Yabby: "you previously conceded [the war is now over] is now a major factor."

There you go making things up again Yabby. I said that if refugee status is claimed by someone fleeing a peaceful village because a nearby war might overrun it, it becomes a bit hard to justify once the war ends. As for the war ending - it isn't a major factor, yet. We can only be sure refugees can be repatriated safely once foreign media has had free access for several months, and the Sri Lankan's keep their noses clean during that time.

Yabby: "So the sensible thing to do is not give in to blackmail, as you suggested"

Oi! Stop making things up! Or maybe you are instead having trouble separating your dark fantasies from reality? If so, let me help you out. I made it clear I don't believe there was any blackmail, so I could hardly suggest we give into it.

Yabby: ".. a little old man meekly ... 78 refusing to get off a ship for a month ... accusing the crew of mistreating them ... What about taxpayers and the Ocean Viking?"

The definition of hijack and blackmail has nothing to do with meekness, or whether the old man said he was mistreated. The refugees didn't refuse to get off. They refused to tell a lie (ie they refused to say they wanted to go to Indonesia when they didn't), and hence were not allowed off by the Indonesians. Taxpayers being inconvenienced by refugees is part of the deal when you sign the convention. You may not like it, but don't blame the refugees.

Yabby: "He changed the 90% and stopped the boats"

I think I am wearing you down, as you are having trouble making a point without introducing a new lie. Ruddock set the 90% benchmark - he didn't change it, as you full well know. Yes, he may have stopped the boats, but maybe there was a lull in various wars, it's hard to tell.

RStuart says: “I agree [the Oceanic Viking hijackers] should never have been in that negotiating position of course”

But [ knock, knock!], they were only perceived to be a “strong negotiating” position because people like RStuart are so ready to give in to their demands and so ready to accept virtually any pretence of refugee status. What do you suppose would have been the outcome if the asylum seekers cum hijackers had tried that caper in a situation where both the rescuing ship and the port were Asian?
Answer: they would have been promptly packed off home .

RStuart says: When Indonesia said no to allowing them to get off, they should have been taken to Christmas Island for normal processing.”
First, “Indonesia “ didn’t stop them from doing anything – Indonesian officials refused to forcibly remove them.( probably because they knew that our gutless politicians would eventual cave-in and take them off their hands!)

But it does point to some interesting future scenarios. What happens next time an Australian vessel, be it cruise ship, customs ship, take your pick, in any hala refugee zone, is boarded/occupied? do they follow the RStuart formula and without further ado high-tail it to Christmas Island?

RStuart says: “Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.”
This merits being added to the anthology of infamous predictions.( maybe channel 9 will run a 20-1 with it coming out as number ONE for the most idiotic prediction made!)

As Yabby has pointed out it is likely to have minimal impact –and why should it! Many of our “refugee” intake have never been near a war zone

To prevent boat people from successfully transitioning to asylum seekers, the Government can apply an unambiguous policy that's humane, clear and consistent:

Those entering territorial waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility and will automatically be ineligible for future entry.

Humane: safe transport to a UN facility.

Clear: all who attempt to enter by sea will loose any chance of a future visa.

Consistent: same procedure every time an arrival is detected.

And one more thing:

In response to Yaddy’s comment about the expense of the Oceanic Vikings enforced stay in port, RStuart says: “Taxpayers being inconvenienced by refugees is part of the deal when you sign the convention.”

Well , NO it isn’t !
Neither any sea rescue protocol, nor any refugee protocol envisages that those accepting your help would then sit put on your boat and refuse to leave till they were delivered to a shortlist of ports ( i.e. affluent western countries) . And, nothing better than this act illustrates that in this case at least, it was largely about shopping for a better economic clime –not safety.

The fact that RStuart thinks this is “Part of the deal when you sign the convention” shows his limited understanding of the convention.

Native
You’ve make some good suggestions –suggestions that could be worked-and developed.
The only fly in the ointment will be that any policy that seeks to designate an ineligible zone will be seen as mean-spirited, inhumane and just pain yucky by most of the refugee advocates.How do you propose to sell it to them?

I was mulling over another approach –a contra-swap : how about we swap RStaurt for 10 asylum seekers.
We would by RStuarts account end up with 10 fine entrepreneurial types, and they (the oppressors) would get one crusty old crusader who could update them about human rights and the proper treatment of prisoners---I would feel a bit guilty though! I mean,about us ripping then off like that –surely it must contravene some trade practises act.

Horus.You are a funny man. A real hoot.Poor old Rs
Oh - one other alternative.
Sink the boats.

Socratease

In response to Horus' comment:

"The only fly in the ointment will be that any policy that seeks to designate an ineligible zone will be seen as mean-spirited, inhumane and just pain yucky by most of the refugee advocates. How do you propose to sell it to them?"

Refugee advocates will, of course, have every opportunity to publicly express their views prior to a national referendum on the issue, which could be held at the time of the next Federal election.

Shall we start a referendum petition to the Parliament?