The vast majority of Australians who want to see an end to this endless stream of illegal immigrants entering this country will be pleased with Howard's new policy, which should please everybody. The immigrants will be re-located to a third country, where they will be safe, and they will not be in Australia, which will please most of the population here. Being of a sporting nature I would have preferred the government to have left the door open a little; restrict the migration area to Heard Island, require the open boat to have been navigated by a descendant of William Bligh, and they can stay as long as they like. Alternatively, the government could abrogate the refugee convention and bring back the Dictation Test. If the papuan immigrants were sent to New Guinea they would be secure there and out of our hair. I think the Indonesians would be happy with that too. The prime factor to be considered is Australian national interest, not the interest of the illegal immigrants.

Under the heading: Greens oppose third world country (Indonesia & West Papua)

The Australian Greens used the “A” word yesterday – appeasement - in describing the Australian Government’s decision concerning the future treatment of West Papuan asylum seekers.

Apparently, it is now called ‘appeasement’ when a first world country listens and tries to work with a third world country.

Members of the Greens have been identified as ‘enemies of Indonesia’.

see more at http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

The whole refugee scene has become a host of usually culturally incompatables drawn towards our social security bonanza.( For example the Lebanese muslims). This scene is further corrupted by a lawyer fest veiled behind civil libertarians and do-gooders.

While the situation is impossibly difficult to strike a balance over that will appeal to everyone and not seriously offend some, I think Howard and Vanstone have again come up with about the best balance.

I am in general accord with Leigh and Sniggid: “Any illegal entrants should be processed off-shore and should they be found to be legitimate then they should be settled in another country, not necessarily Australia.”

It seems to me that there is nothing contrary to the 1951 refugee convention in this philosophy. Applicants will still be treated with respect and given asylum where they are found to be refugees.

While things may be pretty ugly in West Papua, we certainly don’t want to cause a situation by presenting a relatively open-door policy whereby there will be a mass exodus from Merauke to Weipa or Bamaga. That would only cause more heartache and stress for all concerned.

Yes it is reasonable to consider Indonesia’s responses and desires. The granting on temporary protection visas was an interesting ‘experiment’. Authorities presumably thought that the reaction from Indonesia would be much smaller. Now that it has proven to be enormous, an adjustment of policy is totally in order.

Maintaining good relations with our giant northern neighbour is extremely important. Striking the balance with what they want and what we want will no doubt be very difficult again from time to time. But on this occasion, it seems to me that it is a win-win situation, and not a loss for the Papuans.

Meanwhile we must continue to strive for humanity in West Papua…. and assert that we are watching very carefully what the Indonesian army and authorities do there

@Ludwig:

Your posts are mostly correct, except the last part about Australia "watching" Indonesia. This statement implies Australia has "moral superiority" and try to act as "defender of humanity" over Indonesia. This position is absurd since Australia has committed physical and cultural genocide on its Aborigines. We Indonesians knew very well of this despicable history of massive human rights abuses committed by Australia.

Hence, don't dream Indonesians will allow Australians, descendents of genocidaires, preaching "humanity" to us or intervening in our domestic affairs. Australia is just an insignificant country which is a minor stooge of USA, it never has and never will have any influence in Indonesia's internal affairs.

PTBI - countries that are 'watched' by western countries - such as Indonesia - are in that position for a good reason, usually because of their appalling human rights records. Although Australia's treatment of aboriginals has not been first class, your reference to 'genocide' shows your lack of knowledge. There are plenty of aboriginals in Australia and the government has spent many billions of dollars in its attempt to make good the damage done. Can Indonesians say the same about East Timor? I doubt it.

Rather than discussing the past, lets talk about right now. Lets address the treatment meted out to non-Islamic Indonesians - I'm sure you must be aware of the Christian churches destroyed and the people slaughtered by Muslim Indonesians - does the beheading of two teenage Christian girls ring a bell?

Your insults to Australia fall mainly on deaf ears, because insults from the recipients of millions of dollars in Australian aid show exactly what ingrates you truly are - perhaps the cupboard will be bare next time Indonesia holds out its begging bowl.

The involvement of Indonesian officials in the illegal immigrant racket, and the softness of the government on murderous terrorists speaks for itself. Not to mention the creeping radical Islamization that would dictate how people behave and dress in public.

You say you are proud to be Indonesian - I must ask you why? Has Indonesia ever contributed anything of value to humanity?

We certainly should not allow Indonesia any say whatsoever in Australian policies. Neither should we allow Australia to become a base for a West Papuan freedom movement. Perhaps this issue should go back to the UN where the decision to hand over WNG to a country whose people are of a different race, language and religion, was made in the first place. The UN may even make a decision, 12 years or so down the track ...