A very thorough and well researched article.

What can we do to ensure that a full judicial enquiry is set up to investigate this disaster?

Ellen Goodman

I think an important question here is 'Does anyone care'?

Look Howard paid the price at the ballot box, a new government in power, lets just get on with more immediate problems. Its the same obsession with percieved past slights that is holding back so many areas of progress in the world.

I'm also very sceptical of long running enquiries that cost millions and get nowhere.

Constantly digging up old graves isnt going to help anyone.

Just breathe, let all the moral outrage go, and get on with your life.

Its daunting to think we allow Emma and her ilk to vote and breed.

If these idiots ever get an inquiry into the sinking of the Siev X I will definately apply for a grant to find why womens libido drops after marriage. There are 2 schools of thought here, one is that the wedding band cuts the blood supply to the libido and the other is to do with a conspiracy involving something in wedding cake.

The Siev X sailed from INDONESIA, it was an INDONESIAN vessel, it had an INDONESIAN crew, it sank either in or near INDONESIAN waters, the area for search and rescue is responsibility of INDONESIA, any load limits on vessels there is the responsibility of INDONESIA. Therefore any inquiry relating to the incident is the responsibility of INDONESIA. No australians were on board or lost their lives.

It was not the first Siev to sink. Remmber the Tampa picked up 300 or so from a sinking boat. Wern't they lucky that Tampa was in area?

60 nautical miles from indonesia is still a bloody long way from australia and we should keep our noses out of indonesias business.

Go and ask INDONESIA nicely to hold an inquiry. Do not keep asking us to waste taxpayers money on matters that are NONE OF OUR CONCERN.

Not much to say about this out-of-date subject except that, if people obviously trying to enter Australia illegally perish in the attempt, there is no way that Australia has any role to play.

Calling for an inquiry is even sillier now than it was at the time of the the event, and Austalian taxpayers should be very angry that it should even be suggested that they pay for something which has absolutely nothing to do with them or their country.

If this author is "most passionate about many issues relating to social injustice", she should find something closer to home to meddle in - if meddle she must - and not presume that other people share her concern about a bunch of foreigners who paid people smugglers to get them into Australia illegally and lost.

Well for me, I'd like an inquiry. This isn't ancient history. It's recent, the players in this matter are still very much to the forefront of policing and the Public Service. We still have police in Indonesia and in other parts of the world.

I listened to a lot of the evidence in the Children Overboard Inquiry. Mick Kelty said he could not answer a number of the Senators questions due to 'operational reasons'. I'd like to know, how much time needs to pass, before things aren't 'operational', and the Australian people can know what was being done, as we were told, in our interest. As an Australian, I'd like to know what is being done by my police force when overseas.

There are families who have been devestated by the sinking living in Australia. They deserve this information to come out as well.

Also we learn from history. If there were failings in how we responded to this situation, it should be known so we can improve on things. Sticking it all under a rug just leads to more speculation, and a continued bleeding from wounds.

Banjo I find you very offensive. I suspect being near you would make any healthy woman's libido disappear.

Is there a time limit on wrongs? Those of you who suggest we should just forget about it would not feel that way if it were one of your own but would be screaming for revenge. The fact that these were desperate strangers to our country does not make our duty of care any less.

I think we should know what happened and it is important if australia is to stay a decent country and not one run by bigots and rednecks

Fancynancy

Gosh Banjo, is that your criteria for caring? It seems you've got a problem with brown people.

I don't think the people here who wish to dismiss this incident as ancient or of not local consequence have read any of the background material.

There needs to be an inquiry with judicial power to call witnesses and compel them to testify. It is not a case of just getting on, there was almost certainly a conspiracy to subvert the normal actions that Australia would take if there was someone in trouble in international waters, or even in waters that are controlled by Indonesia, by arrangement.

There is no statute of limitation on murder. Some of the senior public servants involved could face charges of this seriousness.

I have heard the survivors speak through tears and broken English. One woman watched as her son drowned and determined she would survive for his sake. "I do not come here to die," she said to herself.

There was no fair go for 353 people who drowned. At the very least there should be an official investigation into the incident. At issue is the politicisation of the public service - can-do people should not be permitted to break the law, simply because it is politically expedient. There should be a point at which these people say to the politicians, we are not prepared to act in this way.

Worse, no one should not be encouraged to abandon what to Australians is the normal human precepts that require compassion.

Everyone of the 353 people was like us, a human being, and potentially a bloody good Australian, of which there are too few.

It is high time we got a grip, collected the facts and compelled some testimony. If some do not care, the consequences of that should be explained to them.

You will note I do not have a nom-de-plume. This is a matter that requires serious and personal attention by Australians everywhere.

EMMA...your next earth shattering task..and of equal importance to the Seiv...? is..

SENATE INQUIRY INTO .. "Cain killing Abel"

Now..there are many diminsions to this relevant and horrific event.

"Did he do it because he was JEALOUS"...

"Did he do it because he was just 'evil'"?

Of course.. until we find the elusive answer to this pressing question.. the cosmos will surely be in imbalance.....

Conclusion... I just gave all the interest this issue deserves.

fancynancy and bennie,
Firstly bennie, no I don't have a problem with brown people. Whether they have brown eyes, hair or skin, or any other colour is irrelevant. I once met a woman with green hair which was interesting.

What I do have a problem with is idiots that will not accept reality when it is placed in front of them. Siev X is a matter for Indonesia not us.

fancynancy, good one and it is a joke, a bad joke, because Emmy and her friends want us to spend millions of taxpayer funds to hold an inquiry into an event that occurred outside our jurisdiction. You are offended because I clearly pointed out it was not our affair.

It was a tradgety, but so was the last train smash in India, the hurricane in Texas, the mud slide in China and hundreds of other events. The common link with all these is that they happened in someone elses domain. I feel sorry but each country is responsible for their own events and if inquests are held or not. We cannot hold an inquiry just because there may be a relative here to one of the victims.

I have a good idea as to why Emmy does not ask the Indonesians to hold an inquiry. Simply because they would tell her where to go and mind her own business. So they should, I wouldn't tell you how to run you own affairs.

I say again, it is up to Indonesia to hold an inquiry if the deem it so, some people shold live with that reality.

Banjo, you keep saying it is an Indonesian problem. It is not, and you have not read the background material provided. You should do that now.

The SIEVX sank in the Operation Relex area, where Howard and Hill had indicated that there would be saturation surveillance. To try to confuse the issue, there were official attempts to say that the vessel sank in the Sunda Strait. It did not. That is not consistent with the Harbour Masters report, or where the survivors were found.

Indeed there is a case for believing that the Orion Mission which seemed to search a smaller part of the area for longer than the others at about the right time probably found the sinking vessel. It is also likely that an Australian Navy vessel was less than 80nm away (at a top speed of 27knots that is a bit less than 3h). It is also likely that senior department and service officers knew this and obfuscated during the senate inquiry.

The truth needs to be obtained with certainty and some justice attempted.

Come back when you have the known facts and we can talk.

Polycarp

"I just gave all the interest this issue deserves."

What a mean and petty response. It's laughable really. You, of all people, deriding the unexplained drowning of 353 people as unworthy of discussion, after all the pathetic nit-picking topics you've put up for discussion on this forum over the years. You've just recently started a thread about a dog that didn't like you and grabbed your arm or some such rubbish. And you have the gall to belittle Emma's thoughtful and well-argued case.

Yes, Emma, I too would like to know the truth behind this tragic event and I congratulate your fine efforts in attempting to keep the issue alive and in the face of an overwhelmingly apathetic public. John Howard and Phillip Ruddock should be held to account on the deaths that occurred as a result of their so-called Upstream Disruption Program.

'Upstream Disruption' - benign sounding jargon, which, like 'collateral damage', completely and very deliberately belies the human cost involved. How many boats were, and still are, being turned back to Indonesia, and how many on board haven't made it? Were boats deliberately sabotaged at governmental behest to 'send a message'? And just what boats did those lights belong to on that fateful night?

There are enough Australians out here who do want answers to these questions, Polycarp, to keep them alive and burning, despite your best and most Christian attempts to write them off as of no importance.

Bronwyn,
For some, Compassion is something that's reserved for Members Only and Truth is what's left after you've discarded or ignored all the facts that challenge your personal prejudices.

I also want to know what's been done in my name. While it's too late for those passengers, exposing any uncomfortable aspects about this case once and for all may avoid similar politically motivated tragedies in the future. It can't be left to quietly fade away into history.

There seems to me to be a distinct difference between the genuine seekers of truth in a matter of this nature, and the proponents of some sort of judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the SIEVX.

It is a difference as to sincerity and motive.

Banjo has re-emphasised the cardinal point that this event happened outside Australian jurisdiction.

The motivation for continuing inquiry is that of the guilt peddlar. 'Prove' that there was possible 'looking the other way' on the part of Australian authorities, be they police or defence force personnel, and the whole nation is 'guilty'. Being 'guilty', the Australian public is then held (in the eyes of the guilt peddlars) to have forfeited its right to having a say in determining national policy with respect to, among other things, illegal immigration. The guilt peddlars, at heart, want to have the controlling say in how the nation is run, democracy notwithstanding.

As is usual, the guilt peddlars want the inquiry at everybody else's expense, speaking volumes as to their sincerity.

The important message to be derived from this tragedy (for the would-be illegal immigrants, both already here, and on that boat) is that such immigration is not only illegal but extremely DANGEROUS. It seems the message has got through. The boat-people traffic, it would appear, has stopped. Don't let those unfortunate people, pawns in the hands of the scum-of-the-earth people traffickers, have died in vain. Re-opening inquiry will only encourage resumption of the traffic.

Toby Fiander says: "You will note I do not have a nom-de-plume. This is a matter that requires serious and personal attention by Australians everywhere."

Toby, your sanctimonious claim to not having a nom-de-plume is noted. Unless you were to be so ill-advised as to publish further verifiable personal details, your claim is just that: a claim. It is also noted that the userID Toby Fiander had, at the time of this post, but one post on OLO.

A guilt-peddling axe-grinder.

Welcome to OLO, Toby Fiander.

No Wobbles and Bronwyn... my point is the same as Forests:

"There seems to me to be a distinct difference between the genuine seekers of truth in a matter of this nature, and the proponents of some sort of judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the SIEVX."

There are so many aspects of that event which blurr into Indonesian/Australian/Who knows responsibilties..and it also encompasses our view on Sovereignty and independance and the motives also of the people seeking to exploit OUR country..

It hinges also on how we perceive their motives and legal status.. their foolhardyness and extreme self endangerment and risk taking...

So.. given that there are an absolute host of HUGE issues much more important than that one.... on our doorstep already.. one is attracted to the depressing conclusion that some people are simply obsessed and fixated on this issue.. to try to 'find someone to BAH-LAME and to bolster their own sense of self righteousness.

They will stop at nothing until the 'evil vile sinners' are found out and hung up to dry .. right? forgetting of course that they themselves have plenty of evil in their own hearts.. yes.. this is 'speck/beam' territory.. and the thing about the Seiv X is..those always and monotonously advancing this issue never EVER see that beam in their eye. But by golly they sure see it in others.. (hence ur comments about me)

THINK for a change..

a) Will some expensive and time consuming enquiry actually bring these people back?
b) What benefit will it bring to Australia? errr clear concience? that would be the joke of the year.

You mob remind me of the Phariseess.. "Look Lord.. we found this dirty scumbag politician committing political adultery.. THERE!..now.. what should be done to them? ('Stoning' written all over their faces of course) and the Lord says "You who are without sin... cast the first stone")

Needless to say.. all my comments here will be hurled back at me.. about "Islamophobia" etc..but that's the nature/price of interaction.

Porkycrap: << Needless to say.. all my comments here will be hurled back at me.. about "Islamophobia" etc..but that's the nature/price of interaction. >>

But that's why you post such misanthropic hateful rubbish all the time, isn't it Porky? Just so people will notice and "interact" with you.

This time you're not on about Muslims, homosexuals, Sikhs or dogs - just 350 or so desperate refugees whom Australian authorities allowed to drown, despite official knowledge of their plight and location. That you don't think such criminal negligence needs to be investigated just fits with your usual pattern of hateful xenophobia and lack of compassion.

I agree with gw, banjo, Mr Right, Polycarp, Forrest-Gumpp,

I see fancynancy opened with an ad hominine attack on Banjo, enough said.

Bennie implies that Banjo has a racial issue, which is not supported by what Banjo wrote.

Now we come to CJ Morgan who sees fit to criticizes Polycarp (despite not being able to spell properly, we make enough exceptions for CJ ignorance but he likes to keep on proving it) for posting “misanthropic hateful rubbish all the time,”

Whilst simultaneously endearing himself to us with his own ‘vacuous’ drivel and self-righteous posturing, what a poser (he must be a ‘dedicated follower of fashion’, although much un-sought).



Because people decide to climb into overcrowded, unseaworthy boats,
with the intent of deliberately avoiding the migration and entry requirements of Australia


it is not an Australian government responsibility


it is a case of

“volenti non fit injuria”.

And Tony Fiander, all your whining, beating of breasts and tearing of raiment about

“potentially a bloody good Australian,”

Simply illustrates, regardless of their “potential”,

they were not Australians,

they had no right to enter Australia through the backdoor

they were deliberately jumping the queue of those people who are queuing and who, through demonstrating respect our migration processes are showing us

a far greater “potential to be a bloody good Australian” than the SIEVX anarchists

so Tony, regardless of your suggestion that

“good Australian, of which there are too few.”

You are not the authority on who is good, who is bad and who is indifferent and nor do you personally decide who should come and live in Australia, we have a migration department for that and them who seek to avoid the valid migration processes deserve

Nothing but contempt

regardless of how sympathetic and ‘cow-eyed’ they look.

Regarding “This is a matter that requires serious and personal attention by Australians everywhere.”

No, I have toe nails to clip, teeth to floss and I really should run one of those hair trimmers around the inside of my nostrils…...

Just thinking about the cost issue that has been raised if an Inquiry was held. The so-called Pacific solution and distruption program cost the Australian tax-payer over 1 billion dollars. That would have brought for example, the diabetic kids of Austalia, a lot of insulin pumps which in the long run, would have saved us millions inlong term care. Our health system, education, infrastructure all would have benefited from this money. Plus we are now looking at compensation to the traumatised staff from the detention centres and the detainees themselves, the costs are ongoing.

We have now gone back as I understand it to close the original system of keeping asylum seekers in the community. The whole exercise was a massive waste of money done for political purposes. Howard manufactured a crisis to win an election. We weren't about to be submerged under a invading force of hostile aliens who were about to shred our way of life. He was a brilliant politican though not someone I think did Australia credit.

So what is wrong now with spending just a small amount of money by comparison, to look not just at the Sievx but the whole shomozzle? If massive amounts of public money have been spent on a Government program, shouldn't there automatically be a review? I suspect that some of the people here who are raising the cost issue as well, stayed silent when money was being thrown at the asylum seeker distruption program.

Now that everybody has got things of their chests, we all know that, despite all of the time wasted by some unknown woman, there will be no enquiry into something which has nothing to do with Australia. KR is off overseas - again - to spout his carbon 'plan' to the UN, and those he leaves behind have no idea how to run the country either, let alone institute a taxpayer funded natter on drowned illegals. Have a think about all of the drownings which happen when illegals try to get to Europe; no call for enquiries there!

Perhaps it's just Australia where the do-gooding nutters with nothing better to think of hang out.

Tony Fiander - Mr. Right is my correct name, and you surely do not doubt that Forest Gummp is not the very successful actor; nor that Mr. Patterson informally uses his first first name/nickname, Banjo?

Col - granted.
Many responses appear calous at first glance. And second.

A few points however -

Indonesia is not a wealthy country and cannot monitor its own borders, much less international waters.

Australia does have the resources and applied them in this and other cases to the problem of sievs. Circumstances around sievx suggest a political rather than humanitarian motive.

Knowing what happened won't restore any lives but it would shine some light on how our border security operates in your name and in mine.

Not our problem? We should do away with all international reporting? Ignore American politics because we don't vote in US elections? Yeah. Right.

Too long since it happened to investigate it? It's been 7 years since sievx sank. When does it stop mattering? 1 year? A week? Until after the next election?

It is a matter of record Australia was involved in the embarkation of several sievs off the coast of Indonesia. It'd be good to know what you and I are voting for.

It is so convenient to put all the blame on Indonesia for problems to our
near north but I would like to know how much was known by Australian
government departments about:
* the activities of the AFP in Indonesia that led to the sinking of the
SIEV-X
* the killing by Indonesian forces of six Australian journalists in East
Timor
* the "Act Free of Choice" that led to the permanent Indonesian occupation
of West Papua
* the illegal occupation of East Timor at the time when the Whitlam
government was being distracted by a constitutional crisis
* the agreement between the Australian and the Indonesian governments giving
Australia control of most of the oilfield between Australia and East Timor
* the connivance of the AFP with Indonesian police to have Australian drug
smugglers captured in Indonesia, where they face the death penalty, rather
than in Australia.

That would do for starters.

If that boat was say a ferry, filled with Australians travelling for any reason whatsoever, and sank in circumstances that even remotely suggested the complicity of a foreign government who - for domestic political purposes - may have played a part in the sinking or deliberately failed in any rescue effort - would we be so dismissive?

Did those German citizens who claimed ignorance of what was happening in their death camps suggest that we should "just move on" and that "an expensive and time consuming enquiry" wouldn't bring those people back too?

Maybe some lives are worth more than others or are simply more deserving of natural justice. It seems that some have already tried and sentenced them.

I think there are still enough outstanding anomalies that require this matter to be finally cleared up. I can face and deal with the truth, Polycarp, whatever it may be. Can you?

What has been done in the name of Australians is not just immoral, it is illegal.

The people who died were not Australians. That is irrelevant. They died in a location that was supposed to be under surveillance by Australian forces. It was. It is likely that their location was known soon after the boat foundered and that decisions were deliberately taken to delay any action and arrange for "Indonesian fisherman" to pick them up... any who were left by then. It is this aspect that needs investigation, among others.

It is not acceptable to commit this crime under the cover of public policy and then avoid scrutiny by saying it was a long time ago.

Like so many others, I am not prepared to assent to murder of civilians in my name and I am surprised that anyone in Australia would think that is a reasonable position. I can only suppose this is why it is important to define what occurred as outside Australian jurisdiction. Certainly that was the intent of the official position long after it became clear that the sinking incident occurred in the Operation Relex zone, and that Australian administrators knew of its position.

I note comments herein that it is convenient to blame Indonesia for so many shadey policies of convenience in the region. It is hard to see how this one could be anything other than Australian responsibility. Our Government decided that it would undertake saturation surveillance of the area in which the SIEV-X sank and then did not like the implications of what it found there.

BTW, if you are intent on categorising me, think of me as your conscience.

How droll to be accused by Col "wasteral" Rouge of not being able to spell.

Of course I know how to spell "Porkycrap" - after all, I coined the term.

Col Rouge

"they had no right to enter Australia through the backdoor"

"they were deliberately jumping the queue of those people who are queuing and who, through demonstrating respect our migration processes are showing us."

You have been told time and time again on this forum, and no doubt elsewhere, that there is no 'queue' and yet you keep trotting out this same old garbage. The 'queue' and 'backdoor' are mythical constructs that bigots like you use to assuage their consciences. You have absolutely no understanding of the circumstances most refugees find themselves in.

People fleeing for their lives get away in whatever way they can, and it is perfectly legitimate for them to do so. They don't usually go and stand in a line somewhere. What an absurdity. Even those, for whom making it to a refugee camp is a feasible proposition, know that if they do it will most likely be to a life sentence. The majority of them will die there or watch family members do so. At the very least they will struggle to survive the squalor, overcrowding and disease for a number of years. For most, it will be a measure closer to decades than to years, and many will never leave. And their ticket out will rely far more on luck and bribery, than it will on patiently waiting their turn. You wouldn't sentence your family to that, Col, so why should they?

By the way, I would have thought anyone arrogant enough to pick others up on their spelling would have first made sure their own writing standards were fairly high. But of course glasshouses don't bother people with egos as big as yours.

CJ

"Of course I know how to spell "Porkycrap" - after all, I coined the term."

Are you okay with others borrowing the term? I've wanted to use it a few times lately but held off. I always prefer to ask first!

I wouldn't mind addressing BD as 'Polycarp' if the new moniker really had represented a change in attitude, as it did seem to show signs of at times in the early stages. Recently though, there has been such an obvious reversal to true form, that the term 'Porkycrap' is just so apt!

I don't mind Col 'wasteral' either!

JL Deland raises an interesting point in relation to this issue in saying "The so-called Pacific solution and distruption program cost the Australian tax-payer over 1 billion dollars. ....", and, "I suspect that some of the people here who are raising the cost issue as well, stayed silent when money was being thrown at the asylum seeker distruption program.".

The 'Pacific Solution' itself was seen by many as part of the problem. It was seen as a sop to the 'migration at any cost' and 'multiculturalist and political correctionist' lobbies. It should never have been undertaken. Much more direct and immediate forcible repatriation of illegal immigrants should have been effected, if necessary with the aid of escorted military transport aicraft and parachutes back to the country of origin, not the country of embarkation.

Australia would have had to wear the cost of the parachutes as a write-off. I'm guessing it would not have reached 1% of the cost of the so-called 'Pacific solution'.

There should have been followed a policy of taking DNA and other biometric identification records from all apprehended in attempts to illegally enter Australian jurisdiction, or requiring rescue in an Australian operational area, together with legislation forever banning subsequent entry to Australia for such persons or their descendants. That would have stopped the traffic in its tracks. The Howard government was urged to take such a course. Rest assured, as one who is raising the cost issue in relation to an ongoing witch hunt for purposes of political vengeance, I was not silent about the waste of the 'Pacific solution'.

I thoroughly applaud prior expenditures responsibly applied to disruption of that traffic.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The traffic HAS substantially stopped. I suggest that many of those who might have been prepared to embrace the status of 'asylum seeker' if they could secure a direct trip to Australia have since not been prepared to claim that status in their otherwise closest country of refuge without certainty that it would be Australia they could choose as an ultimate destination.

Toby says "The people who died were not Australian..that's irrelevant"

Well dear Toby.. the Jews who died in Aushwitz were not either..and I'm sure if one looked hard enough one could find some reason to 'speculate' that the Australian government KNEW something but didn't send in all it's military against Germany.....

I'm sure that in Darfor and a thousand other places and situations.. we could dredge up some level of "Australian political culpability" based on arguments from silence..speculation. wild guesses and convenient time lines.... in fact...why don't we blame the Australian government for 9/11 while we are at it?

Bennie says:

"Circumstances around sievx suggest a political rather than humanitarian motive."

and that's "it" isn't it.. wild guesses..speculation.. obession with.. all SUGGEST...... but do they prove? and to they suggest "compellingly" ? and that alone is going to be in the mind of the beholder.. "Ohhhh YES is it absolutely water-tight" until it get's to court and the judge laughs it out.

Mooooove on... unless you wish to take every Australian who ever had anything to do with EVERY perceived 'crime' or failure or neglect since Australia was formed....

I suppose the real FEAR in that though..is that in the absense of anything eternal perhaps.. the 'conspiracy theorists' would have nothing to live for?

How about getting on the "Save the Koorong" bandwagon.. how about 'Save the Murray' .. or save Bambi ?

Forrest Gumpp, parachutes? biometric data? and damning their children, their children's children, and their children's children for all time!

I think Craig Emerson just got knocked off his top spot by you with me for leaving me somewhat in somewhat 'ooblesmacked' - sadly they haven't comeup with a real expression for the emotion that posts such as yours inspire.

Given though that I'm aware of Goodwin's law I won't go there. Roll on tomorrow.

See so completely 'ooblesmacked' I mucked up my last post.
So there goes my two posts on the subject.

Polycarp nee Boaz David.As a "Christian" your respect for human life, gives me a more clear understanding of the religous right.

Col. As an economic migrant to Australia, did you jump the queue when Maggie got the heave ho! BTW. Have you noticed that the American taxpayer is keeping the "Free market" afloat.

Siev enquiry must be held,to find the facts why people seeking a safe and better life (like Col Rouge), where allowed to perish!

Bronwyn: << Are you okay with others borrowing the term? I've wanted to use it a few times lately but held off. I always prefer to ask first! >>

Go for it, Bronwyn - and any others who find Porky's frequent lies, distortions and otherwise crappy posts objectionable.

<< I wouldn't mind addressing BD as 'Polycarp' if the new moniker really had represented a change in attitude, as it did seem to show signs of at times in the early stages. Recently though, there has been such an obvious reversal to true form, that the term 'Porkycrap' is just so apt! >>

Absolutely.

<< I don't mind Col 'wasteral' either! >>

Apparently that's how Col thinks 'wastrel' is spelt. However, it does seem to fit his persona, which is simultaneously a waste of space and quite feral in its interactions with more civilised folk.

Bennie, I think Polycarp has basically responded to your comment addressed to me.
But I would add

Australia is not responsible for Indonesia nor its capacity to discharge its international obligations.
However, whilst Australia generously helped Indonesia to stop illegal people smuggling, thereby minimizing the risk of sinking of unseaworthy vessels, Australia is not responsible for “not being there” to ensure sinkings did not occur.

But I do appreciate your response being made in a considered manner, : - )

- Unlike many of the rabble here.
Bronwyn “that there is no 'queue' and yet you keep trotting out this same old garbage.”

There is a quota…. A limit and people need to qualify for entry… I had to wait for a year to get interviewed, following my own particular qualification becoming accepted (ie being on the skills demand list) for migration.

So regarding a queue, if there was none, people would be able to walk up and demand entry. Play semantics all you want, some folk wait to be called whilst the unworthy, self-entitled just jump on an unseaworthy vessel and hope to find a deserted Australian beach to land on.

“People fleeing for their lives get away in whatever way they can,”

stopped “fleeing” along time before they set sail for Australia.

“to pick others up on their spelling” yawn


I see CJM remains true to form, criticizing what everyone else says, regardless to relevance and does so without contributing a single productive or constructive thought with his posts… so vacuous.

Kipp, I came to Australia as a matter to personal choice, regardless that Margaret Thatcher was PM.


The desire to migrate was motivated not by political concerns but to do with what life I wanted my children and one day, grandchildren to enjoy.

IE Not one where life quality was constrained because of comparative overcrowding of 60 million people on a little island, with poor weather.

And from UK, looking around the world at that time, Australia was a slam-dunk first option and to be honest, still is.

Not to worry Col. I don't think he read the article anyway. Pity the same approach isn't taken by him towards what happened c2000 years ago.

I have noticed JL Deland in the 'Users Currently Online' display as having been logged onto OLO on a number of occasions during this last week, but only posting three times since last Sunday 21 September 2008.

Posted by JL Deland, Sunday, 21 September 2008 6:30:57 PM "See so completely 'ooblesmacked' I mucked up my last post.
So there goes my two posts on the subject."

Your phraseology here, and also your opening words in this post to another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7927#124116 , indicate to me that you may misunderstand the OLO posting limits rules.

The limit on any particular article discussion thread is two posts in any given 24 hour period: it is not an absolute limit on comments to the topic or article in question. There is also a global posting limit of five posts in any 24 hour period to comments threads in the Article discussion area of the Forum. The OLO site itself will refuse to accept any post you may inadvertently attempt to make in excess of these limitations, indicating in the process the earliest time when you may again post to the thread.

The posting limits in the General Discussion area are double the above.

In pure theory, should you be so prolific and inspired, you could post as many as 15 times in 24 hours across the whole Forum.

Whilst we may not necessarily be in agreement with respect to some matters, IM well not so HO OLO can well do with the quality of posts such as the 28 you have made during your relatively short time here since first posting on Saturday, 31 May 2008.

So there! Consider the metaphorical bow of an Australian warship to have given the hull of that old scow the SIEV X an ooblesmacking thud right back up to the top of the OLO 'Last Post' list. For your information, this is a link to a comment I made on this subject nearly two years ago. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4985#57766

Forrest Gumpp, Sadly my life does not revolve around OLO, remiss of me though that is.
What does concern me a little though is your dedication to watching who is online or not, and who is having a look at what has been posted. I cant say I show the same interest in your activities. Perhaps it might be something for the editors to consider whether that function is perhaps entirely unneccessary. Anyway once again you have inspired an emotion in me that I am struggling to find words for.

Good to see you got the message JL Deland. I meant what I said. All of it.

Don't apologise for your 'failings'.

If you arrive on OLO via the 'discuss' page, your next destination, whether you like it or not is the page that includes the 'Users Currently Online' display. I assure you there is no dedication involved or necessary in noticing who may have been online. There it is, in front of your eyes, whether you want to see it or not. Should it matter to you, rest assured nobody can tell what you may have been looking at by virtue of seeing your transit of the OLO firmament. One can only infer, and then not necessarily correctly.

"Anyway once again you have inspired an emotion in me that I am struggling to find words for."

I don't understand. Any number of 20 year old Aussie blokes may well have been required to jump out of the back of a Herc (or a Caribou, or whatever) just because they were told it was a lawful order! (With a parachute, of course.) So what's the problem with some illegal immigrants being required to do the same thing on a static line drop?

No detention behind razor wire. No profit for privatized prison operators. No profit opportunity for the 'legal' fraternity here in Oz. Straight back to the start point. No collection of $200, no passage of 'Go". Just flying hours for the RAAF. Isn't that how it should be? After all, these particular 'applicants for admission' weren't prepared to first flee to any other country for temporary refuge from 'persecution', and then take their chances as to where they would end up. No Siree, they were going to come direct, and to the destination of their choice!

Besides which, i do exagerate. Of course it would be negotiated wherever possible for a more gentle repatriation, especially for those not of 'jumping age'. Just as long as its understood that the 'Nishimura principle' applies with respect to Australian policy with respect to intended "boat people' arrivals.

Forrest

"After all, these particular 'applicants for admission' weren't prepared to first flee to any other country for temporary refuge from 'persecution', and then take their chances as to where they would end up. No Siree, they were going to come direct, and to the destination of their choice!"

I don't think you have the thorough understanding of your subject in this case that you usually seem to. Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia, so obviously they would come directly, as would you in that situation.

It is wrong to imply that refugees country-shop and choose to come to Australia. The majority of refugees that have arrived on our shores have barely heard of Australia, let alone had any real appreciation that this is supposed to be the land of milk and honey, as you imply. If they had been studying up on the best destinations to head to, do you think they'd choose to come to a country that was going to throw them straight into detention, lock them up and leave them there indefinitely?

Boat people invariably leave their homelands in a hurry or in secret and usually have no choice but to rely on people smugglers to get them to safety. Those who end up in Indonesia can't apply for asylum there, as it is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and won't allow them to stay. This is the reason why, until the advent of the Upstream Disruption Program, most of the asylum seekers who made it to Indonesia ended up coming on to Australia.

Believe it or not, the only country the majority of asylum seekers really want to live in is their own.

Kipp “Siev enquiry must be held,to find the facts why people seeking a safe and better life (like Col Rouge), where allowed to perish!”

No inquiry needed

The Simple answer is

the arrogant swill brought disaster upon themselves by attempting to enter Australia through a deserted beach on a dark night in total disrespect of Australia’s laws

whereas I and many, many others, waited in line for our interviews and visa applications to be accepted….

Bronwyn “Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia,”

They too could have waited in an orderly manner and exercised some respect for the right of Australians to decide who comes here.

Those “Women”, by putting themselves above the migration laws of Australia’s and disregarding the safety of their children, demonstrate their total unsuitability for entry or migration

Bronwyn,

You say:

"I don't think you have the thorough understanding of your subject in this case that you usually seem to. ...".

You could well be right. My only direct contact with asylum seekers has been with such as have come to Australia legally via the refugee process to which Australia has subscribed over the years. I have had no direct contact with such as have been involved in illegal immigration and subsequent mandatory detention.

You also say:

"Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia, ....".

That's where I have difficulty. I presume I'm right in thinking that most of those husbands and fathers had come to Australia in exactly the same manner, just on different, and earlier, boats which had mostly come from Indonesia? If that is largely the case, can you see why I suspect the existence of an unholy alliance between an Australian immigration lawyers lobby and foreign people-smuggling racketeers in exploiting this plentiful supply of human misery? Was this unholy alliance effectively engaged in a dare and double-dare contest over Australian immigration and refugee policy at the short and long term expense of Australians at large?

Did the Australian 'Upstream Disruption Program' set out to use this particular boatload of women and children as an object lesson in the dangers of boating, with the deliberate intent of sinking it on the high seas?

Or did the unholy people-smuggler/immigration lawyer alliance set out to deliberately sink this vessel right under the nose of Australian intensive surveillance with the intent of guilt-tripping Australia into acceptance of yet more illegal immigrants?

My money would be on the latter! So I'd be damned if I'd like to see any more taxpayers' money go their grubby way by means of any judicial inquiry into this tragedy.

Whatever the truth, this traffic seems to have stopped. Let's keep it that way or it could become a flood.

Thanks for your courtesy, and time. 1:55:34 AM!

Unfortunately a few drops of rain have just fallen tonight, and I feel a flood coming.

Forrest Gumpp “Whatever the truth, this traffic seems to have stopped.”

I agreed with everything you wrote

However, I heard on this mornings news radio and I hate to advise you, a boat was intercepted today near Ashmore Reef and the occupants transferred to Christmas Island.

What happens when the weak willed take up the reigns of power..

the predatory criminals (both boat owners and prospective illegal entrants) seize their opportunity.

from his post, maybe ozzie heard a similar news report...

Panic stations everyone...awaiting comforting and fatherly advice from Uncle Jo...oops, he's gone now...

Amazing how a boat on the horizon turns the government into a bunch of incompetents.

Whatever you do don't talk to foreigners. Remember, "those kind of people" have no place here.

Rest easy, Ozzie and Col, there's no risk of those pesky foreign asylum seekers putting as much as a big toe on Australian soil. They've been whisked away to Christmas Island and our very own 400 million dollar state-of-the-arts Fort Knox will keep them well away from good citizens like you.

At over $1,800 per detainee per day, you can rest assured your taxes are hard at work. It would only cost a few hundred dollars to detain them on the Australian mainland, but that of course would be too close for some citizens to sleep easy at night.

The Rudd government is maintaining the excision of islands from Australia's border territory, it's provided $100 million extra for the Defence Department to intercept boat arrivals, and it's spending millions of dollars every year to maintain an impenetrable prison on Christmas Island. This is no lily-livered government. They've made a few changes to placate that noisy refugee-loving rabble, but in essence nothing has changed.

Relax, rest easy. Bennie's advice on talking to strangers though is worth following. You just never know.

Bronwyn's quote of $1,800 per detainee per day for detention at Christmas Island can no doubt be justified, in an accounting sense, in the same way as it was able to be claimed that the rescue of French yachtswoman Isabelle Autisier from her disabled yacht in January 1996 cost Australian taxpayers around $2million. The point being that the bulk of the imputed expenditure would still have happened even if there was not a single detainee held, just as the bulk of the cost of the HMAS Darwin rescue would have still been incurred if she had never left port.

To then claim that it would only cost a matter of "a few hundred dollars [per head per day?] to detain them on the Australian mainland" is therefore misleading.

Either quoted cost is obscene.

Bronwyn then continues, claiming: "....., but that of course would be too close for some citizens to sleep easy at night."

Too right. I'm one of them. This is why.

Its not that the detainees would be too close to me, but that they would be too close, too accessible to the pro-immigrationist lawyer push that would then busily set about representing these non-citizen illegal immigrants at taxpayers expense, with the aim of setting them at liberty as soon as possible, with as much compensation for their detention as possible, into an unskilled employment market that doesn't have enough real work to go around the Australian job-seekers.

When, as an Australian who attended an open public hearing into a workplace death, I was subsequently denied access to simply VIEW (not be given a copy) the transcript of that inquest, I simply see the whole administration of the law so far gone that I do not wish to see a single dollar go the way of lining the pockets of a legal 'fraternity' that is not right on top of these much more basic departures from proper procedure.

Just try and qualify for New Start allowance as a senior Australian citizen.

Bring on biometrication and automatic permanent exclusion for rescued detainees.

Bronwyn “At over $1,800 per detainee per day,”

It is not the price of the detainee which is important, it is the overall saving enjoyed by detaining that one, it discourages (stops) another thousand from commencing the same perilous journey.

So $1,800 and day = $1.80 / day spent stopping every skanky migration evading scumbag thinking about it.

As to talking to strangers, I talk to heaps, overseas through emails and MSN to long standing friends, spoke to a few just the other evening. They share my view too… if all else fails blow the smugglers and their cargo out the water.

And I also worked, for some time, with a person who was for some time manager of Baxter detention centre. He enjoyed his work there but said the inmates were the scum of the earth.

And Forest Gumpp your very valid point about the useless immigration lawyers who exist to suck the welfare dollar out of the system for presenting their worthless services, we should try and export that lot maybe mistake their vessel for just another SIEV-X

And regarding “Bring on biometrication and automatic permanent exclusion for rescued detainees.”

Excellent suggestion, I would vote for that.

Heaven forbid Australia should be made to honour its commitments regards asylum seekers. We simply can't afford it.

I speaks volumes that the manager of a detainment centre would view the inmates as 'scum of the earth'. There's no telling where a humanitarian approach would lead. Just the sorta person we need!

Apart from SIEV X there is another SIEV that is worthy of official investigation.

Secondary movement asylum seekers can be described as 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 arrived in Australia without identity papers or travel documents, deliberately destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence a very time consuming, difficult and costly task.

But what happened when a boat carry secondary movement asylum seekers with documentation headed for Australia was intercepted ?

In July 2001 (just before the arrival of the Tampa) 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 per person for their journey (note: average per capita income of Afghanistan is $400 per year).

The boat was intercepted and most were found to be carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers could have applied to the UNHCR for asylum in Cambodia which is a signatory to the relevant UN conventions. Only after interception did many of the group apply for asylum. Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the remainder were returned to their countries of origin.

Note the extremely low acceptance rate of this group of secondary movement asylum seekers when intercepted carrying documentation and processed under UNHCR procedures (as is done in refugee camps), contrasting greatly to the high acceptance rates of secondary movement asylum seekers arriving in Australia without documentation and when processed under Australia’s much more lenient legal procedures.

Additionally, 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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080728677.html

This SIEV is worthy of official investigation.

Not all asylum seekers are genuine, not all our rules are effective and not all our interrogation methods are thorough. And? Is this going to bring Australia to its knees?

People smuggling is a profitable industry adept at exploiting weak spots. It will always be a factor with every boat arrival but there is a humanitarian aspect to international agreements Australia can easily afford to uphold. How a community treats its weakest, or some such. It’s a principle of our Civilised Western Christian Heritage, a heritage some like to wear on their sleeve until it requires consideration for the genuinely less fortunate, which many arrivals are. Some are not, but since the politicisiation of immigration around the time of SIEVx it seems widely assumed we’re not up to the task of finding out ourselves. Maybe it’s true, I don’t know. (Franklin you’ve been saving up that link for six years! Do you have another?)

So-called bleeding hearts don’t expect a new life be handed to anyone who makes it to shore. Detention, health and character assessment, verifying the circumstances that brought them here, deportation as ordered, it all makes sense. As for the lawyers, if the law isn’t working it can be changed. Meantime it’s generally assumed the government is bound by it. Ranting about it here says more about the poster than the issue.

There’s a lot unknown about SIEVx and other would-be arrivals. The article tries to restore a little interest in a period when the Howard government misled us on many things – joining the Iraq war, kids overboard, AWAB, Hicks of course - and unsurprisingly not everyone trusts that the official account of SIEVx is complete. The article outlines lots of damning evidence and none of it has been addressed so far.

Some are having a grand time of it though. Seems they’ve spotted the words ‘asylum seeker’ in the index, thought “whacko”, and gone hell for leather with other like-minded sods putting the collective boot in to them “scum of the earth”.

Forrest

"To then claim that it would only cost a matter of "a few hundred dollars [per head per day?] to detain them on the Australian mainland" is therefore misleading."

No, Forrest, this is not at all 'misleading'. I was making the point that it would have cost far less for Australia to detain asylum seekers on Australian soil than to build and maintain the prison monstrosity on Christmas Island, which has already cost Australian taxpayers near half a billion dollars and will continue to drain the public purse of many millions of dollars every year. And for most of the time this impressively secure facility remains empty, and on current trends will continue to do so. This is a legitimate argument and I can't see who or what it is meant to 'mislead'.

"..representing these non-citizen illegal immigrants at taxpayers expense.."

Asylum seekers are not 'illegal immigrants'. Seeking asylum is not illegal. Ever since the WW2 travesty where boatloads of Jewish refugees were rejected from country after country, seeking asylum has been sanctioned under international law. As a writer who is usually very attentive to detail, you should at least have your terminology correct.

"..with as much compensation for their detention as possible.."

Very few asylum seekers are being paid compensation, despite the ongoing mental health problems suffered as a result of their indefinite incarceration. A considerable number of refugees who have been granted protection however, are now being charged for the costs of their detention. And those who were kept in solitary confinement are being charged more! No, this is not some black comedy. This is the reality in a country that, as Bennie reminded us, likes to wear its Civilised Western Christian Heritage on its sleeve.

Great post by the way, Bennie. Pity I can't say the same this time of my good friend Forrest!

Bronwyn,

I now understand the point you were making in regard to the Christmas Island detention facility: you were wanting to go back to before the facility was built, and see a different decision made that would have seen detainees held on the mainland. I think we are in agreement there, at least so far as costs are concerned. The cost of that facility is obscene. I, on the other hand, had taken you to be comparing ongoing costs of detention as from the present. In effect I was writing off the establishment costs of the Christmas Island facility, where you were not. Resolved.

"Asylum seekers are not 'illegal immigrants'."

I knew I was getting the adjective 'illegal' from somewhere. Its from the title of the Article, from the acronym SIEV. Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel. Genuine asylum seekers may well not be illegal immigrants. It is evidently recognised as a very important terminological distinction upon which your argument depends.

franklin nails the inconsistency in your case with his revelation of the very low acceptance rates among secondary movement asylum claimants when intercepted after leaving their first country of refuge, but before having destroyed the documentation that got them asylum in that first country in the first case. The criteria applied are those of the UNHCR, the instrumentality administering the international law with which you claim Australia must comply with respect to asylum seekers. In the case quoted only 6% qualified for asylum. Yet when similar boatloads arrive in Australian waters having destroyed their documentation, much higher acceptance rates are experienced.

You don't need to be Einstein to work out what happens as a consequence.

I'm afraid, after re-reading bennie's post again following your accolade, that I can't see it as being so great. I thought he took a rather cheap shot at franklin with his jibe that franklin's link was 'saved up for six years' and by inference not current. This article relates to events of seven years ago. That link was contemporarily very relevant to this issue.

Yeah, investigate franklin's other SIEV.

franklin's claim that from $5,000 to $10,000 was paid by each boat-person asylum seeker for a place in a boat is either true or false.

Let's assume it's true.

Franklin's claim is that that money is obtained by borrowing: a borrowing presumably effected BEFORE departure from the country of origin. What security can there be for the lender with the borrower departing, presumably permanently (needing asylum, right?), for another jurisdiction?

Let's accept the loan to be unsecured in the normal sense of the term. How can the lender, regardless of what may be being charged by way of interest, expect to be repaid by the asylum seeker?

It seems to me that, unless the lender has a collection agency in the country of destination, the lender is dependant upon the boat-person asylum seeker first being able to earn sufficient income to repay the loan and interest and then be honourable enough to actually do so. There are so many different countries where the asylum seeker could end up. They'd need collectors everywhere.

Also, franklin observes that average annual incomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time were around $400. If the asylum seeker arrived in a country in which average incomes were similar, and obtained employment there, it would take from 12 to 25 years of income to retire the debt. Upon what would the asylum obtainer live while doing that? It would seem utterly impossible, unless employment was obtained in a country where average earnings are much higher. Where could that be?

If there was such a country where secondary-movement asylum seekers could obtain entry AND earn high incomes, it would certainly narrow down the number of places where the lenders would need to run debt collection agencies, wouldn't it?

If only, from the lenders' perspective, there was some relatively sure-fire way of the asylum obtainers being able to generate enough income to both live and repay the loans. What if the lenders also ran labour-intensive businesses in this Utopia?

The cycle would be closed.

HI Forrest Gump

I can't not respond to your speculation as its so off the mark for the asylum seekers around 2000. You're talking about trafficking people which is different, and characterised by, in part, the trafficked persons being indentured to the traffickers after the journey finishes.

This is how journeys were financed. And not all paid amounts of $5000, some paid one or two thousand for their passage. Amongst the Afghans, many told a similar story. The young men of the extended family were being killed off by the Taliban or the generalised violence. Whole villages pooled money, families sold their homes so at least one of their young men would survive. That is why their was a relatively high proportion of unaccompanied minors - under 18 years old - amongst the Afghan asylum seekers.

Iraqis, the next largest group of asylum seekers in that period, generally came from middle class backgrounds and could raise the money. Its not unusual to come across doctors and engineers amongst Iraqi asylum seekers.

These are generalised statements of course and don't account for all individual circumstances but are broadly true.

Finally, staying in countries like Indonesia was never a viable option. Intercepted asylum seekers were locked up for years in Indonesian immiagrtion centres. Some have been stranded there since 2000. They are not allowed to work. Australia pays an agency based in Indonesia to provide accommodation, medical and general living expenses.

I know I have not appeared to have been addressing the point that only Bronwyn has brought out, that the people aboard the SIEV X were in large proportion family members of asylum claimants already, whether under detention as suspected illegal immigrants, or the recipients of TPVs, in Australia. In truth, however, I think I have addressed it. The key to understanding how I have done so lies, IMO, in identifying the real drivers of boat-person asylum seeking; the borrowers, or the lenders.

For all that there may be widespread desire among many in disrupted societies to escape to where it is imagined life will be better, I reckon its the lenders who are the real drivers behind the use of illegal entry vessels.

The lenders lend to the breadwinners, and in Afghanistan and bordering areas of Pakistan, that ain't the women and children.

The borrowers borrow for the escape of their families, not just themselves. They would be needing to hear about a package deal that included their family in negotiations with any lender for such relatively enormous borrowings, equal to from 12 to 25 years average earnings in the country of origin. Repayment of those loans cannot commence until the borrowers are earning income in a relatively prosperous and well-ordered country.

It can thus be seen that there existed a motive for the lenders in the people-smuggling business to have attempted to force the pace in getting breadwinners through the detention process applying in Australia.

One solution may have been to ship the families of borrowers currently under detention, then arrange to deliberately sink the ship in an area under relatively intense surveillance. Viewing the lenders as the drivers of this form of migration, it is not hard to see them thinking that upping the ante in this way might force the pace of release of breadwinners from detention.

Released from detention, the lenders may well have had what amounted to an indentured labour force. Some of such may have been wanted in a vertically integrated Afghan export business having a market in Australia.

Forrest, I think you miss my point. Your speculations about borrowers and lenders is without foundation. That is not how the people who came to Australia in the 1999 to 2001 period financed ther journeys. It is simply not true.

I've already explained how they were financed. The reason I am so sure is that I have spoken with a number of the 1999-2001 arrivals about their journeys. Some are now Australian citizens and my friends. In Iraq they owned buinesses or were professionals. No doubt some borrowed but if that happened, it is more likely to have been from family and friends. It is quite common in collective societies for family members to band together and raise funds if needed to save the lives of relatives.

I know men whose families drowned on SIEV X. I know how the passages were paid for. What you are suggesting in relation to that boat in particular is absolutely 100% wrong.

Bronwyn “Seeking asylum is not illegal.”

But what these swill did is unlawful

Because they did not have a “Visa”

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 13
Lawful non-citizens
(1) A non citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non citizen.
(2) An allowed inhabitant of the Protected Zone who is in a protected area in connection with the performance of traditional activities is a lawful non citizen.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 14
Unlawful non-citizens
(1) A non citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non citizen is an unlawful non citizen.
(2) To avoid doubt, a non citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non citizen.

These swill deliberately tried to evade Australia’s legal migration processes and enter the country without protection of asylum status.

The next point also needs to be considered, that these migration process evaders, whilst between wherever they claim to have fled from and arriving, in a clandestine manner, on Australian sovereign territory, went through other sovereign states from where they may well have been able to apply for “Asylum” status.

Instead these selfish swill chose to deny the Australian people, through the offices of the official migration civil servants, a right to determine their authenticity, eligibility and the possibility of any contagious diseases or criminal records or criminal intent which they might have or harbor.

After reading Col Rouge's latest odious distortion of Australian and International law above, I'd suggest that it's he - rather than the hapless asylum seekers aboard the SIEVX - who deserves the description of "selfish swill".

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, Col - no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Further to my post above, the following MR from the office of Senator Sarah Hanson-Young seems pertinent:

<< Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has demanded a re-think of the way Australia considers asylum seekers, with a reminder that fleeing persecution and seeking refuge is a human right enshrined in international law.

Some recent media reports have stated that 'illegal migrants' have been intercepted on the way to Australia.

"The myth that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants must no longer be perpetuated," said Senator Hanson-Young.

"A term like 'illegals' is not only offensive, but also inaccurate.

"It is not illegal to arrive in this country without a visa."

Senator Hanson-Young said that Australia had a responsibility to assist asylum seekers.

"As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention on Refugees, and a country that considers itself compassionate and a champion of the 'fair go', Australia must step up to its international obligations and reputation and swiftly consider asylum seekers for refugee status."

Senator Hanson-Young expressed concern about offshore processing of asylum seekers in locations such as Christmas Island.

"The Greens and human rights organisations alike are concerned about the 'out of sight, out of mind' approach to treating people who arrive by boat," she said.

"The current policy is sustaining a two-class scheme of refugees, with those who arrive by boat severely disadvantaged compared to others.

"The negative physical and mental impact of detaining people in extremely remote detention centres is undeniable."

Senator Hanson-Young said that the Australian Government and community should reserve their judgement on asylum seekers until their checks had been completed and they had either been granted asylum or not.

"Asylum seekers who arrive by boat must be treated like any other individual seeking asylum in Australia, and undergo identity, health and security checks promptly and fairly.

"While others continue to peddle a myth of fear around asylum seekers, the Greens will continue to campaign for a fairer, more compassionate Australia," she said.

Senator Hanson-Young will be attending the Migration Joint Standing Committee's Inquiry hearing into Immigration Detention in Perth and will be available for comment. >>

CJ Moron "Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, Col - no matter how much you'd like them to be."

But they are 'unlawful', according to the Australian migration act.

You can mince and shimmy around the semantics all you want, such vacuous pursuits being well within your sphere of incompetence but

NO VISA = UNLAWFUL

Exactly as I stated and Exactly as described in the legislation.

Argue all you want but my reference is in black and white, not in the shadowy greyish hues of ambiguity and misrepresentation, which are the enveloping auras you veil your sub-standard ravings in.

Sue Hoffman,

Admittedly I was addressing Bronwyn's point as to the people aboard SIEV X being largely family members of secondary movement asylum seekers already in Australia with franklin's information. As you can see in one of my earlier posts, I claim no first hand knowledge of detainees or former detainees. You do, with respect to SIEV X, so I will accept what you say as to how the people on that vessel financed their trip.

I have to observe that your inference as to the generality of secondary movement asylum seekers during the period 1999 - 2001 having genuine asylum claims seems specifically contradicted in the case of at least the intercepted SIEV of which franklin speaks. Given that only 6% of those aboard that vessel qualified for asylum seeker status under the UNHCR criteria, it seems a reasonable speculation that some form of finance other than community donation or underwriting of loans was resorted to by the 94% on that vessel that did not qualify as asylum seekers.

When you couple that with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reports as to the existence of coaching schools in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, it seems reasonable to infer a degree of organisation behind this traffic above and beyond that of just community support. That degree of organisation costs money and demands a fee. Borrowing to pay it is a logical corollary. Coaching in meeting DIMIA requirements betrays that it was circumvention of Australian migration processes, not the seeking of asylum, that was from the outset, in the majority of cases, uppermost in the minds of those attending those 'schools'.

So with respect to SIEV X, what are we left with? A turf war in which hapless and unknowing freelancers in the boat-people trafficking business were made an example of by racketeers that really ran it, and intended enforcing their monopoly of the 'trade'? That would certainly offer an explanation of the lights seen on nearby vessels at night by survivors of the sinking. Feared compromising of undercover intelligence gathering could have likewise kept Australian vessels away.

Forrest, this is really a stupid point to get hung up on. While its true that there were people who tried to circumnavigate the system in the way Franklin described, they are a small minority and its wrong to extrapolate from that to other situations or come up with wild speculation like:

"So with respect to SIEV X, what are we left with? A turf war in which hapless and unknowing freelancers in the boat-people trafficking business were made an example of by racketeers that really ran it, and intended enforcing their monopoly of the 'trade'?"

The man who organised the SIEV X boat was not a 'hapless and unknowing freelancer'; there was no monopoly; there were a number of smugglers operating out of Indonesia at that time; there was no turf war between them.

I can make these comments with such certainty having researched this area which includes attending people-smuggler trials and speaking with smugglers.

“A turf war in which hapless and unknowing freelancers in the boat-people trafficking business were made an example of by racketeers that really ran it, and intended enforcing their monopoly of the 'trade'?”...or...”Feared compromising of undercover intelligence gathering could have likewise kept Australian vessels away.”

If that’s true it’s reprehensible. Was our government involved in that way? Worthy of investigation, surely.

You can always tell when Col's on particularly shaky ground - he becomes egregiously offensive and waffles even more than usual.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants because Australia remains a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention on Refugees, Article 31 of which provides that refugees shall not be penalised for entering a signatory country illegally. Ergo, S.14 of the Migration Act 1958 does not apply to refugees seeking asylum in Australia.

I hope that's "black and white" enough for our resident "selfish swill", who is apparently engaging in a bit of "misrepresentation" himself. Perhaps he should stick to counting beans and leave the legal interpretation to those who know what they're talking about.

No, Col. Article 31 provides that refugees who would otherwise be in Australia illegally are immune to penalty as long as they present themselves to the appropriate authorities promptly upon arrival.

In the case of SIEVX, of course, they had no opportunity to do so because their boat sank and they drowned - apparently with the knowledge of the Australian government of the time. Your claim that they sought to avoid presenting themselves to the authorities is pure speculation.

You can call me as many names as you like, but that doesn't disguise the facts that you're wrong about the legal position of asylum seekers and utterly callous as a human being.

Back to the beans, old chap.

CJ Moron “Your claim that they sought to avoid presenting themselves to the authorities is pure speculation.”

Not that I am a betting man but I bet you anything you like, even a personality (you are in desperate need of one) but the intent of those whjo arrive in the dark on ill equipped boats, often without papers is not to “present themselves to the authorities, quite the opposite.

Their intent is manifest from their actions, just like a person sticking their fingers in the electrical wall socket is intent on electrocuting themselves.

As to “and utterly callous as a human being.”

Call me what you want, your words have the significance of the nothingness which occupies the space inside a vacuum.

Oh vacuous one.

I don't need to call you names, Col - you do a very good job in this forum of displaying exactly what kind of person you are.

The majority of the world’s asylum seekers are processed by the UNHCR under strict guidelines and with limited access to appeal, and if found to be a refugee must wait until for resettlement by another country. In actuality, few resettlement places are available.

By paying thousands and thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in Australia, secondary movement asylum seekers were provided with two great advantages. Firstly, asylum seekers gained access to the much more lenient legal regime of Australia with multiple levels of appeal, and secondly, after being found by an easier legal regime to require protection they automatically gained residence.

In 2001, the UNHCR reported that 95% of Iranian asylum seekers in Indonesia were rejected, however, by traveling onwards to Australia and by destroying travel documents, Iranian asylum seekers not only had a higher probability of being found to be a genuine refugee, but were also guaranteed residence in an affluent western country.

Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya is one of the largest refugee camps in the world with more than 80,000 refugees from nine different countries and dozens of different ethnic groups. The refugees there are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. Life is particularly harsh for single vulnerable women who have nobody to protect them. For a time until people smuggling was effectively halted Australia’s refugee resettlement program had to be suspended as all resettlement places were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers.

The obvious question is why did not refugees in camps such as Kakuma become secondary movement asylum seekers and travel around the world to seek refuge in affluent western countries. The unfortunate reality is that most of the world’s refugees struggle to put together a few dollars for day to day living, let alone the $5,000 to $10,000 per person required to pay people smugglers.

The fundamental question is should Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need, and if so are secondary movement asylum seekers those most in need.

franklin "The fundamental question is should Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be directed to those most in need, and if so are secondary movement asylum seekers those most in need."

exactly.

Somehow I beleive the plight of secondary-movement asylum seekers pales into insignificance to the circumstances of those in Kakuma.

All these SIEVX people are doing is forcing their way to the front of the queue, at the expense of more deserving people whose lives are in danger whilst they wait in line.

Such selfish behaviour should never be rewarded

CJ Moron - calling you names is difficult, you challenge anyones resources to find words which do not demean the worth of the most base critter when associated to a character such as yourself.

However, we will persevere and rise to the challenge :-)

In nearly all emotive matters rhetoric, exaggeration and emotional slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged.

It is all too easy to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive words, but perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotion and present factual information. On the secondary movement asylum seeker issue the following academic papers are perhaps well worth reading:

“Dark Victory Or Circuit Breaker: Australia And The International Refugee System Post Tampa” by Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, which can be downloaded from:

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

“Woomera: Hell Holes and Mandatory Detention of Illegal Immigrants” by Gary Klintworth, a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=45