A timely reminder of the commitments that Australia has made under international conventions and treaties, to treat refugees humanely.

Unfortunately, the Howard Government has ignored these commitments in order to gain political advantage, and in doing so sending Australian politics to its lowest ebb. The use of words such as "illegals" and "queuejumpers" demonstrates the ignorance of the legal situation and the real circumstances of asylum seekers and is designed to dehumanise them.

The fact that over 80% of asylum seekers are adjudged to be genuine refugees, in fear of persecution, is rarely publicised. Why? Because then it would be impossible to justify the millions of dollars spent, and the terrible human cost, in keeping genuine refugees and their families, in harsh conditions for extended periods whilst their case is being adjudicated.

Expect the usual misinformed right wing rants in response to this article.

AMSADL

The only issue I have with your post is "usual misinformed right wing rants".

Granted there are many misinformed and, true, they like to rant, however racism and contempt for refugees is not restricted to nor necessarily the province of political conservatives.

True our current fed gov is inhumane in its treatment of refugees, however it is not fair to generalise; Petro Georgio after all showed he possessed the 'right stuff'.

To Guy, thank you for the historical perspective. Australia needs reminding that it is a part of this troubled world and while we continue to involve ourselves in warfare, we are responsible towards those hurt by war.

AMSADL
80% are genuine? So 20% are not. What does Australia do with these non-genuine? More importantly does anybody know how many are judged Genuine in what time frame? And are the majoirty that are held for longer times the non-Genuine. (i.e. That Pakistani (cum Afghan) family that now admit lying?)

Some info on this is of interest.
Also what is the best site to visit to get the list of refugee rights?

Signatories of the 1951 Convention could not have foreseen present day events when they were anxious to provide for refugees after World War 11. I would have thought that the Refugee Convention is outdated, but that is just my opinion. With the likes of WRE on the lookout, one now has to make that clear to avoid a tirade.

On reading the “General Provisions” on refugees, I noted the following descriptions who was then considered to be a refugee:

“(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;”

Now this may seem stupid to people versed in the law, but my question is: what were the arrangements, and how do they apply to the present situation?

I am also confused by the following:

“(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

Prior to 1951. How does that fit into the 21st Century? Again, this could be a stupid question to those in the know, but I don’t follow. The requirement is explained in B (1), still referring to victims of events PRIOR to 1951.

I read to the end for clues, but didn’t find any.

I have to pull a Pauline Hanson here:- “Please explain”, if anyone can.

Today is not the world of 1951. There are many opportunists simply wanting a lifestyle that is superior to that of their home country. They cannot be blamed for that but no can any country who refuses to be 'swamped' by those who are not genuine refugees.
How do you tell the true refugee from the criminal fleeing justice?Or those who just do not like the poverty of their homeland.
Much of Africa, Asia could claim asylum.How do you cope with that?
We would sink under the onslaught of third world countries if the refugee advocates had their way.

Its all good and well to say we have an international obligation to accept refugees. But who is prepared to take a dramatic drop in the standard of living that would be required too accomodate the vast number of legitimate refugees who would like to migrate to Australia if we strictly stuck to the letter of the law.

Lets face it, 9 out of ten of these refugees would not be able to speak even basic english and would subsquently go straight onto social security benefits. On the economic-social ladder the majority of these people would stay on the bottom rung and perpetuate poverty in thier ethnic communities in which they gather.

Many people seem to be oblivous to the fact that Australia already pays over 1/3 of there taxes to recipents of social security and that with an ageing demographic this is simply not sustainable.

It is not just financially unviable (if people wish to maintain current standards of living) but it is enviromentally negligent to promote increased numbers of people to migrate to Australia. Australia's enviroment is unable to sustain our current population let alone an increase.