“But I don't want to read in the news headlines every day about a few desperate people coming on a boat as if it is a national crisis”, writes Susan Metcalfe.

This is probably because the pro-illegal entry pieces she writes are shot to pieces and disagreed with by most Australians.

As for her comment on illegal boats (not) being a national crisis, it might well become one unless Australian governments start turning them away as they are perfectly entitled to.

Leigh: "unless Australian governments start turning them away as they are perfectly entitled to."

Leigh, you have your opinion on whether we should accept refugees and to state the obvious you are entitled to it. But I do disagree with the statement above. The reality is it will never be as simple as you make out.

Firstly, right now we are signatories to the UNHCR, which means we undertake to be a safety house any and all genuine refugees that end up our shores. As I understand it, it also means we will give provide all a safe haven while we investigate their claims. I hope you aren't arguing we should break with the UNHCR while we choose to remain a signatory.

Secondly, regardless of the UNHCR, the high seas operate under fairly strict humanitarian conventions. One is expected to provide all possible assistance to any vessel in difficulty. Again, I hope you aren't saying we should break with that convention. Yes, the convention does make it near impossible to turn people away who are determined not to be turned away. But that's life.

Even though we can't turn them away, if we were not signatories to the UNHCR we could just take them on board and forcibly ship them back home. But we are signatories, so we end up in the current situation.

Speaking of the UNHCR, I personally could not condone dropping support for the UNHCR while we choose to grow our population at record rates. I also think growing our population like this is insane of course, but while we accept 100's of 1000's of immigrants a year a few 1000 genuine refugees arriving on boats isn't a huge problem - or even a small one.

To put it another way - I would have much more sympathy for the people making all this noise over the boat people issue if they made even more noise over the population issue. You do of course but most don't and to me, at gut level, that just reeks.

RStuart says : “ right now we are signatories to the UNHCR, which means we undertake to be a safety house any and all genuine refugees that end up our shores As I understand it, it also means we will give provide all a safe haven while we investigate their claims. ”

The analogy of a safe house is highly is inappropriate. A better analogy would be, we’re the only house in a bad neighbourhood , with no window bars & security doors.And our “friends” Bronwyn, RStuart & Andrew Bartlett have been out handing out fliers which on one side have a map to our door, and on the other a list of house contents & the hours we’re away.

Wow. I just read this very well-written article about people with serious disabilities among us and I click on the Comments link and am confronted by the same oblivious heartlessness that Susan Metcalfe is writing about. From my perspective, I feel much the same about refugees as I do about people with disabilities - they are people who are far less fortunate than me and for whom our society can do much better.

<< I spent most of last year inside a brain injury ward helping a refugee who had been detained in Nauru under the Pacific Solution. This man had suffered enormously over many years, before and during his time in Nauru. When he finally found peace in Australia in late 2007 he was hit by a car crossing the road. He survived against the odds but he has severe brain injuries and he will never be the same. >>

That's a tragedy that is worthy of a Dostoyevsky, but Ms Metcalfe does an excellent job in the space available to convey succinctly the elaboration of that tragedy, and further to locate it in the bigger tragedy that is enacted in our culture's treatment of disabled people. Most of this tragedy occurs on the quotidian basis that she describes, but we generally successfully hide that below consciousness and rant on about a few thousand other poor bastards.

Thank you Susan Metcalfe.

An interesting title to ths article. Why do people harp on about asylums seekers? Probably because people like Susan harp on trying to force her views down our throats. In the last 2 years she has written 7 articles on OLO. ALL of these, yes ALL deal with Asylum seekers. She is the worst offender. According to her there are tiny numbers of these vulerable people. Well how vulnerable is Alex the spokesperson for the 260 boat people. According to news reports today he has previoulsy been deported from Canada for being involved in gang violence resulting in deaths. But yes he is very vulnerable. Interesting that we did not hear this story a few weeks ago. Lets make a deal Susan. You stop writting about them and then I will. If you continue to spew out your propaganda, others including myself will continue to critize you.
Also it would be very interesting to see the stats on how many hundreds of thousands of dollars your friend in hospital cost the Australian taxpayer. Sure I feel sorry for him having that injury, but did the car come off the road, or was it his fault walking infront of it? I suspect the latter.

Refugees are topical because it sells newspapers and promotes fear in the community.

Fear of "the other" is what binds us together.

It's just another form of unwanted immigration.

Historically since the 1900's we've fought and complained against the arrival of the Chinese, the Irish, the Greeks, the Italians, the Vietnamese, the Lebanese, the Japanese, the Serbs, the Croats, the Iraqis, the Sudanese and now the Sri Lankans.

We've even had a period of severe Catholic vs Protestant animosity which divided families but stopped short of the Irish reaction.

Each time a new target is decided, the previous ones fall into line with the rest and thereby gain community acceptance.

It's also a perfect distraction from Turnbull's leadership problems.

He's done absolutely nothing to contribute to the debate except grandstanding and gainsaying yet gets some sort of credit for it.

Ozzie, I just read the comments on this page. I wouldn't normally reply to personally targeted nastiness that is so common but your blame of a brain injured man for his injuries is cruel & defamatory. Although it is none of your business, and thankfully medical treatement in Australia is not decided on the basis of fault, I will say that this person was hit on a pedestrian crossing and was not at fault. I did, however, try to make sure that the police told the man who was responsible that no-one blamed him, it was just an accident. These things happen in life. Blame is not helpful for anyone.

As to my articles being forced down your thoat. Don't read them. No-one is forcing you to click on the button when you see my name. You know you don't like me so read something else. It is a subject I have been deeply involved in for the past decade and I write about subjects I have experienced and researched. You are free to write what you want, it's your choice. Writing about refugees attracts abuse from all sides, sometimes there doesn't seem to be much difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. I mostly don't read any of the abuse anymore & I wish I hadn't clicked on these comments.

It's nice you think my articles on Online Opinion have so much influence over front pages of newspapers but I can't see how it is in the interests of Australia to have this subject leading each news bulletin every day, the same thing over and over without substance. This article is actually focused on the severely disabled and the people who take care of them without acknowledgement every day. Maybe you feel the same way about the disabled as you do about refugees but if you want to have a fight with someone about refugees I think you are on the wrong forum. You have provided a good example of why it is hard to get other subjects onto the main agenda.

Susan Metcalfe “But I don't want to read in the news headlines every day about a few desperate people coming on a boat as if it is a national crisis.”

Then don’t bother to read a newspaper

Since Susan is not the editor, she does not get to decide, for all of us what the content of any newspaper or new programme should be.

Maybe what Susan is really saying is her life would be easier and her personal agenda more easily implemented if we were not made aware of those who daily seek to criminally circumvent our migration controls?

It must be noted, Australia has a legal right to police its boarders. That policing has the support of the vast majority of Australian electors and when the criminally inclined flaunt the law, be it economic refugees on the ocean of the drug and alcohol users in our high streets, it makes headlines and it will be reported by those who think it is “news-worthy”, which is, as I said before, something which Susan does not get to decide or censor.

And I agree with Leigh.. but there nothing new in that :- ) he and I both get to vote and whilst we still have freedom of speech we get to express our view…

regardless how some would prefer to see newspapers reduced to that which conforms with their personal view of what they see as suitable for public discussion.

Freedom of expression – the first casualty of socialism and leftwing ideologies.

I suggest if Susan wants to promote an article about acquired brain injuries, she should include reference to it in the lead… rather than tack it onto the end of a whine about Australia opening its boarders economic refugees/anarchists.

As for wobbles notion that it is a plot to deflect from Turnbulls leadership issues.. well there might be fairies at the bottom of my garden too.. but I do not believe in fairies.. so I guess that tells you what I think of such bunkum.

Until the asylum seekers are integrated into society and are employed, they will be consuming funds indirectly from the same welfare pool as the disabled.

The pie is only so big, and I am willing to bet that the posters such as CJ Morgan who are so happy to give it to others probably contribute pretty close to nothing to the pie.

rstuart,

My understanding of the Convention is that bona fide, refugees once processed, have no rights to pick and choose countries. They must wait until a country offers to take them.

I believe, therefore, that the 'rights' of illegals is firmly knocked in the head.

We certainly agree on the burgeoning population problem.

The boat people are few but their cost is astronomical. I would prefer public money helped far more for less. We can never move on to such arguments though as long as some justify millions, upon millions be spent on a few.

What rubbish blogs out here. A boat arrival is the most important thing to talk about? Really? Seriously? Seriously? In the dark corners lurking in the 'shadows' maybe refugee hating is all that is left. Show your names and faces and you could have a look at problems in the real world. Yes I too am at your anonymous level to communicate in the dirty gutter. Yes lets make a mess of our country to get the coalition reelected.

Leigh: "My understanding of the Convention is that bona fide, refugees once processed, have no rights to pick and choose countries."

That is true. However, once they are here we have to house them until another country offers to do so. Now, you might recall the whole point of Temporary Protection Visa's was to do just that - house the refugees until someone else took them on. Surely it doesn't come as a surprise that no one did? Thus in the end the Howard government was forced to take them all.

I am not saying I think this is a good thing. I am just saying the practical outcome of a highly sort after country like ours signing the UNHCR is that all genuine refugees that manage to get here will end up staying. Another way of saying the same thing is laws, rules and rights that can't be enforced are irrelevant.

TheMissus: "The boat people are few but their cost is astronomical."

True, but that is our choice. Compared to just letting them into the country the way we deal with them now is hideously expensive. In fact so expensive the Pacific solution collapsed because it wasn't economically sustainable. The Christmas Island solution is a bit better in that regard.

Anyway expense is your main concern, you should be lobbying to just let them in. I imagine compared to the cost of raising and educating a child, refugees are an absolute bargain. They become self supporting tax payers very quickly in comparison.

Shadow Minister: "The pie is only so big"

Yeah, but in the long term they grow the pie. As I understand it, that is how all immigration is justified.

Shadow Minister: "I am willing to bet that the posters such as CJ Morgan who are so happy to give it to others probably contribute pretty close to nothing to the pie."

If you really were willing to bet on that, I'd say you have a gambling problem Shadow. If that really is the case I can only repeat the advice CJ so often gives: seek help.

rstuart,

I refer to the cost of picking them up. There appears little or no desire to reach the Australian mainland. Just call for a pick up service. Inefficient use of money that could assist far more people in other ways. Also just the cost of resettlement here. We have extreme high standards. I was talking about we came and were housed in a migrant hostel on another thread. We stayed in a metal nissan hut with no air conditioning 40 degree heat sometimes. These huts were built in a few hours, like backyard sheds. Now they are even tents wih air conditioning. I cannot afford aircon and I live in the tropics. We could help thousands of refugees in camps in countries like India for the cost of a few here. If we helped 10 thousand have a better life is that worse than giving 1,000 i pods, mental health services, health specialists, computers and aircon?

There appears this "I demand these people get preferential treatment" mindset. So many immigrants here beg every week for there family overseas to be given same. It is impossible to please every single group with their claim for compassion for who they are personally touched by. Just because this group get newspaper headline should not mean they get more for their effort. It is not refugee Idol.

Rstuart,

"Compared to just letting them into the country the way we deal with them now is hideously expensive."

Using your logic, housing prisoners in 3 star hotels is far cheaper than keeping them in jails. Why on earth would we want to do it? Maybe as a deterrent?

The pacific solution was still far cheaper than letting in tens of thousands if there was no barrier or deterrent. For example, if the oceanic Viking sailed to Sri Lanka and dropped the Tamils off there, how many would try the same trick again?

Anyone that thinks simply letting them in is not going to provoke a flood of "asylum seekers" is deluding themselves. Labor tried to tell us that, and a relatively minor relaxation increased the boat 20x or so.

Sorry, but the bleeding hearts don't have much credibility at the moment.

As it happens, Shadow Minister, I've been paying taxes at an ever increasing rate for the past four decades. For about a decade of that I worked with disabled people, and I still donate as generously as I can to various charities, some of which are dedicated to assisting people with disabilities.

So not only do you lose your bet, but you're talking through your arse as usual.

As for the "pie", it's all a question of priorities. Australia is wealthy enough to both do more for people with disabilities and for asylum seekers. rstuart has pointed out one obvious way of saving money, to which I would add that we could axe the various middle-class welfare programs and tax exemptions for churches, funding for private schools and the national secular religion of sport. Then we could stop sending our military off on hopeless, ridiculously expensive adventures...

Lastly, your comparison of asylum seekers with criminals is typically odious. Asylum seekers have committed no crime, and in themselves pose no threat to the community.

CJ,

Tut tut, Language!!

You sound like a real captain of industry!

FYI, the average person earning in the region of $50k p.a. receives as much or more “welfare” from the state as he pays in taxes.

From what you have described, you have been suckling at the socialist teat for most of your life, and I guess will be for some time.

Your answer is for some else to pay i.e. to tax the rich more (already higher than most), spend less on the military (world peace is just a hug away) and cutting funding to sport (a real vote grabber). While you are about it, please solve global warming, and the GFC.

What in reality will happen is that the government will want to stay in power, and the money will come from the hospitals, roads, and other services and your future and ours will become a little less golden.

Shadow Minister: "Sorry, but the bleeding hearts don't have much credibility at the moment."

Ahh, speaking of credibility Shadow I see you made a typo earlier. You said there has been a 20x increase since labour took over. Did you get that from that other thread I saw you on - the one that said the increase was 20%. The original source document the 20% was taken from is here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-reasons-for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html I can see you could hit an x instead of a %.

Actually I can't. Where did you get that figure from? In the linked article the good professor paints our old open door policy as being one step away from building a land bridge and hanging out the welcome sign - yet arrivals only decreased by 55% when Howard implemented his new policy.

TheMissus: "I refer to the cost of picking them up. There appears little or no desire to reach the Australian mainland. Just call for a pick up service"

Is this your idea of a joke? I hope so. If not you are letting your imagination run wild, inventing reasons to dislike the refugees to justify your patently transparent distaste for them. There are perfectly good reasons to want to reduce our immigration rate without resorting to crap like this.

In case you are serious - the refugees would be happy to travel all the way to our mainland under their own steam. We don't let them of course - we run a border patrol. It is dammed expensive to run, but it is a cost most (including I) am happy to bear.

Shadow Minister: << From what you have described, you have been suckling at the socialist teat for most of your life, and I guess will be for some time. >>

More snide and inaccurate supposition from the arse of SM.

So you're saying that because there's no votes in the disabled, they should just cop it sweet?

Rstuart and CJ,

Obviously English language was not one of your strong points.

RS

I said the boat arrivals (see topic) increased by about 20x not asylum seekers (which the article you linked refers), and considering that in the last 3 months there have been 5-10x the number that arrived in 2007, this is not too far off. (Note: I am not trying to average it over 2 years to dilute the spike as other posters have.)

Other sources of asylum seekers have not changed as radically due the screening before departure.

CJ

I never said the disabled should cop it, I said they would, (fact rather than opinion) which was kind of the whole point.

Your self righteous attitude is better deployed shuffling bed pans than trying to decide policy. I’m sure the neurologically challenged have a higher smugness withstand threshold than the rest of us.

Shadow Minister: "I said the boat arrivals (see topic) increased by about 20x not asylum seekers"

Sorry Shadow, I found the figure hard to believe and you didn't provide links. In the end I spent an hour or two digging, and found a Senate enquiry which I presume has authoritative figures. In 2008 there were 37 new arrivals http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129d.pdf to Christmas Island. I assume they are new boat arrivals. It seems we are on track for 2000 this year http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10608496 which a 60x change.

Your "its all Labours" fault thesis is still as hard to accept as ever. In fact harder once I leant from the Senate enquire there were 109 people at Christmas Island on the 29th of May http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129w.pdf

About 100 arrived over all of the the first 6 months, then suddenly we are averaging 300 a month from June. What the hell are you suggesting Labour did? Take out full page newspaper ads in every refugee camp in Asia in June maybe? Somehow the climax of the Sri Lankan war on the 18 May followed by the Tamils being rounded up into camps at gun point sounds like a far more likely cause. Particularly so given Labours treatment of refugees hadn't changed in 2 years or so.

Rstuart,

In April / May of this year as Labor was rolling out the changes to the relevant policies, it appeared in the news that this was being highly publicised in Indonesia and Malaysia by the smuggling syndicates.

Labor said that this was being counteracted by an advertising campaign to show that entrance into Aus was no easier by boat, and that this would not be an issue.

They were horribly wrong. In this case perception is king, which is why the 78 on the Custom's ship is such a high focus. If the gov caves in, this will change from a once off incident to an ongoing problem.

I see in the news that labor is looking at re introducing the tempory protection visas.

At $15000 per person, the refugees are gambling that they will get in. If the success rate is close to 100% as it is looking now, then it is a good investment.

If they are detained or stopped and lose their money, they are less likely to try.

Shadow Minister: "I see in the news that labor is looking at re introducing the tempory protection visas."

Actually, that was the Libs. Probably a bad political move. Right now the government is coping huge amounts of flak. This sort of move will only draw attention away from that.

There is no need for Labour to re-introduce TPV's, as they are still available. If they want to keep using them, all they have to do is quietly let their current bill drop to the floor.

Shadow Minister: "If they are detained or stopped and lose their money, they are less likely to try."

If they were detained, they didn't loose their money - they got in. If they were determined they could not be stopped either. All they have to do is sink the boat.

As you say it is about perception. But even then I have trouble accepting it. As the start of this spike the new arrivals said weren't aware of the changed conditions in Australia. Given the state of the news media over there I find this easy to believe.

The bottom line Shadow is just about everyone that got to Australia's shores in Howard's time got in. Yes, they had to wait it out for years in detention camps, but even then compared to detention camps elsewhere ours are hotels. 3 star hotels, actually. Most of them have settled in now, and are no doubt are sending home money and new about how good it is in Australia on a regular basis. This "good news" has had 1/2 a decade to permeate through Asia.

So yes, it is all about perception. And if perception agrees with reality, it will be: have a good case, stick to your guns, be patient and you will get in because Australia does honour its UNHCR obligations.

Rstuart,

It was the libs, I heard it on the radio on the way to work and got it wrong.

The 260 Tamils off Indonesia have lost their money and their freedom. The Indonesian solution is far worse for them than the pacific solution, where they only had to wait a couple of years.

As most of the boat people (in general) are men who later bring their families in, the wait of a couple of years is a major deterrent, for obvious reasons.

The "solution" to the oceanic viking problem of letting them in quickly is major cave in, and is only one step from dropping them off in Darwin.

Re RStuart’s post above:

--“As you say it is about perception. But even then I have trouble accepting it. As the start of this spike the new arrivals said weren't aware of the changed conditions in Australia. Given the state of the news media over there I find this easy to believe”

Again RS shows he cannot deferential between SOME & ALL. While some may not have been aware of the changes, a good many were.
And, to see it taking ½ a decade for news to reach the refugee staging points –even the poorest of such, is the height of naivety.
Even the poorest of third world suburbs seem to have modern media – they may not have enough houses or jobs but most will have access to a TV .
(I have seen dwellings which are little more than tin sheds , house a family of eight or more ,two chairs, one table and a colour TV)
And as the whole Oceanic Viking saga (and other incidents ) show, they often also have mobile phones---rather than ½ a decade for news to reach their relatives in the old country, try ½ a minute.

--“So yes, it is all about perception. And if perception agrees with reality, it will be: have a good case, stick to your guns, be patient and you will get in because Australia does honour its UNHCR obligations.”
Again way off the mark.

This should read : “You need not have a good case any old bullsh1t story will do, OZ & UN officials can’t tell otherwise, and OZ MPs are largely gutless.