Ludwig :<< So Bronwyn, the number of deaths would be greater if there was a tight border-protection policy in place, compared to the loose policy we now have, would it? >>

Bronwyn: "In my opinion, yes."

Surely Bronwyn you can appreciate my point that if the scale of arrivals was considerably larger than it currently is, compared to what it would be if Howard's policy remained in place, then the rate of mishap would be considerably greater. Simply a significantly larger scale of onshore-asylum seeker movement, all else being equal, would in all probability lead to a significantly higher accident and death rate. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

"And not only would the deaths - when boats are turned around and when people are refouled back to danger - be greater, but the suffering of asylum seekers held in detention centres, refugee camps and 'warehousing' facilities would also increase."

I've stated that I am against refoulement or the turning around of boats if it would lead to great hardship and that those caught up in the middle of a policy-change need to be dealt with and not just turned around or sent home without any refugee-determining process. When Howard tightened up border-protection policy, this is exactly what he did; he accommodated those caught in the middle, while upholding the vitally important deterrence factor.

All asylum-seekers need to be sent to detention centres, as a fundamental part of the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you have yet to give me any idea of how you would treat asylum seekers while upholding a strong deterrence factor, so that the number of arrivals doesn't blow out to hundreds of thousands per annum, with the resultant backlash against them that I explained a few posts back.

This balance between treating asylum seekers as well as we can while upholding the deterrence factor is one of the most important points in this discussion. But it is one that you don't seem to appreciate at all!

I've basically repeated what I've already said on this thread. But it seems that repetition is necessary sometimes.

"Howard's policies were never sustainable in the long-term."

Yes they were! Most definitely!

Onshore asylum seeker movement had practically stopped. That was a sustainable outcome!

"And besides they came at enormous cost..."

Sure did! Enormous cost to treat all onshore asylum seekers in a decent manner, to process their claims, to accommodate most of them, etc. That sort of cost wasn't sustainable. It had to be wound back. If it had continued, the Australian public would have demanded that their politicians take a much harder line with boat people and stop their arrivals regardless of their wellbeing.

That cost was never supposed to be ongoing. It was meant to be a short-term expense, that steadily reduced as the number of arrivals fell away, which is just what happened.

"Why else did he spend half a billion dollars building a high security detention centre on Christmas Island? He knew, like everyone else, that asylum seekers were going to continue arriving."

No! Because there were a lot of people en route at the time and strong indications that it would be while before it significantly declined, and he wanted to make sure that the 'Pacific Solution' worked as a strong deterrence factor and that it wasn't undermined by asylum seekers having to be brought to the mainland.

Ludwig: << That presents us with a very difficult balancing act; to make the lives of those who are caught up in the middle of the malaise bearable while upholding strong deterrence to further arrivals. >>

Bronwyn: "You can't make their lives 'bearable' by detaining them indefinitely or sending them back to danger, and these are the only options available when maintaining a strong deterrent policy."

We can't just send them back to dangerous environments, so the only option is detention to the extent that would-be asylum seekers will reconsider their journey. That can only mean detention to the extent that considerably inconveniences asylum seekers and makes their lives less bearable to some extent - maybe to quite significant extent for some of them. Not at all desirable, but what else do we do?

That reality cannot be escaped, as far as I can see. And now it seems that you concur. Yahoo, we seem to have reached another major blockage in this discussion and come to an agreement!

So then, what is more important to you Bronwyn - to treat all asylum seekers in the way that you have indicated you desire and incur a massive increase in arrivals as a result, with the inevitable hardening of attitudes and policy against them, or treat those currently caught up in the debacle in a good but compromised manner in order to prevent a significant increase in arrivals?

It seems that you now appreciate that it comes down to this choice. So what would you do?

For those following this thread. Here is a couple more interesting articles from todays media

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rise-of-refugees-fleeing-war-zones/story-e6freuy9-1225781820179

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26152568-16382,00.html

Ludwig,
I am afraid that Bronwyn just does not want to see the logic
in the argument about detering people smugglers.

At present there is a huge surplus of ships for lease or sale.
My concern is that the smugglers who must know this will either lease
or buy a small ship of say 10,000 tons or more and fill it with people
and like was done in New York run it ashore somewhere, perhaps in
Queensland, and let 10,000 illegals jump ashore and run.

Bronwyn might think that would be a good idea. Certainly safer.

In the New York instance the ship left China went around the Cape and
then up to New York. Once you get to ships that size they could land
anywhere in Australia and could approach without detection.

Bazz

<< Ludwig, I am afraid that Bronwyn just does not want to see the logic in the argument about detering people smugglers. >>

I understand the deterrence logic. I agree with you that it would be better all round if we didn't have boats arriving, but we do and we will continue to do so whilever the world remains riddled with danger zones as it is now.

<< At present there is a huge surplus of ships for lease or sale. My concern is that the smugglers who must know this will either lease or buy a small ship of say 10,000 tons or more and fill it with people and like was done in New York run it ashore somewhere, perhaps in Queensland, and let 10,000 illegals jump ashore and run. >>

Well, Bazz, while you lay awake worrying about that highly improbable scenario, I'll worry about the very definite reality for the millions of the world's refugees as wealthy countries put up the barricades and shut them out. I'll worry about the young men, women and children who we are condemning to living out their lives in overcrowded and disease-ridden refugee camps, with little in the way of physical nourishment and even less in the way of hope for a life outside their squalid prison.

I'll hope they don't know that there's no queue and no fair way out of those places. I'll hope they at least have the peace of mind that their turn will come, even though for the overwhelming majority of course it won't.

If you found your homeland turned into in a war-zone and happened to belong to an ethnic grouping no longer safe from persecution in the new state of lawlessness, you'd do whatever it took to get yourself and your family to safety. And I'll guarantee your plans wouldn't include decades of waiting in a refugee camp.

TBC