I'll say this for you guys, your determination to ignore widely documented fact is very impressive. You're like ghosts of slain warriors on some ancient battle-field, doomed to keep fighting the war you lost long ago. But I'm not really interested in endlessly churning back over facts which have long been established, I'm interested in examining and debating realistic and workable approaches
to the issues of today.

I'm glad you read some of the Children Overboard report Ozzie - pity you didn't comprehend it. I was on the Committee which sat through the evidence, read all the documents and compiled the report. I'll give you a tip about evidence - when there is no evidence to back up an allegation, but lots of explicit public evidence from people saying something didn't happen, then a rational person deduces it didn't happen.

It's not like "shooting someone in the left leg and being found not guilty because the real truth was that he shot him in the right leg." It's like alleging someone was shot in the right leg, but the facts showing the person wasn't shot at all, and pictures of a leg with a shotgun wound were of a different person at a different time in a different context. I hope you're never on a jury.

For anyone interested in looking at the full facts from the Children Overboard inquiry, you can find the final report, the submissions and transcripts of the 15 days of public hearings at this link:
http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/index.htm

Geoffrey has now dropped back to saying Cornelia Rau "warranted investigation". But she wasn't 'investigated', she was jailed without charge in Qld womens prison and then Baxter detention centre where she was locked in solitary confinement. Even Minister Vanstone accepted the findings of the Palmer Report and stated that her department had major cultural deficiencies, but you'll insist nothing was done wrong and Cornelia Rau had no mental illness - presumably you think she got herself locked up for six months as part of a Labor plot to discredit Vanstone.

Andrew,
Many people were throwing themselves into the water that night in the dark from what I read in the report. The navy does not have time to photograph and document each one including there ages. That's usually what happens during a chaotic rescue situation at sea in the night. Since you were on the committee can you tell me exactly how many people went into the water that night and there ages? I suspect not. I suspect no one will ever know. Thus although no proof exists that no child went into the water, no proof exists that they definitely did not either. My point is that although we cannot definitely prove it happened it is in line with the actions of many of these groups.
Just like with these new 78 Sri Lankans, they have threatened various actions unless they get there way. Those on the Tampa also made threats to the crew unless they turned around and headed to Australia. Earlier this year there was the boat that in the dark shortly after being intercepted by Australians suddenly burst into flames. Just a conicidence I guess.
This all paints a picture of people prepared to intimidate and threaten Australians unless they get there way. Your however that much of these cannot be ABSOLUTELY proved.
Andrew, since you were on the committee let me ask you this question. If I made the accusation that "Ten people threw themselves into the sea that night" is my accusation true or false? I suspect you will know the answer straight away since you were on the committee. Thanks for answering this question.

Thanks for reprinting parts of my article Keith. Now how about pointing to something I've said which is wrong? You think its "laughable" to pursue a cooperative approach with Indonesia, just before you acknowledge that Howard did the same!

I've been doing research on this for years - I've regularly written about the atrocious records of Malaysia, Burma, Thailand and the dangers of cooperating with countries in our region without adequate scrutiny and protection of rights. Here's some examples from this year - well before these issues reappeared as a political controversy:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/01/28/why-it-matters-how-australia-treats-asylum-seekers/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/04/24/why-dont-all-asylum-seekers-just-stay-in-malaysia/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/07/06/599/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/08/21/treatment-of-asylum-seekers-in-thailand/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/10/19/asylum-seeker-experiences-elsewhere/

One benefit of Kevin Rudd's foolish attempt to make a big deal out of getting a boat stopped by Indonesia is that it has finally put a big spotlight on the conditions and circumstances which many asylum seekers and refugees have been experiencing in Indonesia for years.

Horus, I’m not sure what your point is in mentioning that some refugees sewed their lips together, climbed on roofs, tried to prevent their boats being turned around, etc. I’ve met many of them, including people with stiches in their lips. I’ve been to camps on Nauru, Christmas Island, Indonesia, outback Australia. If you lock up and brutalise innocent people long enough they get desperate – any psychology student will tell you that for free.

Alleging the children overboard issue was orchestrated by "the pro-refugee lobby" is absurd. The false allegation was raised and repeated by a number of senior government Ministers, including photos published by Peter Reith falsely saying it was "proof". It wasn’t refugee advocates lying about it.

Apparently some of you would rather believe government Ministers than Navy and Defence personnel, a number of who explicitly said children weren’t thrown overboard. If you can’t accept something that has been so comprehensively and unequivocally verified, then there’s really not much point engaging in debate.

And sorry to disappoint you again Geoffrey, but HMAS Adelaide's Captain said in evidence the refugee boat was unseaworthy. It broke up and sank after being under tow and under the control of Navy personnel for two days.

It is interesting to me that we hear no complaints about refugees if they have money.

And that I suspect is the heart of the issue. That is to say, if they have no money and are likely to end up at least initially on the Social Security system, then they are unwanted by default.

It's like this in Australia:
1. No money - Unlikely to get legal justice
2. No money - Unlikely to get dentistry
3. No money - Unlikely to get a house
4. No money = Unlikely to get on time appropriate medical treatment.
5. Insufficient money - No family/spousal entry to Oz EVEN if you one member is an Australian.
6. etc ..

So, because of the bloated, over inflated self opinions and grasping greed of the top end of town and a pitifully weak political establishment that won't insist on full employment, all those who are unable to get work because there isn't any, miss out.

New arrivals to Oz do not get access to the S.S. system for 2 full years. Boat people, the poorest of the refugees, would thus arrive and have less than nothing. Socially of course, this causes untold problems and is not wanted by anyone in the community thus the boat people themselves, are not wanted. Not because they are not real refugees/real traumatized people, but simply because they have no money.

To those to whom it applies, just come clean and advocate for withdrawal from the convention.

"Reith did not perpetuate a lie?"

Are we talking about the "didn't know anything about Patrick's plans" Reith or was it the "well be better not see the video then" Reith?

Nope? Must have been a completely different Reith from an alternative reality.

Denial is a powerful thing and tends toward delusion.

There's nothing like asylum seekers to bring out the very worst in some Aussies, is there? Having been away for the weekend and now reading through this thread, I'm by turns appalled and disgusted at the ignorant and hateful rants of the refugee-bashers, and full of admiration at Andrew Bartlett's calm and measured responses to the vile invective being chucked at him. While I have disagreed with Andrew's position on various issues over the years (notably his approval of high immigration) I think he's spot-on with respect to asylum seekers and other refugees.

Full marks also to the few humane commenters who've tried to calm down the baying of the dogs who've come running to the whistle so 'liberally' sounded by the rabble that passes for a Federal Opposition. I've decided that I'm no longer going to bother with their at best disingenuous arguments on this issue, having explained patiently and in some detail my views on the various other discussions on asylum seekers and refugees at OLO in recent months. Taking the ignorant haters seriously only encourages them, in my view, so henceforth I'm going to treat them with the disdain they deserve.

It's a damned shame that Andrew Bartlett is no longer in the Senate - and I say this as a member of the political party with whom his was in most direct competition.