>>What you are implying RobP, is that our Govt is too stupid to come up with a fair system. Now I don’t have much respect for Canberra’s abilities, but I seemingly give them more credit then you do!<<

Yabby,

Stop treating me like an idiot. I'm not implying the Government is stupid at all - I'm sure they've got more and more canny over the years. The problem I was referring to was the political problem they run when they take on such a scheme. If Oz goes it solo and takes a big bunch from a refugee camp, the UN or other interest groups could over time start exploiting that to get more and more in on the basis of "you took in person A so why not person B?" That would mean lots of political heat for the Government - that's all I was referring to.

'Boat people' will become 'asylum seekers' until the Government has an unambiguous policy that is humane, clear and consistent. For example:

Humane: safe and prompt transport to a UN refugee facility.

Clear: all 'boat people' are ineligible for future entry.

Consistent: same procedure every time an arrival is detected.

*If Oz goes it solo and takes a big bunch from a refugee camp, the UN or other interest groups could over time start exploiting that to get more and more in on the basis of "you took in person A so why not person B?" That would mean lots of political heat for the Government - that's all I was referring to.*

RobP, now you have me confused. For it was my understanding that
we already take the bulk of our annual 13'000 refugees from
refugee camps. I have not seen the details, but I assume that
we would have a fair method in place, for selecting those. We would
already be facing the problem that you raise above.

As it happens now, boat people get priority in terms of numbers,
whatever is left of the quota is then filled from refugee camps.

Less boat people equates to more genuine refugees from refugee
camps being assisted

>>RobP, now you have me confused. For it was my understanding that we already take the bulk of our annual 13'000 refugees from refugee camps.<<

That's what I understand as well from reading these threads.

>>I have not seen the details, but I assume that we would have a fair method in place, for selecting those. We would already be facing the problem that you raise above.<<

When you are picking a bunch of people from a refugee camp of a couple of hundred thousand, there is no way you can fairly rank all of them. There has to be an element of eenie meenie minie mo in who is selected to fill the quota.

>>As it happens now, boat people get priority in terms of numbers, whatever is left of the quota is then filled from refugee camps.<<

Whether or not that's the fairest way of doing things is not clear. What's clear is that these boat people have taken the risk and are mostly up for the challenge of citizenship in a new country. My understanding is they will be assessed by the Department against that criterion (amongst others like whether they've got any diseases or whether they have any obvious bad aspects in their past).

>>Less boat people equates to more genuine refugees from refugee camps being assisted<<

Actually, less economic migrants would equate to more refugees from refugee camps being assisted as well. Why doesn't that come up in discussion?

*What's clear is that these boat people have taken the risk and are mostly up for the challenge of citizenship in a new country.*

RobP, I remind you yet once again that this is meant to be a
humanitarian programme. Peoples circumstances differ hugely.

Lets look at a couple of examples of people competing for places.
On the Burma border you have refugees who fled, they have nothing.
Lets say a school teacher and his family. Then you have young
blokes from Sri Lanka, bankrolled by the their families. Money
is the difference. Yet you are saying, because the young guys with
money are taking a risk, they should get preferential treatment over
5 year old kids etc. Those Sri Lankans might well have never been
in a war zone! How on earth can a 5 year old compete?

So my point is this: Keep humanitarian programmes exactly that.

If those Sri Lankan traders etc want to enter as economic migrants,
they are free to compete with other economic migrants for a place
in Australia, as part of the economic migrants programme, not
steal places from the really needy, down and out, refugee programme.

As it happens I have a strong sense of justice and to me this whole
thing stinks to high heaven.

>>RobP, I remind you yet once again that this is meant to be a humanitarian programme.<<

As best as possible, yes.

>>Peoples circumstances differ hugely.<<

I agree. Which is one of the reasons why it's so hard to make proper assessments.

>>Yet you are saying, because the young guys with money are taking a risk, they should get preferential treatment over 5 year old kids etc. Those Sri Lankans might well have never been in a war zone! How on earth can a 5 year old compete?<<

I also said it wasn't clear whether it's the fairest way of doing things. You can always pick an example where the injustices show up. A logical extension of the argument you've just made is that there are lots of 5-year olds in the same position. How do you pick between them? Because the numbers are such that you can't take them all.

>>So my point is this: Keep humanitarian programmes exactly that.<<

As best as possible, I agree. But keep things in perspective. There are 1000 boat people coming here per year against 13000 refugees by government invitation. Refugees are currently doing quite OK. If the numbers of boat arrivals goes up as a proportion of the refugee intake, you've got a stronger argument.

>>If those Sri Lankan traders etc want to enter as economic migrants, they are free to compete with other economic migrants for a place in Australia, as part of the economic migrants programme, not steal places from the really needy, down and out, refugee programme.<<

If the Sri Lankans are just greedy traders you have a strong point. If there's also an element of persecution involved the balance flips the other way. There's still something healthy about people making the effort themselves. How the Government weighs the plethora of different factors is where the debate should be at.

>>As it happens I have a strong sense of justice ...<<

Fair enough. My approach is a mixture of justice and realism which is where we differ.