The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rudd: time for a reality check > Comments

Rudd: time for a reality check : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 4/4/2008

There are many countries which are waiting to see how Australia will reposition itself now that Rudd is in power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
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.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 2:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 2:26:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 2:57:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 3:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 3:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by franklin, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 10:27:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy