A fair enough analysis except for one thing; the criticism of Rudd for inaction to date on our refugee / border-protection policy.

If there is one thing that Rudd should be upholding from the Howard era, it is the policy of strong border protection and unequivocal strong deterrence to those who would try to come to Australia outside of our formal immigration program.

What you like Rudd to do in this regard Bruce?

shees! the 'would' excaped!! \:>|

What would you like Rudd to do in this regard Bruce?

Rudd is sadly giving the impression that his election to Prime Minister was just a stepping stone to being Foreign Affairs Minister - not to mention Ambassador to Beijing.

Rudd needs to realise that Australia's budgetary decline and broader domestic economic problems may darken Labor's (short?) term in office.

Even if new economic problems are not of Rudd's making his chatting about UN Security Council membership is an expensive luxury better addressed (as Bruce implies) once Australia establishes independent credentials.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Ludwig, read my lips dear. Refugees are allowed to move across borders without papers, they are allowed to enter Australia without papers, we decided way back in 1951 and then 54 under Bob Menzies that they could.

Kapeesh so far? Turning away refugees to Indonesia is not border protection you cretin, it is turning away innocent people to a nation where they have been known to disappear, be locked up and tortured and returned to be killed because Indonesia is not and will never be part of the refugee protection system of the world.

After 6.5 years of being told that Howard and Ruddock lied about the situation why are you still bleating like a nonsensical child?
There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant in Australia and has not been since the law changed in 1992 removing all offences for being without a visa.

Howard simply spent $3 billion of taxpayers money to try and uphold a stupid lie before letting almost all of the people into Australia anyway.

It is not possible to apply for a protection visa in Australia unless you are in Australia, that is written into our own damn law books.

Now Bruce, Japan said over and over that they were the ones reluctant for a meeting, it has been reported over and over again so why are you doing Nelson's delusional work for him?

"The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has done well in the United States. He has come across as friendly, open, balanced, intelligent and articulate; the antithesis of his predecessor, who gave a very creditable impression of fawning every time he set foot in the US ..."

Yes, I agree, though personally I would have liked to have seen a little less warmth between Rudd and Bush. Today’s salute in particular makes Rudd look as though he’s buddying up to George Bush every bit as sickeningly as Howard used to. There may be an extenuating story behind it but it certainly looked a little too eager for my liking.

“Rudd might look to practical measures to begin the process of international confidence building.”

I didn’t hear the details but the announcements today of increased Aids funding and also the call to redirect the Afghani poppy crop to use in pharmaceuticals for third world countries were both good moves in the right direction I thought.

Yes, I agree with his position on Japan. In light of the continued whale slaughter I think it would have been inappropriate for Rudd to be seen shaking hands with Japan’s leader so soon after the hunt. I think he was wrong to bow to media pressure and announce a visit as he has.

I agree there have been some sensible decisions made regarding refugees under the Rudd government, though the refusal to grant a protection visa to Iraqi, Mr A was disappointing. Unfortunately, the island excisions, the Christmas Island detention centre and the turning of boats back to Indonesia are all likely to continue. Refugee issues are not high priority for Kevin Rudd.

Thanks Bruce for another well written article.

Well think of this. It only takes 12 warheads to wipe us out,( Australia) and in knowing this, I would be kissing ass too.

As for the reality check, do you think you can do any better?

Evolution

"Well think of this. It only takes 12 warheads to wipe us out,( Australia) and in knowing this, I would be kissing ass too."

Well you might like "kissing ass", but most of us have a far more nuanced view on the type of relationship Australia should be striking with the US. Many would argue that we are in fact less safe rather than more so as a result of our unwillingness to stand up to US intimidation.

We're a target while ever there are US military bases on Australian soil and Howard's sycophantic give us more attitude has only increased the risk.

There's no guarantee that the US would ever act to protect Australian interests. History shows clearly that the US acts far more often out of self interest than it does out of loyalty or altruism.

The mess in Iraq is a prime example of aggressive US foreign policy gone horribly wrong. Thanks to Howard's blind and mindless unwillingness to question the US decision to invade, we're also aligned now as one of the enemy in the eyes of many of the world's terrorist groups. There are countless other examples around the globe of US military aggression dividing communities and turning minds against the west.

We need a Prime Minister who can maintain the relationship with civility but who has the nerve to stand up for Australian interests and those of the region and to say no to US hubris when it looks like overreaching itself as it does so frequently.

"As for the reality check, do you think you can do any better?"

I can't see how striking this belligerent type of tone towards an author of a very reasonably worded article is going to further the debate in any way. In every point he raised, Bruce offered an alternative course of action. Did you actually read his article?

>it has rather been the unwillingness on the part of the Japanese to negotiate and discuss that has stuck in the throat of many Australians. It indicates a lack of respect and an arrogance that is not useful or constructive in any long term relationship<. Yes, I agree. I rather saw Rudd's leaving Japan off his agenda as meeting like with like. Like you, I don't believe any irreparable damage will be done, but it is enough to let them know of our annoyance with them over their refusal to discuss the whaling issue. I don't know that it will be enough to bring them to the table, but it certainly now will be on the 1st meeting agenda, where Rudd can raise the issue. As for the UN issue, surely he is flagging a future intention and positioning ourselves, rather than an immediate expectation? I believe Rudd is saying overall that he will not be accepting of the cultural cringe in Australian society that begat the toadying Mr Howard, and with 21 million people in a large land, we will be rightfully taking a more proactive stance on world matters. As for the so-called salute, surely it was a spur-of-the-moment acknowledgement, rather than a pre-meditated event of huge international significance. Aren't we being a bit precious in reading more into it than was intended?

dear bronwyn. My main system is down and i have to use a pentium 2
which i can only say is like watching paint dry, so no i havent read the artical. The main reason for the comment, concidering the size of the powers that are with us and the unique geographical position, I know that we are in USA's best interests of protecting us.

In laymen terms we are but a flea on a dog when it comes to military and self protection. I think Mr Rudd is exactly what Australia needs and like I said, and know you all wont take it out of context,(kissing ass) but try and imagine the world without the US. Asia is just waiting for them to fall and if that happens, well, I think you can see my point.

Hello Marylin, you old headbanger you!

I don’t want to be a bore or anything. I know some people really get their jollies out of being as abrasive as they think they can get away with, but I’m just not into it. Sorry.

I would love to debate this issue with you. But there is one prerequisite; that you behave in a manner that is polite and tactful to those with whom you disagree.

If you would like to reword your post in neutral and not directly offensive and down-putting language, then I’ll take you up on whatever points you wish to debate.

Reality is that many refugees can not book at their local travel agent for a ticket to Australia.

Reality is people who hold up babies on a vessel in distress are sending an international signal indicating young children who can not swim are on board and need critically urgent help.

Reality is in all my 50 years ocean diving experience including 25 years investigation into world fish devastation I have never seen any animal dead from any plastic bag, except just three or four on tv.

Reality is in the eastern Coral Sea, some Solomon Island people are now suffering chronic poverty, malnutrition, disease and death due to a shortage of available food from the sea.

Reality is SW Coral Sea unprecedented whale calf abandonment is occurring similar to behaviour of mammals like cattle and humans that abandon their young due to starvation.

Reality is that major media boycott of bad news about unprecedented mass starvation of mutton birds along coastline extending from Rockhampton Qld to NSW, Vic and to South Australia and around Tasmania, is preventing achievable and politically tenable solutions.

Reality is sewage nutrient pollution dumped in Australian south and east coast alongshore surf current flowing north is feeding algae that is smothering estuary seagrass food web nursery, and smothering coral, causing coral bleaching on the GBR.

Reality is need for Asia Pacific sanitation including due treatment at Australian ocean sewage outfalls.

Reality is ocean food web devastation is being allowed through gagging of nutrient pollution and consequences and solutions, not by over-fishing as easily claimed without evidence by media.

Reality is that gagging of ocean devastation is allowing damaging coastal development to continue, including deep dredge excavation exposure of ancient nutrient matter and likely toxic algae seed/spore linked to asthma, all for modern ship harbours in bays and estuaries.

Reality is we need a leader who will embrace truth about the marine environment and direct decent bureaucrats and scientists and media toward urgently achieving real solutions. Real solutions are required to prevent Pacific Ocean environment devastation and social impact equivalent caused by empty wildlife plains of Africa.

Did you use the term 'fawning' Bruce? I think it accurately describes most of your commentary here.

Rudd's done little so far. Oh sure he's ponced about on the stage as a bit player largely ignored by the world with comment only reported in Australia.

He's ratified Koyoto and 'got a seat at the table in Bali' where less was achieved than Howard achieved in Sydney. Big deal eh?

He's said sorry and adopted Nelson's suggestion of an annual report on Indigenous Life Expectancy. Both of which are steps forward but hardly fulling of any standard for greatness.

He's cozied up to George. And that must rankle with the anti-US mob. And let's give him credit for abandoning the Yanks as they, at last, appear to be winning a war. That makes great sense, hey?

His assault on a UN office given his projected timing might just be taking into account his life expectancy as Australian PM. But really he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants both a unilateral and multi-lateral approach to relations with other countries... at the same time... Makes great logic eh? I'm sure the operation of both policies are sure to create more problems than positives. When our interests conflict with the interests of our buddies in the UN ... well you'll understand my point I'm sure.

I didn't see the word metooism in relation to immigration. And don't forget the Labor Party and Union history in regard to our past legislation.

But finally in Australia:

Indigenous people are still undergoing intervention with the added indignaty of the rationing of welfare.
The state of hospitals and health in Australia is still chaotic with Rudd already giving more money with no result.
The States are consulting with Rudd on the introduction and on 'who's paying' for computers in schoools. Given the uselessness of those governments ... well we might see the introduction of the current model of computers in the far distant future and I'll bet they won't funded for updating nor replacement.
Traffic congestion in our major cities is in crisis.
Gunns are still building their factory.
New AWA's have been banned but little else has changed and won't change easily.
Small employers are afraid of the proposal to return to the old draconian Unfair Dismissal laws.
Interests rates are still rising.
Petrol prices are still rising.
The cost of living is still rising.
Oh and the Japanese will still go on whaling and we'll still be in Afghanistan in 10 years and Iraq will have been long returned to peace. Ironic eh?
The Unions have formed a committee to oversees the introduction of Labor Party policy into Australia's Parliament but

Rudd's a wonderful performer on the world stage eh? Oh and Tibet what about Tibet?

Rudd certainly needs to build up a track record of practical measures before he has any chance of achieving international confidence in him and his government. Kevin's sorry speach was well recieved and it is reported that some European leaders even shed tears.

What else could our PM do?

He needs to adopt a good mix of the proven strategies to quit coal.

He needs to market and implement our green technology to 'show how we did it' to the other major coal consumers. As a current major coal exporter, we need to not only stop coal plants now, but stop coal exports now.

Regrettably, the early signs are that Rudd will thow up his hands and proclaim that he has no silver bullet, as he did with the Murray-Darling deal with the states.

It seems that only Dr Bob Brown's Greens Party have the bold policies that can make Australia a respected member of the world community.

Rudd's priorities will go nowhere whilst he remains 'hands off' on fundamental constitutional reform to steamline government and cut out the inefficiencies and massive costs under current federal-state relations.

By tweeking Howard legacies, Rudd indicates that on the political spectrum his conservative economic and social views would appear to appease the supporters of the Liberal Party and media network owners. All we have so far from Rudd is a repackaging of the staus quo.

To those of us who expected true leadership in policy direction, with a genuine new deal for Australian families, the disillusionment is already setting in. To stop the dry rot in his credability, Rudd needs to develop some bold, cohesive and innovative new policies and action plans following his 2020 Summit.

Failure to start delivering substantial reform across the board will be seen at home and abroad as a monumental wasted opportunity by a gand-standing diplomat who lacks the substance that Australia urgently needs to find its respect in a world facing numerous daunting challenges.

A well set out & argued article, thank you. The blairist tendency is too appalling to contemplate bad enough but spare us the default mode of managemental blather - Bomber was prolix but Krudd has youthful stamina and less shame. I hope that some of the glossorrhoea is just playing with the media.
The Japan omission was not a mistake but the reaction to the media attention was weak & will be counterproductive - their current PM won't be there long and the issues, from whales to wheat, are too important. Your evaluation "lack of respect and an arrogance that is not useful or constructive " is often overlooked by Australians when considering that country.
On Afghanistan I agree that any military action there is doomed and negotiation is vital. I wonder whether the new politics forming in Pakistan will act constructively?

Ludwig, dear, you have been talking the same mindless tripe for years, you have been told for years that you are wrong but still persist in the nonsense about border protection.

All Howard did was waste the resources of the army, navy and airforce to break Australian and international law in the name of winning the votes of redneck fools.

Kapeesh?

There is not much point debating the issue with you because you always claim you are right and you simply are not.

Aaaaah hahahaha haaaaaaa. Thanks Marilyn for winning my bet: that yes you would respond and no you would not be in the slightest bit nice about it.

You attribute an extreme position to me, which you have apparently gained from half-reading a few of my post on other threads. And I am tempted to attribute the opposite extreme position to you – one of completely open borders with nothing to prevent millions of people flooding into Australia. I’m sure you are not quite that stupid and I would really like to find out just where you are coming from, if you would just set your abject hatred aside and concede to have a tactful discussion.

But nooooo, not in a fit eh. I just needed to look at a few of your posts to very quickly realise what sort of a hopeless intolerance you have for other peoples’ views when they are different to yours.

In my opinion you are the very worst respondent on this forum. Just look at your previous post on this thread; A very strong infringement of the forum rules with direct flaming of a poster who had not in any way addressed you or caused you to respond in that manner.

And you apparently write under your own name, so that anyone who knows you can witness the awfully unintelligent and grossly unbalanced manner in which you think and communicate. Wow!

.
Rudd should most definitely uphold the Howard policy of strong border protection. A slackening of this policy, leading to an escalation in the arrival of leaky boats and hundreds of desperate people, would simply not be acceptable. The vast majority of the Australian citizens would strongly agree with this.

continued

But he should deviate from Howard policy by way of boosting our refugee intake to double its current number, while reducing immigration to a number only a little higher than this – about 30 000 per annum.

And he should put a great deal more effort into international aid programs, especially directed at refugee hotspots and sustainability / population growth issues. He should start by immediately increasing our genuine international aid commitment to the UN recommended minimum of 0.5% of GDP per annum.

This is the sort of thing that Rudd needs to do to boost Australia’s humanitarian effort on the world stage, and be seen to be doing so. But of course, it is not going to happen is it.

So what do you think of this Marilyn? Is there actually some stuff here that you can agree with?

Ludwig

I agree with you that Australia's annual refugee quota should be increased. I don't think a doubling is really enough though when you consider the overall numbers of refugees across the world. Our quota should be increased to at least 20 000. There are 20 000 000 refugees world wide plus as many again Internally Displaced Persons. All developed countries have to make a substantial contribution if we are to ever hope to maintain some semblance of stability in this increasingly fragile world of ours.

I agree that migration numbers should be reduced, and drastically. It is wrong to poach skilled migrants from countries who in most cases can ill afford to lose them. Our priority should go to refugees. Many have professional and trade qualifications. They are usually highly motivated, are willing to work in hard to fill areas and can be up skilled without involving huge expense.

I agree also that our foreign aid levels should be increased so that greater on the ground assistance can be given to help alleviate the squalor and overcrowding in refugee camps. I agree also about a greater foreign aid commitment to population control and sustainability measures.

I know I'm sounding very agreeable here! Maybe it's my way of an antidote to Marilyn's boots and all attack mode! I didn't like seeing you called a "cretin", but I do agree entirely with the content of her posts. I admire her gutsy attitude and understand the frustration she feels.

To be continued.

Ludwig (Continued)

"Rudd should most definitely uphold the Howard policy of strong border protection. A slackening of this policy, leading to an escalation in the arrival of leaky boats and hundreds of desperate people, would simply not be acceptable. The vast majority of the Australian citizens would strongly agree with this."

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, though I've had enough conversations with you in the past to be able to guess!

Many of the Australians you refer to, who might support "strong border protection" as an abstract concept, would I think waver in that support if they really knew what it entailed. Many would recoil at the idea of our navy turning back unseaworthy boats carrying desperately vulnerable people to who knows what fate. How many perish from exposure and starvation? How many have drowned and will continue to do so? No one really knows the truth on this. This is not the policy of a civilised nation.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. It won't give refugees asylum. By sending them back there, we are effectively condemning these people to a lifetime of slum dwelling in an already impoverished and overcrowded country where they are extremely unwelcome and will face merciless discrimination.

Rudd will behave more humanely than his predecessor that’s for sure That wouldn’t be too hard to do, but most of the improvements will be confined to tinkering at the edges. The overall tough approach on refugees will remain. People like you Ludwig can sleep easy; those of us with a little more empathy will do a bit more tossing and turning.

In the 2001 ("Tampa") election the Australian electorate strongly and clearly indicated that it did not favor a humanitarian refugee program based on secondary movements of asylum seekers and people smuggling. The electorate indicated that it wanted refugee places to go to those most in need, not those having many thousands of dollars to travel around the world seeking their preferred destinations for asylum. The electorate’s position has not changed much over time on this issue.

Howards refugee policies were aimed to counter secondary mover asylum seekers and people smuggling. Secondary movement asylum seekers are defined to be asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in an affluent Western country. Almost all secondary movement asylum seekers arrive without identity papers / travel documents, destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence / origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task.

Rudd’s policies mirror Howard’s in the preference to turn back of boats carrying secondary movement asylum seekers. The Pacific Solution has been dismantled, however, secondary movement asylum seekers unable to be turned back (for example due to deliberate sabotage/sinking of their boats) will be processed on Christmas Island under UNHCR rules, not on mainland Australia.

The international refugee system has become most dysfunctional and the distinction between economic migrant and refugee has become very blurred. Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “DARK VICTORY OR CIRCUIT BREAKER: AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE SYSTEM POST TAMPA” detailing the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be found at:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2

Ah good old Franklin with the drivel. The secondary movement argument you whine on about in every forum you find is a furphy that does not actually exist except in a few feeble minds.

Here is what you are whining about. Afghan refugees have to flee Afghanistan, they get to Pakistan. Pakistan has a policy of harrassment, persecution, torment and have not signed the refugee convention. Besides which they have had to suffer about 7 million Afghans since the Russian invasion and no-one in the world helps them. So the Afghans are forced to move on. Then they get to Indonesia which also has not signed the refugee convention. So they come to Australia which has.

The only time secondary movement can ever be considered is if they have been granted asylum in another country or reached another country that is part of the international protection system. The very fact that not one of the Iraqis, Afghans or Iranians were ever excluded from the refugee assessment procedure puts the lie to Ruddock's nonsense. You have been told this by Andrew Bartlett about 1 million times to date.

Now Ludwig. What open borders are those? The reality is that under the refugee convention, along with 140 other nations, guaranteed open borders for refugeees. It's a bit rich to try and close them 50 years after the fact don't you think?

Beside all of that we have about 5 million tourists every year and beg for more, migration levels across the board at the moment are about 350,000 per annum and still you whine incessantly about a few people on boats.

Anyone would think this was the first time in the history of the world that anyone had caught boats to islands. I do often wonder if some of you have a brain anywhere in your heads because our ancestors all caught boats to Australia without invitations.

I was wondering how long it will take for people to see past Rudd's "Dr Feelgood" image and look carefully at his weak, non-commital approach to all but the most popular causes.

He's seen with everyone but supports no-one.

He needs George Bush badly but is afraid of being seen as associated with him. Had John Howard "saluted" like a little schoolboy the press would have taken him apart.

Rudd has no "beliefs" as such beyond the usual motherhood statements and aphorisms. Everything else is up for grabs, the Japan backdown is the classic example.

He is a weak leader who will try to last the distance with an intact image without committing himslef to any thing in particular unless popularity is guaranteed.

Such a leader is extremely dangerous in times of potential international conflict.

Secondary movement asylum seekers are defined to be asylum seekers who move from first countries of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in an affluent Western country.

Almost all secondary movers arrive in destination countries without identity papers / travel documents, destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence / origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task.

Secondary movement asylum seekers have substantial financial resources relative to the majority of the world’s refugees enabling them to engage people smugglers to travel around the world to their preferred destinations, an option denied and not available to the great majority of the world’s refugees.

The UNHCR was sufficiently concerned about secondary movement asylum seekers eroding the international refugee protection system to issue a paper entitled ‘A Comprehensive Approach to Secondary Movement in the Asia-Pacific Region’. It was unfortunately not made publicly available.

There are basically three ways to seek asylum in Australia, firstly arrive with authorisation (visa) and then claim asylum, secondly arrive through Australia’s refugee resettlement program, or thirdly arrive without authorization as a secondary movement asylum seeker. The first two methods of arrival have demonstratable public support, however, the third method of arrival never received public acceptance or support.

The Howard governments system of offshore processing was perhaps a pragmatic and valid solution to the problem of secondary movement asylum seekers. It negated the effectiveness of the illegal people smuggling syndicates, and reduced the chance of tragedies such as sievx. Those who would have previously travelled around the world searching for the best country of asylum were still able to apply for asylum, albeit in a country of first destination. And importantly, offshore processing allowed Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need, unhcr refugees in squalid refugee camps in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Secondary movement was forbidden by article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, with refugees obliged to ask for asylum in the first safe country (not necessarily a signatory to the Convention) that they came to. Marilyn Shepherd has said, and I have no reason to doubt this, that our politicians and diplomats have waived Australia's rights under this clause, so that asylum seekers cannot be rejected on the grounds that they have come from a safe third country. So far as she is concerned, this is the end of the story. We have to take these people, in whatever numbers choose to come, regardless of any negative consequences.

Ludwig and Franklin would disagree, no doubt subscribing to the Roman legal maxim that the safety of your country is the highest law. If laws or international agreements are out of step with what is needed to protect our people or environment, then they should be changed or abrogated.

Britain did what Marilyn Shepherd wanted. Asylum seekers were allowed to live in the community while their cases were considered and to bring in their immediate families. At first numbers were manageable, and they would have stayed manageable if only genuine refugees applied for asylum. However, numbers grew. During the 1997-2004 period there were 490,000 asylum claims, not counting dependants. Only about 20% were accepted as genuine, even after appeal. Rejected asylum seekers only had (and still have) a 20% chance of deportation. (See the Migration Watch UK site for the Home Office numbers and further details.) It is very hard to deport people if you cannot find them, if you cannot prove where they came from, or if their home country refuses to cooperate.

to be contd.

Britain obviously does not have unlimited resources. Because of international agreements or from fear of embarrassment, the government decided to treat the asylum seekers better in terms of housing than its own disadvantaged citizens. An agreement with landlords housing asylum seekers was put under the Official Secrets Act to prevent the public from finding out about this, but it was leaked to the British National Party, which put the agreement on its website. (Google BNP and Combined Joint Tenancy Agreement). The government decided it would be too embarrassing to prosecute.

The large numbers of fraudulent asylum seekers, plus mass migration from other sources is making British people very hostile. See here

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23474889-details/Four%2520in%2520five%2520say%2520Britain%2520is%2520facing%2520a%2520crisis%2520over%2520immigration/article.do

for the results of a recent YouGov poll. 83% of people surveyed said Britain has a population problem. 84% wanted immigration stopped or cut back, including a majority of migrants from Commonwealth countries. 39% said that immigration had resulted in no-go areas near their homes, 66% that British workers were being undercut, 60% that immigration was making their country more dangerous, and 58% that their culture was being diluted. Making the people in the host country so antagonistic is not in the interests of genuine refugees.

I think that Bronwyn has the right idea. We probably could take more refugees, while cutting regular immigration even more to compensate, but we need to make it clear that there is a cap and that fraudulent applicants are being weeded out.

Marilyn Shepherd is being abusive as a tactic to shut down debate. Just ignore her, unless she says something sensible. Or report her for flaming so that her post is deleted.

Hi Bronwyn

I am pleased that there is a lot that we agree on. That is how I recall it from our past discussions; no serious points of disagreement.

So it begs the question; how can you agree entirely with the content of Marilyn’s posts?

I might in time come to understand the frustration that she feels, but there can be no excuse for her style of bluntly offensive expression. It seems to me to be very highly schizophrenic for a person to be passionate about humanitarian matters while at the same time being such an ugly respondent seething with hatred towards anyone who dares not to hold the same views.

There is nothing “gutsy” about it. Any fool can be obnoxious. The ‘gutsy’ thing to do when confronted with people with whom you disagree is to maintain tact and decency and continue to probe into their arguments in a logical and neutral if not courteous manner.

.
“How many perish from exposure and starvation? How many have drowned and will continue to do so?”

Hopefully none, now that the asylum-seeker movement has been curtailed. No doubt plenty if it had been allowed to continue.

If strong action had not been taken at the time of the Tampa incident and in the follow-up period, many hundreds more people would have jumped on barely seaworthy boats and made south for Australia, with many more deaths no doubt resulting.

That whole terrible desperate momentum had to be stopped, and quickly and profoundly, for the sake of all involved.

It should have been dealt with much earlier. For at least a couple of years before August 2001, Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock had been frequently expressing concern about the build-up in the numbers of people preparing to come to Australia as asylum-seekers.

I don’t know how anyone can for one moment argue that an asylum-seeker movement or a refugee movement outside of our official immigration channels can be condoned.

There are other much better ways of addressing refugee issues.

“People like you Ludwig can sleep easy; those of us with a little more empathy will do a bit more tossing and turning.”

Bronwyn, I think this statement warrants a whole post in response.

I’ve done my fair share of tossing and turning for many years, trying to work out the best balance between humanitarian issues, environmental issues, quality of life, sustainability, etc….and how to deal with governments and the voting public that seem hellbent on taking us in the wrong direction.

As well as having been active in environmental organisations for decades, including stints as president of three of them (North Queensland Conservation Council, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Townsville Branch and Sustainable Population Australia, North Queensland Branch), I have been a member of Amnesty International and Community Aid Abroad, and I remain a financial contributor to the Christian Children’s Fund, now for sixteen years.

I can guarantee you that I have a passion for humanitarian issues that is right up there with your own and have had for a very long time.

So please don’t mistake my desire to see strong border control and an absence of asylum seekers heading our way for a lack of empathy over refugee or humanitarian issues.

Australia's humanitarian efforts should be targetted to those most in need. Perhaps the following indicates the inadvisability of allowing Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be undermined by secondary movers and people smugglers.

In July 2001 a boat departed from Cambodia for Australia with 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board, who were believed to have paid between $US5,000 and $US10,000 each for their journey. Note that the average per capita income of Afghanistan was $400 per year, thus $5,000 - $10,000 represents an amount of 12 - 25 times per capita income.

The boat was intercepted and most of those detained were found to be carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers would have been able to apply for asylum in Cambodia as that country is a Signatory to the relevant UN conventions, however, only after interception did many of the group apply to the UNHCR for asylum.

Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the IOM facilitated voluntary return of most of the failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin. If this group of asylum seekers would have reached Australia and destroyed their documents en route, perhaps most would have been granted protection in Australia due to the difficulty in establishing their identities and disproving their almost unverifiable stories.

Destruction of identity documents also occurred during the rescue of asylum seekers by the Tampa. The first mate of the Tampa, Christian Malhaus, testified in a Western Australian court during a people smuggling case that during the rescue he actually saw asylum seekers throw their documentation (“passport like objects”) overboard before boarding the Tampa, thus making it very difficult to establish identities and disprove stories of persecution and facilitate return to countries of origin.

What is reality for politicians? PM Howard 'testified' to the Australian people that refugees threw their young children overboard. Faces in news photographs were intentionally smudged by someone. Nobody has ever been charged for this false pretense in broad daylight in front of us all. No apology was ever given to the refugees involved. So (franklin), who are we supposed to believe about what looks like whatever told as thrown overboard?

Then there is the present ongoing cover up and gagging about reality of compounding marine environment devastation and impact. There is silence to questions I am asking about an eddy spewing government dumped sewage nutrient pollution into GBR - Coral Sea waters, killing coral and seagrass food web nurseries. Impact is causing islander malnutrition and marine animal starvation, all kept quiet, covered up.

There is rot from the bottom to the top. Unmanaged sewage nutrient pollution dumped into ocean at Manly NSW and being drawn by tide and pressed by prevailing wind into Pittwater Hawkesbury River and other downstream estuaries. Devastated seagrass bubbles with rot on Pittwater foreshore. Seagrass now often piles high on the beach, epiphyte growth bleached white by sunlight. Seabirds in the region are now virtually non existent, rarely seen feeding on schools of seagrass dependent fish. A dead shark recently washed up with no explained reason. Evidence indicates marine animal starvation. Phone calls to local media are not returned, lack of respect for fellow citizens and marine environment is obvious. EPA hotline action fails to occur. Rot at the top motives warrant full inquiry.

What sort of democracy is this in Australia? Why is aquaculture policy being developed without marine environment policy? How can liars become leading politicians and accuse innocent troubled refugees while ignoring the plight of the marine environment? How can media be licensed and promote news business supposed to benefit community and environment, but instead cover it up?

I hope PM Rudd is a real Australian, strong enough to bring about real solutions without need to lie. I hope he will not let us down.

Ludwig

“So please don’t mistake my desire to see strong border control and an absence of asylum seekers heading our way for a lack of empathy over refugee or humanitarian issues.”

I know you wrestle with this, but to me the position you’ve taken has to indicate either a lack of knowledge or a lack of empathy. I don’t think you lack knowledge, so what am I left to conclude?

You’re supporting mandatory and indefinite detention of refugees, which means you’re condemning innocent and vulnerable people to harsh and lengthy imprisonment and a resultant loss of hope and sanity. You’re also supporting our navy turning back boats; here you’re condemning those on board to drowning, refoulement, detention or life on the run.

Where is your empathy here, Ludwig? Don’t tell me you’re putting yourself in these people’s shoes. You can’t be.

“So it begs the question; how can you agree entirely with the content of Marilyn’s posts?”

Marilyn knows her stuff on refugee issues. I don’t recall ever seeing anything in her posts that I’ve disagreed with. I do think her migration figure of 350 000 might be a bit high. Last time I did the exercise I got a figure of 160 000, so I’m not sure what criteria she used there, but I’ve read enough of her posts to know that the stats she quotes are usually reliable. I’m much more in alignment with Marilyn’s position on refugee issues than I am with yours.

Divergence

“Secondary movement was forbidden by article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, with refugees obliged to ask for asylum in the first safe country (not necessarily a signatory to the Convention) that they came to.”

This interpretation of Article 31 is not correct. It hinges entirely on the word “direct” and completely ignores the clause at the end stating “and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence “. The fact that Indonesia is not a signatory to the Convention and will not protect refugees is in itself part of the “good cause” for the presence of these refugees on Australian shores.

Ludwig

“That whole terrible desperate momentum had to be stopped, and quickly and profoundly, for the sake of all involved.”

“ALL involved”? You mean for us. The ones already living a safe and comfortable life. The ones whose accident of birth makes us the lucky ones and puts us on the right side of hostile borders. “ALL involved”? How did our border protection controls help the refugees involved?

The momentum you speak of would have ebbed and flowed naturally anyway. The numbers when at their peak, and we’re still only talking a few thousand, were occurring as a result of extreme periods of political persecution in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia is actually part of the reason for the refugees currently leaving these countries. Don’t you think this gives us some sort of responsibility? Don’t we have an obligation to assist the victims we’ve helped create?

“I remain a financial contributor to the Christian Children’s Fund, now for sixteen years.”

I’m assuming from this that you're at least a nominal Christian. How do you reconcile turning your back on needy refugees with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Franklin

“Perhaps the following indicates the inadvisability of allowing Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be undermined by secondary movers and people smugglers.”

One example proves nothing. Your constant banging on about secondary movement and people smuggling is a deliberate attempt to paint all asylum seekers as people with the means to shop around for the easiest and wealthiest country to target. It’s so far wide of the mark and a total denial of the very real and desperate struggle the majority of refugees endure.

Most of them don’t even know of Australia when they flee their homeland. Whole families sell everything to put one member on a boat. The majority aren’t wealthy at all. People smugglers exist to fill a need. Some are ruthless but some are risking their own lives to save others. Millions of refugees as we speak are perishing in deserts, drowning at sea, getting shot on the run, starving in refugee camps and generally facing unimaginable horrors. You have no idea.

Bronwyn, you and I have discussed this whole issue at length before on this forum. At the end of it, there didn’t seem to be much disagreement between us. But now you are upholding big differences.

If you go back over our earlier discussions, you will see that I do not support the mandatory and indefinite detention of refugees.

I support the mandatory detention of asylum-seekers until their refugee status or lack thereof has been determined. I do not support indefinite detention. I wish to see the processing of claims and the length of detention be as short as possible, including for those who destroy their documentation and/or otherwise deliberately obfuscate the processing of their claims.

I am surprised at the things that you assert that I am supporting. You haven’t taken this sort of approach before. Please don’t assert what my views are unless you are absolutely sure. If you aren’t sure then just ask.

“I don’t recall ever seeing anything in her [Marilyn’s] posts that I’ve disagreed with. I do think her migration figure of 350 000 might be a bit high. Last time I did the exercise I got a figure of 160 000”.

Bronwyn, you have contradicted yourself beautifully here!

I don’t mean to be a smart-arse, but her figure of 350 000 is very different to yours (with which I agree), and amounts to a very significant point of disagreement, I would have thought.

“I’m much more in alignment with Marilyn’s position on refugee issues than I am with yours.”

Well, given that you have stated agreement with me on four key points in your post above of 8 April and that you are incorrectly attributing bad things to me, I reckon you will find (as has been the case before) that you don’t actually have too much disagreement with me. We’ll see eh.

One of the key tenets of Marilyn’s argument seems to be that refugees should be able to cross borders completely freely, no matter what the numbers or the effect they may have on host countries. Do you really agree with this?

“ ‘ALL involved’? You mean for us.”

No Bronwyn. ‘All involved’ means all involved, especially those in the most vulnerable positions – asylum-seekers.

It is surely obvious that if Howard had allowed an easy passage for asylum-seekers to come here by boat, the rate of arrivals would have increased to thousands per week. If that had happened, then many thousands more people would have been caught in limbo, as the Australian public and government would not have tolerated it and would have demanded a crackdown.

This is a crucial point; as bad as you think Howard’s actions were, if he hadn’t acted at the time of the Tampa and had let it go for a year or two, the situation would have been a hundred times worse.

Come on, there is just no way that there could be an ongoing large influx of asylum-seekers / refugees moving into Australia in this manner. A trickle could perhaps be tolerated, but how on earth could you accept a small number of asylum-seekers with open arms without spurring a very large rate of influx? You couldn’t. The moment the government lightened up on the strict treatment of onshore asylum seekers, there would be an escalation in arrivals.

So, to prevent poor and desperate people from getting caught up in the horrible saga of people-smugglers, unseaworthy boats, unsanitary crowded conditions, and then periods of detention and uncertainty about their future, I would assert that it was much better for Howard to quickly put an end to the whole ugly business than to allow it to drag on.

“Don’t we have an obligation to assist the victims we’ve helped create?”

Absolutely. I advocate a doubling of our refugee intake within our immigration program. You have agreed with this. I advocate a big increase in our international aid effort, directed largely at refugee issues. You’ve agreed with this.

“I’m assuming from this that you're at least a nominal Christian”.

No. I’m atheistic. But that doesn’t mean I can’t support a good humanitarian Christian organisation.

Bronwyn,

The natural interpretation of Article 31 is as I said. If "direct" is meant to have no meaning, why include it? That said, there was a later reinterpretation in your favour in 2001, according to Wobbles

Divergence,
According to the Expert Roundtable organized by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees and the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva,
Switzerland, 8–9 November 2001..

"10. In relation to Article 31(1):
(a) Article 31(1) requires that refugees shall not be penalized solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country.
(b) Refugees are not required to have come directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened.
(c) Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection in the first country or ountries to which they flee. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who found asylum, or who were settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country."

Before the Industrial Revolution, the entire global population was only about one billion people at most. Now we have 6.7 going on 9 billion or 12 billion, with the growth largely fueled by cheap fossil fuels. Peak Oil has either already arrived or is coming soon, and we are faced with a number of other serious environmental problems, such as shortages of fresh water and (very likely) climate change. The price of rice has increased by 50% recently, with rice stocks at their lowest levels in 30 years. According to the UN World Food Program 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families. (See p. 8 of the 11/4/08 Guardian Weekly and the article by David Adam in the 10/4/08 Sydney Morning Herald detailing food riots in Egypt, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Camerron, Mauretania, Yemen, Bolivia, Indonesia...) It is very naive to think this won't mean more refugees.

Ludwig

“If you go back over our earlier discussions, you will see that I do not support the mandatory and indefinite detention of refugees….I am surprised at the things that you assert that I am supporting. You haven’t taken this sort of approach before. Please don’t assert what my views are unless you are absolutely sure. If you aren’t sure then just ask.”

I’m sorry if I’ve made incorrect assumptions. I didn’t check old threads. I know you and I share a lot of common ground but I still think we differ on some major points.

“Rudd should most definitely uphold the Howard policy of strong border protection. A slackening of this policy, leading to an escalation in the arrival of leaky boats and hundreds of desperate people, would simply not be acceptable.”

and

“I don’t know how anyone can for one moment argue that an asylum-seeker movement or a refugee movement outside of our official immigration channels can be condoned.”

These are the statements that lead me to conclude that you supported mandatory and indefinite detention and the turning back of boats and I still don’t think it was an unreasonable assumption. These two policies were the basis of the “strong border protection” of Howard’s that you argue Rudd should maintain.

You say you don’t believe in indefinite detention but the tough border policies you favour always lead to people being detained for long periods of time. You know that. Are you saying (and I’ll check this time!) that we should detain for a brief period, say three months, and then just send them back where they came from? You must be, because you don’t want them to stay. Sending genuine refugees back to danger like this is no better than detaining them indefinitely.

I find your position confused. You say you want refugees treated humanely (and I’d like to believe you) and yet you argue for strong border protection. In reality it has to be one or the other. You can’t have both. You might like to believe you can but experience shows it doesn’t work that way

Ludwig (Continued)

Turning back boats is inhumane. You still haven’t addressed this issue.

“Bronwyn, you have contradicted yourself beautifully here!”

Yes, you’re right. If you take my words literally, I did, though I’m sure you knew what I was getting at. I meant I agreed with the tenor of Marilyn’s posts but not that particular stat she quoted. I don’t think Marilyn argues for open borders but once again I haven’t checked old threads and I wouldn’t presume to speak for her on that. (My assumptions have already got me into trouble!)

“It is surely obvious that if Howard had allowed an easy passage for asylum-seekers to come here by boat, the rate of arrivals would have increased to thousands per week.”

This is an exaggeration based on panic and fear mongering rather than fact. The biggest number of boat arrivals we ever received was 6 000 - over a whole year - in 2001 – which only equates to just over a hundred a week, a long way short of 1 000. Numbers may have seemed high at the time but there is no precedent anywhere to suggest they would have stayed high. We are not Europe. We are not an easy destination. The vast ocean distances to get here are a natural deterrent to most asylum seekers. Numbers ebb and flow in accordance with the degree of conflict at the source much more than they reflect the immigration policies of potential destination countries.

“No. I’m atheistic. But that doesn’t mean I can’t support a good humanitarian Christian organisation.”

I see in this statement echoes of your position on refugees! You seem to like a foot in both camps! Why “atheistic”? It sounds like halfway house to me. Why not say with conviction ”I’m an atheist”? I find it odd that an atheist would donate money knowing it will be used to convert people as much as to assist them! I know I’m sounding picky and critical. I’m not meaning to be. I can’t help seeing a parallel though between this and your both ways stance on refugee issues.

It needs to be acknowledged that many people attempt to leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic and social reasons as well as for political reasons, and that by posing as asylum seekers the 1951 Refugee Convention provides them with a chance to gain admittance to the West and all the advantages of living in first world countries.

Many developing countries haven’t been able to provide basic freedoms, growth and decent living standards, but have developed enough for the emergence of a relatively well-educated middle class who watch the West on TV and the Internet and yearn for the opportunities they see there.

Global criminal syndicates dealing in people smuggling target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic migrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia. They include genuine refugees in each cargo and often include children to increase the sympathy factor. The distinction between economic migrant and refugee has now unfortunately become very much blurred.

The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported the existence of coaching schools located in the Pakistan / Afghan border region where Pakistani clients of people smugglers would spend a few months preparing for DIMIA interviews. The people smugglers in Pakistan used copies of Australian interview tapes and information from people released from detention centres, and were well informed about processes used to detect Pakistanis posing as Afghanis. The Pakistanis were provided with maps and information on common food items, ceremonies, customs and famous people and events in Afghan history. People smugglers advised clients to learn about farming techniques, language, and to pretend to be illiterate to evade in-depth questioning. The Pakistanis would claim to be Afghan farmers or shepherds and recount tales of being taken to fight for the Taliban. Identity checks on suspected Pakistanis were complicated by the use of false names and disposal of identity documents prior to arrival in Australia.

Franklin, only one family of Afghans was ever deported, so guess what that means sunshine. They were not Pakistanis, they had simply been staying in Pakistan for a short time.

You are like a broken record so I will say this again. There is no such thing as a person who is a secondary mover, Ruddock simply made that up.

People have to get to a nation that has ratified the refugee convention and whether we like it or not for Afghans that was us.

Which is why 98% of those people you claim are secondary movers are still here.

Honest to god, give it up.

And Ludwig. Explain to us all why innocent people should be locked up? Did Syria lock up the 2.5 million Iraqis, Pakistan the 7 million Afghans, what about Iran with 2 million Iraqis and 1 million Afghans.

You lot are whinging about the sum total of 15,000 people on boats from 1989 to 2001.

“Are you saying that we should detain for a brief period, say three months, and then just send them back where they came from?”

No Bronwyn. We should have detained people (as we did) until their claims for refugee status were sorted out. For most people, that was a relatively short period. But it proved to be very difficult for some, leading to long periods of detention.

I can’t tell you whether or not, in the years that the detention centres were processing lots of ‘applicants’, the process was efficient, whether some asylum-seekers were detained after their claims were finalised or whether those that were detained for a long time always had very difficult cases to sort out. All I can say is that I have always desired to the see this process happen as quickly as possible, while realising that some claims were very difficult and took a long time to resolve.

I fully supported the refugee determination process for onshore asylum-seekers and have never said that we should just send them back.

But of course, I also fully supported the efforts to stop them coming here after 2001.

“I find your position confused.”

Well I’ll do my damnedest to clarify it for you. I want refugees to be treated humanely and I want strong border protection. As I have said; there are much better ways of addressing refugee issues than having them arriving on our northern shores. I’ve outlined how we should be doing this and you have agreed with me.

“In reality it has to be one or the other. You can’t have both.”

OK, now I think we are getting close to the core of our disagreement. We certainly can have both.

You are apparently critical of strong border protection, which can only mean that you are happy for our borders to be porous and for onshore asylum seekers to arrive and keep arriving indefinitely, and in numbers that are highly variable, at times quite considerable.

Is this true? Could you please clarify your position.

continued

You didn’t answer the question that I put to you in my last post;

“One of the key tenets of Marilyn’s argument seems to be that refugees should be able to cross borders completely freely, no matter what the numbers or the effect they may have on host countries. Do you really agree with this?”

You wrote;

“Turning back boats is inhumane. You still haven’t addressed this issue.”

As I stated above, I have always been in favour of ‘processing’ the claims of asylum seekers and not just simply rejecting them once they have arrived, or rejecting then en route. I didn’t want to see anyone turned back. But much more importantly, I didn’t want to see the saga of people jumping on leaky boats escalate or drag on indefinitely. I think that the only boats that were turned back came a long time after Howard had made it clear to the world that the boat-arrival onshore asylum-seeker option was closed. Perhaps you can confirm this.

“This is an exaggeration based on panic and fear mongering rather than fact.”

No! Not at all. At the time of the Tampa, numbers were building to a far higher level than we had ever seen before. And they would have built up at least another ten-fold if we had let them.

This seems to be another crucial point of disagreement; the scale of arrivals. If onshore asylum-seeking was an easy process, we would have many many thousands arriving every week. There are no two ways about that. Again I’ll repeat myself; we simply couldn’t accept a small number of asylum-seekers with open arms in this way without spurring a massive influx.

Bronwyn, I’m an atheist. I’m sorry but I completely don’t understand your comments on this.
.

Marilyn, so you want to engage me in debate. Ok, good, if you keep it civil. If you answer the questions I put to you a few posts back on 8 April, I’ll address yours.

I’ll be out bush and offline now for a few days.

As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.

31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as "unlawful" serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a "valid permission to enter and remain in Australia". The use of the term "unlawful" does not as such refer to a breach of a law.

Ludwig, there simply was not a huge influx ever. The maximum was 4,000 per year and only because more and more women and children had to jump on the boats because on an arbitrary date in October 1999 Ruddock changed the rules so that family reunion was denied.

Get over yourself. Iran had 3 million refugees, Pakistan 7 million, Syria 1.5 million, Jordan 1 million.

And we whined about 4,000. It's truly, truly pathetic.

Gee Marilyn, you had the perfect opportunity to add a bit of substance to our debate by way of showing some agreement, or otherwise, with me on the points that I asked you directly about (twice).

It seems that you are entirely loathe to indicate any points of agreement. If you have read the exchanges between Bronwyn and myself on this thread, I’m sure you have found a fair bit of common ground. And I’m sure there is plenty that you don’t agree with me about, that you could seek more information on or probe away at.

But instead, you have just virtually repeated your last post (the bit addressed to me at least).

“Ludwig, there simply was not a huge influx ever.”

Correct. But that doesn’t mean that the rate of influx couldn’t have greatly increased. Marilyn, can you assert that the rate of influx was not considerably increasing at the time of the Tampa, and that there were not strong indications that it was about to increase to a very much higher level?

Can you assert that if Australia welcomed asylum seekers / refugees with open arms and a policy of no detention, that we wouldn't quickly have very considerable numbers to deal with?

At any rate, if you think that it would have remained at very low numbers, why are you hung up on it? If it really is so insignificant in terms of overall refugee movement, why do you so strongly support it and so intensely dislike those who wish to see it stopped and have our refugee efforts channelled through other avenues?

Incidentally, I haven’t gone bush yet because I have problems with my car.

Hello Bronwyn and Marilyn

I'm back from a wonderful few days knocking around the scrub in Moorrinya National Park.

Shall we continue our discussion?