Another major problem with Australia’s refugee program when it was captive to people smugglers and secondary movement asylum seekers (ie: prior to 2001) was the opportunity afforded to economic migrants to pose as asylum seekers and thus gain admittance to an affluent western country.

It needs to be acknowledged that people leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic reasons as well as for political reasons. By posing as asylum seekers the 1951 Refugee Convention provides them with an opportunity to gain admittance to the West and 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 see the West on television and the internet and yearn for the opportunities they see there.

Global criminal syndicates of people smugglers target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia.

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 Pakistanis were provided with information on common food items, customs 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 Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported that 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 would claim to be Afghan farmers 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.

It was surely inadvisable to have allowed Australia’s refugee program to be captive to people smugglers prior to 2001.

Having been shown to be right off beam with his wild assertion that Australia’s refugee program is based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers, Franklin now takes another tack - which is equally without any factual basis. Namely that affluent migrants pose as asylum seekers to gain admission to Australia.

But, to cover his lack of relevant evidence, and in the face of opposing evidence, Franklin initially tells us that this worked in Australia up to 2001 when Mr Howard closed that loophole.

Then he brings us up to the present day where this practice is in operation again - apparently Mr Howard didn't fix it after all.

"Global criminal syndicates of people smugglers," he tells us, "target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia".

The evidence? The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence allegedly found coaching schools in the Pakistan/Afghan border region where Pakistani clients of people smugglers would spend months preparing for DIMIA interviews.

A nice story Mr Franklin. Would you care to give us its source, its date and its extent - number of coaching schools, number of students, effectiveness of their coaching, etc?

But if - as you seem to imply - this was all before 2001, what's your point in raising it again now?

Spikey seems to have mistakenly taken my comments on secondary movement asylum seekers out of the correct time frame. All of my comments were obviously not in regard to Australia’s present day refugee program, but in regard to the refugee program as it was in the few years before people smuggling was halted by the Howard government.

For Spikeys greater understanding, perhaps the first paragraph should read as following:

“The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers prior to the halting of people smuggling was selection became based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need”.

As Spikey noted, the vast majority of Australia's refugees are NOW referred to Australia by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program. This was in fact made possible due to the halting of people smuggling. Spikey would perhaps be aware that these two programs had to be suspended for a time due the large number of secondary movement asylum seekers arriving prior to the halting of people smuggling.

A question: should Australia’s refugee program predominantly consist of refugees referred to Australia by the UNHCR and refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program or should people smugglers be allowed to contribute large numbers of secondary movement asylum seekers to the refugee program ? And if people smuggling were to recommence, what then ?

Spikey stated that since he views my opening premise as factually wrong, the rest of my contribution becomes worthless. My opening premise can be seen to be factually correct if taken before the time people smuggling was halted and if people smuggling were to recommence. Therefore, as to the rest of my contribution thus becoming worthless, it could be asked based on what logical reasoning ? It describes an actual event that took place in July 2001 before the halting of people smuggling, and from that event conclusions and inferences can be drawn. Perhaps Spikey can revaluate that event in the context of events of the time before people smuggling was halted.

Franklin on Wednesday:

"The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need." Is. Note present tense.

Franklin on Friday:

“The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers prior to the halting of people smuggling was selection became based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need”.

Note past tense. Amazing what some hard evidence will do to a loose and wild assertion.

Spikey on Wednesday:

"The vast majority of Australia's refugees are referred to Australia by the UNHCR (6,003 in 2006-7) or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program (5,183 in 2006-7)."

Franklin on Friday:

"The vast majority of Australia's refugees are NOW referred to Australia by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program."

Spikey now: The vast majority of Australia's refugees have always been referred by the UNHCR or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program, not just since the boat people stopped coming.

Franklin on Friday asks: "Should Australia’s refugee program predominantly consist of refugees referred to Australia by the UNHCR and refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program or should people smugglers be allowed to contribute large numbers of secondary movement asylum seekers to the refugee program ?"

Duh? What giant intellect am I dealing with?

The asylum seeker debate was divisive and polarised public opinion, and still does today. It would be instructive to examine the Australian public’s attitudes to the refugee program at the time when captive to people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

Monash University academic Adrienne Millbank noted “The Tampa and post-Tampa measures have been deeply divisive, with the extent of public support for the [Howard] Government’s tough actions matched by the intensity of criticism and moral outrage which continues to be expressed by refugee and human rights activists and high profile commentators.”

Paul Sheehan, in his excellent book “The Electronic Whorehouse” examining media bias on various issues, noted the following:

“Despite media uproar about the “demonising” of boat people [secondary movement asylum seekers], the argument failed to have moral resonance with the majority of Australians. The 2001 Australian Electoral Study, which analysed the behaviour of the electorate, surveyed voters at the height of the campaign and found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people. This majority support held true across eight of nine occupational categories into which respondents were divided.

In only one category, “social professionals”, was there majority opposition to government policy, and this category only represented 10 per cent of those surveyed. “The attitudes of the social professionals are quite unlike those of the rest of the sample”, wrote Dr Katherine Betts in an analysis of the electoral survey. “It shows how unrepresentative the vocal social professionals are of other voters; it is not just that they do not speak for the working class, they do not speak for a majority in any other occupational group.”

Sheehan also noted: “Had the government been perceived by the public to be allowing Australian sovereignty to be rendered irrelevant and public policy to be dictated by an alliance of people smugglers, asylum seekers, journalists and legal activists, the political upheaval would have been enormous. Real damage would have been done to the public’s faith in the legal system, the democratic process and the immigration system.”

Franklin

I agree with you that the asylum seeker debate was divisive. And that - at the height of the debate - more people than not were satisfied with the Howard Government's handling of refugees.

But what comfort do you take in that? Public morality is not a function of majority opinion in all instances. Public opinion is determined by a number of considerations such as knowledge of the facts, governments being honest with the people, and leadership by respected authoritative voices. For example, the late Peter Andren, (Independent MP for Calare NSW) defied unpopular sentiment in his electorate on asylum seekers and went out of his way to give his reasons in the local media thoughtfully, logically and persuasively. So much so that his vote increased in two successive elections when this was still a hot topic.

Many examples could be given of courageous people who have taken on unpopular opinions over time. Some have died for their opinions; others have been able to bring people around to a better understanding and a more tolerant position.

When you think of the White Australia Policy, rights for women, the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, and a host of other issues, you can't but be impressed with the capacity of the Australian people to move forward to a sounder position. Remember the 'good old days' when 'wogs' were abused in the streets and Catholics couldn't get jobs in the public service?