Yes, Banjo, get between rstuart and Yabby, even if you have to take a few glancing blows yourself. Hortus, strap on the groin protector. Gotta break them up before this post is shut down on grounds of unending repetition, unconvincing argument, straying from the topic, or, worst of all, irrelevance.

Banjo: "an interview of Phillip Ruddock, by Greg Sheridan"

Again no link Banjo, but I am begining to think the reason is you aren't too comfortable using search engines. Googleing for "Philip Ruddock Greg Sheridan UNHCR" revealed what I am presume you are talking about on the first hit.

Banjo: "as we now have to make a deterimination within 90 days, we simply accept them"

90 days is just a benchmark the department has set itself. As Yabby pointed out some have currently been there for 6 months. But more to the point, in the period Philip Ruddock is talking about when he was managing it, he set no limit.

Ruddock says UNHCR staff approved 10%, yet his staff approved 90%. You take that to mean he is saying the other 80% suckered him. I don't think so. If he really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations.

Yabby: "I have never claimed that our authorities are "not allowed" to verify anything."
Yabby: "all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case...no mention of verifiable evidence"

So you were saying we are allowed, but don't? Why don't you argue we just do that then? Say if they arrive with documents we try to process them in 90 days, but arrive without and you could be in camps for years while we physically verify your story. Sounds expensive, but we spent billions on the pacific solution.

Yabby: "but it would certainly be a great many."

Yeah, I probably was confusing your rhetoric with Banjo's. Apologies if so. 1, 10%, 50% - what does a "great many" mean?

Yabby: "Rstuart, it seems to me that you are taking figures out of context"

How so? There are no figures for 2009.

Yabby: "Your bus comparison was...ridiculous!"
Yabby: "You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78,"
rstuart: "he didn't take them to where they demanded to go, and they did accept that"

That was your attempt to show it was ridiculous. Are you now saying you can do better?

>>Any other migrant has to produce police evidence to prove that they don't, from countries where they have lived.<<

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, how do you successfully produce police evidence to prove a negative? Another glib Yabbyism.

And secondly, if these asylum seekers are on the wrong side of the authorities, how silly would it be for them to ask for verification of their claim from those very authorities that would harm or impede them. That would be like Kurt Fearnley shooting himself in one of his remaining legs and then trying to do the Kokoda Track. Or like Allied soldiers in Colditz Castle asking their prison guards to review their escape plan. Haha, that's a goodun.

Sorry Yabs, but asylum seekers, or people on the wrong side of authority in general, do not need to handicap themselves before they even start.

Yabby
“Their blackmail clearly paid off”
AND, we can expect a lot more of it to follow.
The consequence of our “leaders” seeking a quick fix to limit electoral damage. It’s basic psychology: whatever behaviour you rewarded gets repeated. Which is why many other countries refuse to negotiate in such situations.
It’s a pity our leaders can’t apply the same –long term perspective – to refugeeism , which they claim to apply to climate change.

RStuart
“don't see the word "hijack"… instead you introduced a new derogative: "blackmail". Does this mean you now accept they didn't hijack the vessel?”
Noooo, I’d say it means that everyone else got the point the first time –only YOU’ve seemed missed it.
PS here’s some related material (similar emotions but different situation) :www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-skys-the-limit-when-it-comes-to-feral-children-20091125-jrse.html

“ Do we really have to go through this entire dictionary definition, metaphor thing again to show it wasn't blackmail either?
Go for it, if you think you can convince yourself.

“ 2008-09 …number of IMA clients ... 985 Number of clients granted visas ... 206”
Your stats are for the wrong measure .It’s NOT a once or nothing proposition.A number will be knocked back the first time, hold up in some third country for a-year-or-ten, all the while perfecting their “story”/technique till its just right, and
be admitted on the second third, fourth or twentieth try.
Or, after some regional event occurs, is picked up and sensationalised by our media, which then makes their group, flavour-of-the-month.

“ there is no doubt mistakes in assessing refugee claims are being made.”
No its NOT mistakes --- it’s systemic failure!
If our refugee policy was a motor vehicle, all models of its type would have been withdrawn from the road as unsafe.

Banjo
“the rate for the UNHCR in the ME was 10% and the rate here for the illegals was 90-95%”
It sounds like one of those adds for the electrical retailers: “If you can find a comparable group citizenship offer with another country –come to OZ and we’ll better it by 85%”.
LOL

Look, if the Australian government wants to prevent boat people from successfully transitioning to asylum seekers, it can apply this rule:

People arriving in Australian waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility, automatically becoming ineligible for future entry.

Pretty soon the message will spread: if you try to get in, you loose any chance.

Whatever any international convention may say, Australia must have a straightforward policy that's humane, clear and consistent.

*Another glib Yabbyism.*

Not so RobP. Police forces around the world will verify that the
applicant has no criminal record, if that is the case.

Your second point in fact makes my point for me, to rstuart. ie.
obtaining accurate information from the third world is extremely
difficult, so in practise, verification can become virtually
impossible.

* If he really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations.*

Ah Rstuart, the UNHCR of course does not have to contend with
a whole pile of lawyers and appeals, as is the case with onshore
asylum seekers. No wonder that Ruddick went on to dream up the
Pacific solution, to deal with this problem. Smart Ministers
would be all too aware that they only think they run the show.
That would depend on the agenda of higher level public servants,
who commonly, effectively do run things.

*So you were saying we are allowed, but don't? Why don't you argue we just do that then? *

I've been arguing that all along! For a start, verifying things in
the third world is extremely difficult. I think it was RobP who
also pointed out, the short staffing is often a problem. Next we
now have pressure on time, to get things done in 90 days. Staff
under those kinds of pressure will take the easy option, just stamp
"approved" on the application, problem solved.

*How so? There are no figures for 2009.*

So what was the average approval of boat people over 10 years?

*Are you now saying you can do better?*

Oh I could have tried much harder on that one. But IMHO you are no
idiot, simply arguing on this one because my comments pissed you
off. So you landed up using a very stupid argument, which even
you would/should be aware of. With 350 word limits in place,
there are frankly more important points to make, then arguing
about the ridiculous