.

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.

.