from the UK just over 200 years ago. The third wave is now flowing in from Asia and the Middle East.

When the aborigines arrived they had neither entry nor permanent residence visas. Neither did the British when they disembarked some 60 000 years later. They simply pushed the aborigines aside, decimated them, disseminating the survivors, and took over the country without any further ado. That didn’t seem to worry anybody, apart from the aborigines, of course.

The first wave was no problem. Hopefully, we’ll handle the third wave better than we did the second wave – at least in a more civilized and humane fashion.

We need to brush-up a little on our manners and act like ladies and gentlemen and not like a bunch of wild gorillas defending their territory by tearing everyone apart.

.

The territorial imperative is mandatory in all sedentary organisms where the protection of local resources is crucial for continued survival. It does not matter if the organism is human, a chimpanzee, a bird, a fish, or a Stickleback Lizard. A nectar eating lorikeet may tolerate a seed eating pigeon invading his territory, but if another lorikeet invades it, he will attack. The degree of inter species hostility in defence of territory is a factor of resource supply. Organisms living in good times with abundant resources are much more likely to be tolerant of intrusions than organisms living in hard times where the protection of resources means the difference between life or death. Prosperous western societies are therefore noticeably much more tolerant of outsiders than third world societies.

It has become a political and social fashion within prosperous western societies to sneer at one's own people and culture and to deny your own people's territorial imperative. The predictable result of this fashion will be the social self suicide of the white western race and the prosperous and desirable societies which our race has traditionally created. The population of the earth increasing by 100 million unwanted people every year, almost all from third world societies where large families are still the way to go. If white western societies keep taking in the "tired and poor huddled masses", we ourselves, (including Banjo Patterson) are going to end up with nowhere to "breath free" in.

The coming of the British to Australia was the best thing that ever happened to Australian aborigines, especially the female ones. The British Empire was the most successful civilising force that this planet had ever seen, and it created successful and functioning societies everywhere. The Golden Rule for all immigrants today is head to where they speak English. Had the British not settled Australia, this country would be just another black ruled third world craphole with the inhabitants holding out the begging bowl to the rest of the world.

Very "lofty" posts by banjo and Lego, but why not take the simple approach to the problems of the world, with a little advice from John Cleese, when offered the question from Ross Bilton (Australian magazine) interview:

Q: Is the world stuffed beyond repair?

JC: yes, the whole thing is broken and hopeless. The arseholes always end up in charge, and their very very greedy. Most people don't get a fair cut. The old values which taught us that money and ego aren't everything, have faded away with conventional religion, and I don't see them coming back.
So the situation is hopeless. I just intend to enjoy life as much as I can.

Next question! What is your favourite word?

JC: Lunch! :-) :-)!

Come on Banjo of course the lawyers want onshore detention. They make heaps more money, funded by the citizens who are getting ripped off by illegals, when the gate crashers are in the country.

Sorry Diver, I find it ludicrous that anyone would think that a clown like John Cleese is a good source of advice on the way to run, or protect any nation. Personally, I don't find him, or any other performer/actor, an even reasonable source of humour, let alone practical advice.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

Thank you for expressing your concerns. You certainly paint a bleak picture of Sydney, Australia, Europe and the world in general.

All this, of course, is the result of the fact that times have changed and we are now living in a global, fully interconnected world. There is no place to hide. No way to avoid feeling the repercussions of what is going on everywhere else in the world.

We can’t just roll back history and make Australia white again, barricade ourselves in our nice comfortable homes and lives and tell the rest of the world to go away and leave us alone.

Nor can we prevent people from believing in whatever they will: gods, devils, angels, holy ghosts, eternal life and what-have-you. Others have tried but it just doesn’t work. As somebody (whose name I shall not mention in order not to offend you) once wrote: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes”.

For much of the world’s youth, life on earth is as you describe it. They consider there is no hope for them in this life and can’t wait to earn their right to the next one as martyrs of their faith.

Wars and religion, social and cultural inequality, climate change and economic cupidity, are the driving forces behind the obnoxious intrusions into our Australian way of life.

It is beyond our capacity as a nation to fight off all these forces alone. It is impossible to turn the tide and block the tsunamis that threaten to engulf us. We have 59 736 km of ocean borderline to defend and I, personally, do not believe in miracles like that of the legendary little Dutch boy, Hans Brinker, who, according to Mary Mapes Dodge, courageously put his finger into the hole in the dyke to prevent the flood :

http://members.chello.nl/m.jong9/map12/hansbrinker.html

As I see it we have no choice but to face up to reality and adapt to the changing international and domestic environment without compromising on the basic values that characterize Australia today: a tolerant, open, liberal, and (still slightly) egalitarian society.

.

Banjo,

At least you concede that off shore detention very actively deters asylum seekers. However, I am less forgiving of the incompetent Rudd and Gillard.

Rudd promised prior to the 2007 elections to maintain the pacific solution, and defying the advice of his immigration department who clearly advised him that removing the pacific solution would result in a surge of illegal boats went ahead anyway. The consequences were entirely predictable and can only rest on the shoulders of the idiot duo.

Rudd inherited a working system with only 4 people in detention (no children), left behind 30 000 detainees incl >2000 children, 1200+ people drowned and a bill of >$11bn.

As for the territorial imperative, I read Robert Ardrey's works in the 80's and agree that resistance to the invasion by foreigners is a core human instinct, but in this case I would attribute this a lesser role.

My justification for this is that the influx of foreign workers and the humanitarian program met little resistance, and the crap only really hit the fan when the TV was filled with the images of men women and children drowning off Xmas island.

Similarly, in Europe, while there was some alarm at the huge numbers flooding into Germany, the mood changed hugely after the mass sexual assaults by muslim immigrants on German women in Cologne. This appears to have cooked Merkel's goose, as she is struggling to get re nominated for another term.

To Mr Patterson.

The white western secular world is the standard by which all decent societies are judged. Our societies are prosperous and the least corrupt. They are the providers of unprecedented personnel freedoms to their populations unimagined only a couple of hundred years ago, and they bestow upon their populations generous social welfare spending.

These societies are now in real danger of collapse and the portents are right there in front of your nose. There are so many illegal Hispanics in the USA that in 1993, the President of Mexico boasted about "the reconquest" of America through Hispanic immigration. There are imams on youtube boasting about how Islam will take over Europe through unchecked Islamic immigration and birth rate differentials. My own high school in Sydney in 1970 had two Asian boys out of a thousand. Today 80% of the students would be Asian. But you don't see any problem?

Multiculturalism can work up to a point. Most people are tolerant of outsiders who's values, attitudes and behaviours are much like their own. Such people can usually be easily integrated. But the importation of people who tribal, religious and ethnic loyalties are supremely important, especially where their values, attitudes and behaviours are diametrically opposed to the host population, will result in serious social unrest, spiralling rates of crime, reductions in civil liberties, demands for self deturmination, and finally, civil war. What I am saying is a historical fact and is as immutable as the Law of Gravity.

White western societies are becoming more dangerous and unstable. There is talk of civil war in Europe. The Kumbaya philosophy which you and others have advocated for fifty years has failed miserably, and the times, they are, a changin'. You are now a reactionary trying to hold on to a failed status quo ante.

If you and Mr Crisp are still advocating open borders, then your mindset equates to those who once advocated a flat Earth, a sun centred universe, or a six day creation. It is obvious that no amount of reasoned argument can make a dent in your belief system

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« At least you concede that off shore detention very actively deters asylum seekers »

I have no way of knowing what deters asylum seekers. The prospect of drowning at sea or of never being allowed to stay in Australia would be a good enough deterrent for me, but I am not an asylum seeker. The only way to know would be to ask them by having a survey carried out by one of our polling firms: Newspoll, Galaxy, etc.

In my opinion, offshore detention has nothing to do with deterring asylum seekers. It has to do with avoiding the application of Australia’s own domestic law and its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers.

I imagine Howard and his eggheads got the bright idea of offshore outsourcing from the Tax Avoidance and Multinational Tax Avoidance Department at the Treasury. They are experts on the legal aspects of how to avoid Australian and international law in offshore tax havens.

It seems to me that by going offshore, Howard and his boys are simply copying Australia’s rich elite and multinational organisations - not to avoid paying tax - but to avoid being condemned by the international community for not respecting its legal (and moral) obligations in respect of asylum seekers. As long as they are not on Australian soil they are not subject to Australian law. They are subject to the law of the country in which they are located and that country’s international obligations, not Australia’s international obligations.

Now isn’t that smart ? All the brave Australian citizens like you and me and even the complaisant (but not so “gullible”) media has gratefully approved the official explanation without batting an eyelid. Far from sight, far from heart and mind – and the legal consequences. Shhh !

Somebody on this forum wrote (I think it was Alan B): “we house our guests on Nauru where we supply the world's most expensive economy class, family friendly, tropical resort style accommodation …”.

I think he’s missing the point. But, not to worry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWgfvteBDVk

.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

I fully subscribe, without the slightest reserve, to the first three paragraphs of your latest post and commiserate wholeheartedly with you.

At the end of your excellent plea and indictment you ask :

« But you don't see any problem? »

I see many problems, and I hasten to add that like everybody else I have seen them brewing up for years. I tried (but apparently failed) to explain that to you in my previous post :

« Wars and religion, social and cultural inequality, climate change and economic cupidity, are the driving forces behind the obnoxious intrusions into our Australian way of life »

We all saw that building up for years, threatening, sooner or later, to destroy us and our good old Aussie life style. We have been trying to do something about it but, as I indicated :

« It is beyond our capacity as a nation to fight off all these forces alone », and I added :

« We can’t just roll back history and make Australia white again, barricade ourselves in our nice comfortable homes and lives and tell the rest of the world to go away and leave us alone »

Isolationism will not solve our problems. It can only aggravate them. We need greater international, especially regional, cooperation and solidarity. We need to stand firm on our core values and maintain “a tolerant, open, liberal, and (still slightly) egalitarian society”.

That does not imply that we should open the flood gates to illegal immigration. It implies that we should act legally and respectfully on the international scene as a responsible nation and ensure that our laws are respected.

In my opinion, the decision on who is allowed into the country is the prerogative of the Commonwealth Government. The decision on where they reside is the prerogative of our regional authorities. The Commonwealth should only allow into the country as many people as the regions are prepared to accept, employ and take responsibility for.

That is a question of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the regions.

.

I am having a bit of trouble working out your logic here. You claim that you don't support illegal immigration into Australia, yet you oppose the Australian government doing anything to oppose illegal immigration?

The entire white western world is being swamped by ever increasing waves of third world immigrants, who are extremely loyal to their own race, tribe, religion, and culture. That this is having a negative effect upon the lifestyles and social stability of the host countries is undeniable. Would you like me to list the negative consequences of Australia accepting this multicultural Kool Aid? But your response is well, we just can't do anything about it. You see, we have these treaties which sucessive socialist governments signed which says that Australia can not prevent the eventual destruction of our white cultural heritage. So we just have to roll over and take it up the bum.

You and Rodney Crisp must be Swedish. With Sweden now the rape capitol of the world, 55 "no go" areas around Stockholm where the police, ambulance, fire brigades, postal workers, and 60 Minutes news crews fear to tread, with Jews fleeing Sweden out of fear, blond women dying their hair black to try and avoid being raped, and cars burning on the streets of Stockholm every night, only 13% of Swedes voted for an anti immigration party which would begin to take Sweden back from the Caliphate. One Swedish politician actually stated that Swedes "must be nice to the Muslims, because when the Muslims become the majority, they will be nice to the Swedes." Fat chance.

It just goes to show how fifty years of prosperity and socialist propaganda can convince people that prosperity and political stability is a natural law of nature And if they become a minority within their own country, nothing will really change, except that there will be more exciting food choices in the local shopping centre.

The first rule of problem solving, is when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I know that this is a difficult concept for you and Rodney to understand.

.

LEGO wrote :

« If you and Mr Crisp are still advocating … »
.

Rodney Crisp and Banjo Paterson is the “Strange case of Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde”. We are one and the same person.

For those who are unfamiliar with the mechanics of the OLO web site, once you have adopted a pseudonym in order to participate in forum discussions and you subsequently wish to reply to comments on an article you have published, your replies are automatically signed by your pseudo. It is impossible to sign by your real name.

I have no desire to remain anonymous when expressing my personal opinion on the human tragedy of forced migration.

I wish to assume full responsibility for the views expressed here under the signature of my real name, Rodney Crisp, and under the signature of my pseudonym, Banjo Paterson.

I regret that there is very little I can do about that tragedy. The least I can do is to express my opinion and assume full responsibility for it.

.

Banjo,

By your comment "So far as I am aware, none of our successive governments ever intended to open the floodgates to illegal immigration." you have essentially admitted the floodgates were opened and claimed ignorance on the part of Labor. As labor opened the floodgates by removing off shore protection only an imbecile would not recognise the cause and effect.

As roughly 4% of those attempting the illegal immigration die at sea, encouraging this trafficking of people is morally odious, as labor eventually realised after opening the floodgates.

So let me get this straight, Rodney/Banjo. You live in Paris where the negative consequences of mass immigration into a first world country from third world countries is making the news every day? And you want Australia to emulate self evident failure? How did that old definition of insanity go again, Rodney?

Well, we haven't got Muslims in Oz shooting dead journalists or cartoonists yet, but we do have armed guards on media organisations. We have not got armed guards at rock concerts yet, but our security police did foil a plot from the people you wish to import into Australia who wanted to bomb the AFL during a footy match.

70 Australian girls have been gang raped by Muslim race hate rape packs around the year 2000, which matches nicely to the French "Turnantes" (take your turn) used by Muslims in the bainelouse of Paris when gang raping French girls. How many more Aussie girls are you prepared to sacrifice on your multicultural altar, Rodney?

We haven't got paratroopers wandering around your old town of Dalby yet with assault rifles, like in Paris, Nice or Brussels, but I'll bet you can't wait for your old town to be culturally enriched by that little piece of Islamic multiculturalism?

Maybe when you have to go through an ex ray machine just to get on the bus from Brisbane to Dalby to see the relos, you might conclude that multiculturalism is making your own country as unsafe as France. I hear the Frogs and Germans are all heading for Austria to load up on guns and ammo for the coming civil war. But don't worry about Australia, Rod.

The SSAA calculated that there were around 2.5 to 3 million firearms which should have been handed in during Howards buyback. The government only got 640,000. You will be happy to know that your own people won't have to go to Austria to buy their guns when the time comes for a civil war in Australia. A civil war which people like yourself created through your slavish adherence to an unobtainable humanitarian ideal

.

Dear LEGO and Shadow Minister,

.

Many thanks for your input. I appreciate your arguments of which the large majority, I agree, are quite valid. There are probably even a few more to be added to the list if we think about it carefully. I have no problem with any of that.

The next step, as I see it, in view of all these difficulties and pitfalls and more, is that we have to review our strategy.

I suggest that the federal government set up a special task force to design a comprehensive action plan to define our key objectives and the most effective means of achieving them.

The task force should be relatively limited in number in the interest of efficiency, probably no more than ten permanent members, but free to consult competent outside specialists. As time is of the essence, I suggest that a brief but fairly well-advanced interim report should be produced within six months and a final report within one year.

The final report should include a fairly detailed road map of proposed measures, outlining possible alternative routes, and realistic estimates of the time necessary to achieve the planned objectives.

Given the nature and importance of the question of the attitude we should adopt in relation to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, it is evident that the popular desire is strong for consultation and open deliberation about a decision that would affect every one of us in our daily lives and the image we project of Australia around the world for many years to come.

For that reason, the procedure which seems to me indispensable for adoption of the action plan is to submit it to the Commonwealth Parliament for approval (and possible amendment) before being adopted and implemented by the Government.

I agree that what we are dealing with here has many aspects and characteristics of war and should be dealt with as such.

I regret that the Australian Constitution “says nothing about who can declare war for Australia or the circumstances in which we might go to war” :

http://apo.org.au/resource/defence-who-declares-war-australia

.

Banjo,

There have been many enquiries, and what we have presently is the least worst. The surest way to prevent harm in detention is to remove the need to detain anyone.

Remember when Rudd was inaugurated there were only 4 detainees with no children, and when Abbott was inaugurated there where 30 000 detainees with some 2200 children.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The surest way to prevent harm in detention is to remove the need to detain anyone »

Quite so, Shadow Minister. I should expect the suggested task force to investigate the most effective means of achieving this. It would require the cooperation of a number of other nations under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation.

Obviously, the Ministries for Foreign Affairs and Defence should have permanent members on the task force. And as whatever we do should, preferably, be in conformity with our own and international law, the Attorney General should also have a permanent member, as should the Ministry for Justice whose mission is to assist the Prime Minister on counter terrorism.

Six seats remain to be allocated, including the Chair. It would seem logical that the Ministry for Immigration and Border Protection should be represented by a permanent member but, in my view, he/she should not occupy the Chair. I think a lot could be gained by entrusting that task to an independent, non-governmental personality, named by the Prime Minister.

The Australian Human Rights Commission should also have a permanent member on the task force.

I should like to see the three remaining seats occupied by competent personalities from the political opposition as a symbolic bipartisan gesture. Hopefully, their participation would facilitate the ensuing debate in Parliament and subsequent adoption and implementation of the recommendations of the final report.

We are engaged in a war on human rights that threatens our core values as an open, liberal, democratic nation. It is imperative that we mobilise our forces in order to assist as many victims as we can, as legally as we can, and as humanely as we can, without compromising our core values and the Australian way of life.

Obviously, there is a limit to the number of migrants we can accept. That depends on our Regions.

As for your criticism of Kevin Rudd’s disastrous handling of illegal immigration, I totally agree. It was due to his appalling naivety and a complete lack of preparation and communication.

.

Oh yair, Rodney/Banjo, what we need is another Sir Humphry style "far reaching enquiry by a suitably appointed steering committee" to decide on what Australia's immigration policy should be.

And of course, they will have representativres of the GLTIXLFMYSTWOP community, the ever expanding social services community, every leftie who ever went on the ABC, and of course, representatives from our Human Rights Organisations. Unsurprisingly, they will declare that nothing less than open borders, and a completely non racist immigration policy is the only option that Australia can take. Just like on the homosexual"marriage" plebiscite, who cares what the public wants.

Jesus, Rodney, and then you wonder why people vote for Trump, Hanson, and Farage.

You are on the wrong side of history here. Your little multicultural utopia is coming apart at the seams and just like a Creationist who refuses to acknowledge fossil evidence, you can't see past your ideological blinkers. You listened to John Lennon's 'Imagine" for too long and you think it has all the answers. How anybody can live in Paris right now and still believe in multiculturalism , is beyond me.

I once read a book "The German's Officers Wife", about a Jewish woman in Vienna who survived WW2 by going deep and getting a different ID underground before Hitler took over Austria. She was utterly amazed that so many Jews in Austria were in complete denial about he dangers of Nazism. And that is what I charge you with, Rodney. You are so immersed with you humanitarian ideology that you can not see the immigration tidal wave coming at you.

When every white society is swamped by third worlders, Rodney, where are you going to go to where you can "yearn to breath free"?

Banjo,

Firstly, the existing system has had zero boat arrivals in nearly 2 years which makes it the single most effective policy in the world. Thus dragging in others from all over the world is going to achieve what?

Secondly, why on earth would you drag the UN into this? Unless you want to blow cool $bn on a committee of professional politicians and activists and achieve bugger all. I wonder how much the head of the UNHCR from Saudi Arabia would contribute?

Even the Dili regional accord achieved almost nothing over the last decade.

.

Dear LEGO and Shadow Minister,

.

I'm afraid this debate is beginning to turn in circles.

Both of you have clearly indicated that you consider Australia's current policy of offshore detention for vetting illegal migrants to be the most effective and the best method possible.

As I indicated in my article and this debate, I do not share that opinion, on moral, legal and humane grounds. I consider that it does not respect the core values of traditional Australian culture as I experience and practise it and wish to uphold it. I did my best to explain this and suggested a procedure aimed at preserving what I consider to be our best interests as well as the best interests of the migrants.

You rejected this suggestion, preferring the status quo.

The principal point of contention has centered on what you interpret as the deterrant value of offshore (as opposed to onshore) detention, based on Kevin Rudd's catastrophic mishandling of the closure of offshore detention centres in the wake of his landslide victory in the federal election of November 2007.

Unfortunately, we have arrived at a deadlock and are unable to make any further progress.

Rather than turn in circles and repeat ourselves, I suggest we leave it at that.

Many thanks for your stimulating and thought-provoking contributions.

.

Banjo,

This is not a reasoned debate. I give my opinion and reasons for it, you simply disagree. The reasons why the coalition's solution is preferable in my consideration are:

1 - It's effective, the stats from 2000 to now clearly show which policies work, w.r.t. illegal boats and deaths at sea.
2 - It's legal, in that it has met the legal obligations of all treaties that Aus is signatory by meeting the letter if not the spirit of the agreements.
3 - It's morally superior in that far fewer people died as a result, and the refugees accepted were based on need and not financial means to buy a seat on a boat.
4 - It's far less expensive, in that the cost of managing illegal migrants under labor far exceeded any similar period under the coalition.

I am looking forward to a reasoned rebuttal of my points if you can.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« I am looking forward to a reasoned rebuttal of my points … »

I’m sorry to hear that, Shadow Minister. I certainly did not wish to give the impression that I am in any way dogmatic or doctrinaire. I seek to understand, inform and explain, not rebut. I have no axe to grind and no chip on my shoulder. Though I do have a few guiding ideals, I am by no means an idealist. I am pragmatic by nature.

Don’t forget, I grew-up in the Queensland outback as a bush kid.

I have no god, no religion and no political allegiance. I try to keep an open mind on most things, and my beliefs to a strict minimum. (They tend to cloud my vision). I cherish what little freedom I have. My commitments are few but unyielding: essentially to my wife and family, close friends and what I consider to be universal values, such as: respect, honesty, reliability, autonomy, courage, wisdom, responsibility, loyalty, friendship, tolerance, compassion, generosity, ...

But, to tell the truth, the list of my shortcomings is even longer.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I have no desire to rebut your four points. I don’t see why I should. I basically agree with them - though I have a few doubts about the second one.

I refer you, once again, to the article of the associate lawyer Joshua Dale I already posted above, as well as one by a barrister, Julian Burnside and another by Ben Doherty, who twice won the prestigious Walkley Award for outstanding foreign reporting:

http://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/opinion/australias-opaque-offshore-asylum-policy-on-Nauru

http://arena.org.au/anaesthetising-the-national-conscience/

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/01/wilson-security-to-withdraw-from-australias-offshore-detention-centres?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Politics+AUS&utm_term=188556&subid=10045778&CMP=ema_792

I don’t know about you, but I find all this quite disturbing.

Even if your four points were perfectly true and we all agreed they were perfectly true, that is not the point.

The list is a bit short.

Apparently, there is irrefutable evidence that we are deliberately detaining people for much longer periods than necessary and causing them to suffer physically, morally and psychologically.

I think we should look a bit more deeply into it.

.

Banjo,

My background as an engineer (30+yrs) has taught me that there is almost never a perfect solution to any problem, and that one must strive for a solution that provides the most benefit with the least adverse consequences, and that nitpicking a particular proposal without providing viable alternatives is indolent and akin to vandalism.

http://www.asyluminsight.com/statistics/#.V8ssQJh96Hs

There are 1300 people on Nauru and Manus in "detention" facilities that are essentially open for detainees to move freely, and detainees in Aus are predominantly visa breaches or those determined not to be refugees. Compare this to the statistics pre 2013 elections and by nearly every metric the situation has improved dramatically.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« My background as an engineer (30+yrs) has taught me that there is almost never a perfect solution to any problem, and that one must strive for a solution that provides the most benefit with the least adverse consequences, and that nitpicking a particular proposal without providing viable alternatives is indolent and akin to vandalism »

I’m glad we agree.

Let’s leave it at that.

.