Well, how many of you watched the special Q&A program which followed the documentary of those unfortunate people who were stopped by the Howard Government of entering Australia.
The lies that were told at the (then) highest level of government made me ashamed to be Australian. John Howard is a lying, slippery, so-called Christian, who totally denied access to some poor unfortunate people, by saying that all of these boat people were terrorists, and we didn't want "them" (are not these people human and be called people?), in Australia.
The Navy in this documentary were the fall guys, and the things witnessed by the crews aboard the naval ships, were gagged from talking about the dreadful things (lied about by Howard) they witnessed.
Shame on you Mr. Howard, you are not fit to be an Australian.
We are all descendants from boat people, including our Indegenous Australians, so what makes us so different?. I always thought that Australians were welcoming and ready to give newcomers a fair go., but thanks to Howard and his cohorts of the day, we have made miserable people even more desperate. SHAME ON THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT, AND SHAME ON THE LIBERAL PARTY TODAY FOR TRYING TO EMULATE MR HOWARDS DIRTY TRICKS.

Noisy, here’s a different perspective, which I’ve expressed on this forum umpteen times (I wish it was easy to look up old posts so that I could just direct you to a few of them). But here I go again…

At the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001, there were strong indications that a lot of boats were going to be heading our way. The word had got out that Australia was a soft touch.

Something decisive needed to be done. Howard did it, and I reckon he did a pretty damn good job of it. He found the right balance between treating those who had arrived humanely while implementing a deterrence factor to cut the number of future arrivals right down.

That was a very difficult juggling act. If he’d been seen to be even slightly more accommodating towards arrivals than he was, then boats would have just kept coming.

If boats had kept coming, tough action would have had to have been taken sooner or later.

If action had been taken a bit later than it was, a whole more people would have been caught in the middle, both in detention centres and in limbo somewhere en route to Australia.

Howard accommodated the vast majority of onshore asylum seekers that arrived in the early 90s while at the same time practically solving the onshore asylum seeker issue.

I wonder what would have happened if Beazley had been PM in 2001. I can envisage a long period of dilly-dallying while the number of boats arriving increased greatly and the whole business turned into a huge mess, with ultimately many more people being put in detention, many more being forcibly sent home and many more dying at sea.

Sorry Noisy, but I think you are just totally off-track with your comments about Howard.

SHAME on Rudd and his kruddy mob of cronies for re-opening this whole sorry saga… and on Gillard for dithering, given that the way forward really is obvious, as demonstrated by Howard.

For me that incident highlighted the fact that the Liberal Party has abolutely no moral basis and would do anything to gain and retain power.

Since the end of the White Australia Policy there has been a mutual agreement between political parties never to play the race card but Howard played the oldest trick in the book - manufacture a national crisis and then put himself forward as the only solution.

He rode on the back of the anti-Asian sentiment he allowed to fester a few years earlier and used the whole process to leech votes away from the ALP.

The ALP in return must also share the blame for being too cowardly and not taking the proper moral stance. Sure it probably would have cost them that election but things could have been different a few year later.

It also shows how easy it to let the racist geni out of the bottle.

We may like to think of ourselves as tolerant but remember that during the 60's referendum that granted aborigines the vote and counted them as human beings rather than fauna - about 10% were opposed.

Translated to today would mean that there are now a couple of million people in this country still thinking that way (and worse).

The real significance of infomercials like the ABC’s “Stop the Boats”, and before it SBS’s “Go Back To Where You Came From “ is that
they expose (and discredit) their producers to be lobby groups with one-eyed agendas -- little different to campaigners like Getup.

Both programs played hard with the line that the “asylum seeker” were poor unfortunates who were only seeking a fair go.
Little could be further from the truth. Any one who has done even a little background research will find that most are far from the innocent naives they are made out to be.

And importantly, being *poor* does not qualify one for “protection” under the Refugee Convention’-- which after all, was what they were seeking to exploit!

Dear Noisy Scrub Bird,

Thanks for this thread. I also watched both the film and "Q and A," that followed. It was very dis-heartening to learn the facts of the "children overboard" affair. Even more upsetting was the fact that so many officials were silenced and unable to speak until now.
To me it only showed how careful we have to be when we elect politicians who make decisions on our behalf. It's a sad part of our country's history - and hopefully will never happen again - but if
Mr Abbott is elected - we have no guarantee that a repeat of the atrocious Howard years won't come back. Watch the Libs reaction to
Sunday's detailed announcement on the carbon tax. Based on media announcements the Bill has already a majority support in Parliament, yet the same fear-mongering continues - and will after Sunday, I have no doubt. Because Mr Abbott wants to be PM - no matter at what cost -
the same as Howard did - all those years ago. Nothing has changed with the Libs. And yes, it doesn't make one feel proud to the calibre of some of our politicians. I live in a Liberal Electorate - and hopefully we'll get rid of the dead wood in the next election.

Dear Lexi,
Thankyou for your comments,I am bemused at some of the comments, when we think that Australia is/was founded on boat people, that is what has made our population so diverse. Again, I blame the press for a lot of rumour and scaremongering, but if the average Australian can see through all of the negative comments delivered by the media, they might remember that these desperate people are human beings, and not the animals that some people portray them as being.
I am a migrant from the UK, I have been here since 1959 (aged 14) and have never been back, I fell in love with Australia the minute our boat started to sail up Sydney Harbour. Australia has been very kind to me, but one thing really stands out and signals me, that is, the total lack of compassion that a lot of Australians express these days., are they really saying that "this country is good enough for me but we don't want people from other cultures here?", if so, then shame on them too.

Hi Ludwig,
I stand by my comments.
Cheers Noisy Scrub Bird.

Hi Wobbles,
Yes, I totally agree with the comments in your response, it really is a case of "I am alright Jack - screw the rest".
It is nice to know that I am communicating with some decent people. It is nice to realise that at least some people don't think that they are better than anyone else, who may just deserve a better life such as we enjoy.
Have a great day,
Noisy Scrub Bird.

Noisy,
you're talking via the wrong end of your digestive system.

Dear Noisy Scrub Bird,

There seems to be standard (prefabricated) lines that are trotted out each time this issue comes up :
i)There’s the “ rumour and scaremongering” by the press charge i.e. the press has made people unsympathetic towards asylum seekers (if only people knew the truth! they would be warm and welcoming) Each time the media exposes asylum seekers for being not what they claim-–it’s scaremonger . But should the ABC or SBS run a one-eye infomercial -– Hallelujah! It’s Informative.
ii)Then there’s the old chestnut about the joys of diversity. Well, we can have diversity even without boat people elbowing their way to the front of the queue. And psst! (a whisper in your ear) some of the boat people hold to cultures that are not too enamoured with the idea of diversity, either!
iii)Then someone, somewhere, will bring up white guilt bit –either in the form of the White Australia Policy , Aborigines or the charge we came in boats too ( presumably, as atonement for the aforementioned guilt trips we should open our doors to all comers!)

Well, sorry, but none of those tactics work any more.
The only things that are of relevance are :
i) Are they genuine refugees &
ii) How many --if any—should we let in

And we have every right to be as discerning as we like.

Have a very bemused weekend!

Well Lexi you've hit the nail on the head when you say it just shows how careful we have to be when choosing who we vote for.

Boy, if only our voters had thought about that previously. One can't help but wonder how much we would have in the bank as opposed to our credit card debt thanks to the incompetent lot you support no matter how wrong they get it.

Dear rehctub,

I would prefer to have less in my bank account if it meant that my elderly mother and mother-in-law and others like them in this country have access to decent health care, medicine, pensions, and other things that make live worth living. The size of my bank account would not be part of this equation. Perhaps therein lies the difference in who we vote for.

Dear Noisy Scrub Bird,

My ancestry is Lithuanian. I was born here. My family now includes -
Scottish, British, and German ancestry. We're a large family and we
love this country. I love reading your posts - they're always valid and well reasoned. May you continue posting for a long, long time.

Dear Lexi,
Thank you for your lovely post, I do try to see both sides of any story, and also try to put myself in other peoples' shoes. We all have opinions I know, but some folk apparently lack empathy for such an horrific situation that our fellow human beings find themselves in.
How amazing that many Australian's, particularly those who are westernised ,practice many many religions, not all of them Christian, I practice the gentle Buddhism precepts, does that make me a potential terrorist? no, it doesn't, but it has taught me to walk in other peoples' shoes and be mindful of everything, 'self' doesn't matter to me. I consider myself to be very wealthy, I have a roof over my head, meals on my table and good health, which is a damned site better than these poor souls who are persecuted by people who don't even care about their plight.
Thanks again Lexi, for your comments.

Dear SPQR,
Like it or not, we are entitled to our opinion, but without fail, my opinions are launched from my mouth, which is activated after much thought and deliberation, not as you so rudely suggested.
Noisy

Dear SPQR,
Sorry my friend, I actually meant my post to you to go to "Individual",
Please forgive me.
Noisy

To 'Individual',
I mistakenly sent an email to SPQR, which was meant for you, perhaps you can read it, to save me the trouble of re-routing it.
NSB

What is it with this country in relatively recent history where we hold up conniving and artifice by our federal leaders as a badge of honour?

John Howard was a master at using his wiles for the seduction of the electorate whenever it was politically expedient to do so. His decision to run with the children overboard motif for electoral advantage stands as an indictment on his character and an indelible stain on his tenure as Prime Minister.

I wonder what wisdom and integrity would look like in federal politics, as opposed to grasping, media-driven manipulation?

Francis Bacon put it succinctly when he wrote, "Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."

Ah phoowey, I got the wrong decade in my first post. My reference to the early 90s should have been to the early 00s. Must be getting old or sumpthin!

So Aquarius, it begs the question as to just what you would have had Howard do. I can only guess that you’d have wanted him to simply accommodate all-comers with open arms, no matter how many, with completely open borders, with no detention and no character or refugee-status checks.

Would I be correct in this assumption?

So Noisy, it begs the question as to just what you would have had Howard do. I can only guess that you’d have wanted him to simply accommodate all-comers with open arms, with completely open borders, with no detention and character or refugee-status checks.

Noisy,
I make no bones about it, the 'illegals' that come by boat must be stopped. They are taking places that genuine refugees could have.

They are not refugees, they are shonks, who fly to Malaysia, on false or proper travel docs, then bribe and buy their passage to Christmas Island. Their whole being is to get here by deceit and then lie to our officials. The only reason we give them permanent residence is because they deliberately destroy their travel docs so we cannot send them back. If they were genuine they would fly here as it is safer and cheaper, and then apply for asylum.

I do not feel for these gate crashers at all, my emphaty is given to the genuine refugees, say in Burma, Malaysia and Africa.

First thing that must be done is to deny permanent residence to the illegals and not allow them the family reunion provisions. If genuine refugees in say africa have to wait 10 years to be assesed, then we should hold the illegal entrants 10 years before assesment.

Dear Banjo,

They are not "illegal," they are entitled to seek asylum according to the agreement that Australia has signed. They are desperate people who risk their lives and those of their children to come in leaky boats, and undertake a dangerous sea journey - out of sheer desperation. If they were "shonks" as you claim - they would take the much safer option of coming by plane. They would not risk their lives
in this manner. They do so because they are desperate people and to date have all been found to be genuine refugees. You are buying into the political spin that has been bandied about by the low calibre politicans for their own mileage.

Lexi,
You have allowed youself to be seduced by the propaganda.

It is illegal to enter Australia without a proper visa, that is the reason we can detain them. We do not detain legal entrants. Even the DIAC say they are 'unlawful entrants' and the UNHCR says that asylum seekers must obey a countries laws and the 'illegals' do not. My dictionary equats unlawfull with illegal.

The illegals do not fly here, even though it is far cheaper and far safer, simply because they are not likely to be granted asylum and we can assertain where they are from and send them back to where they boarded the aircraft. Air arrivals without docs are sent back within 72 hours and those with valid docs have only about a 20% chance of being granted asylum. That is why the gate crashers prefer to pay more and come by boat.

The illegals should not get advantage over genuine refugees, so why not make them join the 10-15 year queue here?

Hello Banjo,
You have got some of it wrong Banjo, if someone is genuinely seeking Asylum in our country they must be accepted for process, as it is with the first Rule of Marine Safety i.e. if people are in an ill-found boat which is foundering and breaking up we MUST go to their rescue, no matter what.
They may have arrived on leaky boats skippered by people of dubious character, that indicates to me the level of desperation., thankfully the immigrants who founded this great country were mostly criminals of various levels, either didn't have their 'say', and they were not fleeing a country where life was intolerable. I too am an immigrant, but we still had to have a job to go to (The head of the family) and a house to live in. Most immigrants came here for a want of a better life, and most of us found one.

Dear Poirot,
Re your post of the 9th inst. Very well said, I totally agree with your comments.
Noisy Scrub Bird.

Noisy,
You are right about a foundering boat. That is how the 'Tampa' becme involved. She answered a 'mayday' from the vessel and took them aboard and headed for the nearest port that could accomodate her. When the survivors found out she was heading to an Indonesian port the hyjacked her and forced her to Christmas Island. So instead of being thankfull for having their lives saved they hyjacked 'Tampa' to take them to their destination.

I think we should have nothing to do with such people. Best to use methods to deter them from trying to come here and put the effort into helping genuine refugees that are patiently waiting for a place.

Oh,by the way if you look up the media at the time, you will find that there were childen dropped into the ocean from previous vessel/s prior to that vessel of the 'children overboard' incident. So little wonder that the Ministers office took it that the same applied in the latter case.

For documentarys wanting to project a certain theme, facts such as the above two are left out.

Dear Lexi,
By your own measure, they are shonks.
<< If they were "shonks" as you claim - they would take the much safer option of coming by plane>>
Actually, most of those from the Middle East did take the fly option.
They flew to Malaysia –which has special soft entry for passengers flying in from Muslim countries -- then boated to Indonesia, stopped over for a little R&R, then boated on to Christmas Island. (and others fly direct to Indonesia)

<< They do so because they are desperate people>>
Yes, in the same way persons waiting outside a department store for the doors to open for end of season sales might be said to be desperate.

<< and to date have all been found to be genuine refugees.>>
“All”? Lexi.
No, not all –many are, but certainly not all.
Those who didn’t learn their stories well enough are often rejected.
(they usual have to go back to Indonesia to make a second , third or forth attempt!).

……..
Dear Noisy Scrub Bird
I really think you might have been wrongly identified .You seem totally impervious to contrary evidence –rather like, water off a ducks back

<< the immigrants who founded this great country were mostly criminals of various levels>>
As previously mentioned –the character of earlier immigrants is immaterial.The boat people are telling us they want –special entry—based on their refugee status.

<< Most immigrants came here for a want of a better life>>
As previously mentioned – a desire for a higher standard of living ( however overpoweringly strong) does qualify one for refugee status.

They are not "illegal," they are entitled to seek asylum according to the agreement that Australia has signed.
Lexi,
Does that mean a Pom or a Dane or a German of Afghan descent can come here by boat without papers & say they're from Afghanistan & then they're deemed refugees ?

Did anyone see the footage of people dying as their boat founders on the rocks of Xmas island?

This is a direct and predictable result of Labor's lax border protection policy.

noisy and individual,
Let it be clear, the boat arrivals are illegal as it contravenes Australian law to enter without a valid visa. What we have agreed to, with the UN, is that we will not prosecute for illegal entry if that person makes a claim for asylum. But we can, and do, detain them. No person entering Australia legally can be detained.

Those people wishing to promote the actions of the illegal boat people, and lure more to their deaths, put spin on the actual facts so as to paint the illegals in a better light.

The illegals whole intention is to deceive us. Take advantage of our easy going nature.

@Ludwig: That was a very difficult juggling act. If he’d been seen to be even slightly more accommodating towards arrivals than he was, then boats would have just kept coming.

That's a bit of revisionist history there Ludwig. They did keep coming after the Tampa. Howards handling of the the Tampa incident didn't stop them. The navy intercepting those that arrived after the Tampa incident and towing back to Indonesia stopped them. Following that was Nauru and TPV's.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/jakarta-bars-abbott-asylum-boat-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1225815742763

This is hardly surprising, because despite all the shenanigans we either accepted them into our processing facilities or paid NZ to take them off our hands.

@Ludwig: So Noisy, it begs the question as to just what you would have had Howard do.

Howards having of the Tampa incident was designed to do one this: win an election. To quote Wikipedia the article on the subject:

"In July 2007, an unauthorised biography of John Howard claimed that he had received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that refusing the asylum seekers entry into Australia would breach international law, but that he did so to gain public support in the then upcoming election."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair#Political_effects

I personally want better from my elected representatives. Someone who is honest and obeys the law would be a good start. But hey, I only get one vote, it was pretty obvious what he was doing, and he won the election.

Dear SPQR,
I don't pay much heed to peoples' assumption(s) about me,(especially if I don't know them) - I am always interested in debate, and am always happy to read others' opinions, that is how we see the 'other' sides of these problems. Water off a ducks' back me?....never, keep the debates going, I am always interested,in opposing views to my opinion, it is healthy and in my case drives me to analys what other people have to say, 'tis the overdose of compassion which I had the misfortune to be born with which drives me - it really is a bitch some times :)But I do take your point(s).....honestly I do.

Dear banjo,
I agree with your point about genuine refugees and the illegals, but once they hit Australian shores, are they not 'innocent' until proven guilty?
I would like to hear your genuine opinion.
Cheers,
Noisy Scrub Bird (NSB)

genuine refugees and the illegals.
Noise,
the problem is that no-one appears to put forward any ideas as to how to tell them apart when both have the same agenda to come to Australia & gradually change the demographics here or hasn't anyone noticed that yet.
Is a refugee genuine when he is not inclined to shirk the negative side of the culture he is supposedly running away from ?

Noisy,
The genuine refugees are brought here at our invitation, after their credentials are checked plus health etc. No problem with that except some have cultures that are very alien to ours and some have difficulty relating to our society. We may have to be a bit more selective in that regard.

The illegals simply gatecrash and take advantage of our goodwill. With no identifacation, no country will take them back, so we are stuck with them, irrespective of what our officials opinions are. Therefore we have to deter them from coming.

It took the Howard government many years of progressively making it tougher untill they finally got the formular that stopped the boats from coming. Because of ideology and stupidith this government has altered the whole situation.

Firstly with the closing of Nauru, and the illegals getting here, has cast doubt on the toughness of our decission makers, plus the cutting of the TPVs. So you now have a situation where the illegals have confidence that we will weaken and allow them in. The 'Oceanic Viking' issue did not help matters either.

This was supposed to be more humane, but it has lead to the deaths of some 200 illegals. How is that more humane? If 200 died trying to get here in 3 years, how many in the next? Humane?

You made some serious allegations in you first post, apparently solely based on a TV documentry that was designed to give a particular point of view. You should reconsider that in light of the information you now have been given.

Dear Noisy

I asked you a simple question which is of fundamental importance to this discussion, which you started. But it would appear that you have chosen to ignore me.

I’ll have to assume that what I posited in my question is indeed the case and that it is too difficult for you to come out and say yes.

My past experience with people who have expressed the sort of views that you hold is that they do indeed bear no thought at all of what would happen if we treated onshore asylum seekers as you wish them to be treated, or of what would have happened if Howard hadn’t acted decisively when it was absolutely needed in 2001.

They completely don't understand the great importance of a strong deterrence factor, without which the rate of arrivals would have and could still increase enormously.

And they seem to just not think at all about putting their energies into lobbying for Australia to boost its international aid directed at refugee issues and increase the intake of the most needy refugees via our offshore programs, rather than misdirecting their efforts into supporting the grossly inappropriate onshore asylum seeking route.

<< That's a bit of revisionist history there Ludwig. They did keep coming after the Tampa. >>

Yes they did rstuart. The Tampa was just the start of Howard’s program. His whole policy approach was undoubtedly very successful in cutting the number of arrivals right down to a trickle.

Why else would the boats have stopped coming? There have always been strong push factors. It was the pull factor that changed greatly.

<< Howards having of the Tampa incident was designed to do one this: win an election. >>

I don’t think Howard did it for election reasons at all. He did it for principled / ideological / practical / sensible reasons. It was a case of something needing to be done at about that time and the Tampa presenting an opportunity, out of the blue, to act.

Yes it helped him win the following election. But was that a bad thing? If he appealed significantly to the voting public then good on him. In this particular instance he scored a win-win, for popularity and sensible decisive political management.

Crikey, it could have gone horribly wrong. He took a huge risk.

Apart from this particular issue, I'm no fan of Howard. But quite honestly I think he undertook this particular action over the Tampa with a well-developed principle of border-protection and deterrence to unsolicited boat arrivals, and not at all with the forthcoming election in mind.

Ludwig,

"I don't think Howard did it for election reasons at all. He did it for principled / ideological / practical /sensible reasons."

Yes, I can see how you would find allowing people to bob about in the tropical sun on the deck of a container ship principled - although it brings me to question your principles.

I suppose the Howard Government's pre-election Haneef spectacular was another example of his highly developed sense of principle. That particular low point was Howard trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat - it was Tampa part two - and it well and truly exposed John Howard and his "principles" for what they were.

Poirot,

What would you say are Labor's principles? I really can't see any at all on this issue.

My son worked for the ABC for a long while.
On his first day there he was told, that if you vote liberal don't
mention it if you want a career here.

He told me that there are no gays in the closet at the ABC.
There is no room, it is full of liberal voters.

No I did not watch the program, I already knew what it would be about.

Shadow Minister,

I agree

Poirot

:D

Labor's principles on this issue are exactly the same as the Coalition's: they'll do whatever it takes and stoop to any level to win government.

"We are all descendants from boat people, including our Indegenous Australians, so what makes us so different?"
Let's see, that most Australians aren't violent religious fanatics with zero moral fibre towards anyone outside their own sub-community (even when they don't like them, most Australians at least show basic courtesy to others); carries a dog-eat-dog self-entitlement mentality; knows only a life of tribal warfare, gansterism and theft, and isn't brought to emotional and behavioural extremes when we don't get our way, or when a foreigner depicts one of our religious dieties?

How about those?

I say we check everyone that comes through for these criteria- any that don't we should accept- any that do, we turn them back.

That way, my system we ensure we don't turn away the wrong people, and the people we do turn away are those we should never allow in.

I wrote:

< I don't think Howard did it for election reasons at all. He did it for principled / ideological / practical /sensible reasons. >

Poirot retorted:

<< Yes, I can see how you would find allowing people to bob about in the tropical sun on the deck of a container ship principled - although it brings me to question your principles. >>

There was a very strong and obvious principle. The one that says onshore asylum seeking is something that needed to be stopped decisively. And especially so as there were strong indications at the time of the Tampa that it was about to greatly increase, with major ramifications…. as opposed to the lack of principle of just letting them come in, and stay, unhindered, in unrestricted numbers and in an ongoing manner….. or dilly-dallying around like a headless chook after the whole caboodle had escalated, without any firm or effective policy approach…a la Gillard.

For all the bucketing that Howard has received over the years, he would no doubt have copped a bigger trammelling if he’d allowed onshore asylum to reach the scale that it was shaping up to reach at the time, before acting.

If that had happened, many thousands more people would have been involved, a harder line would have been taken with a tougher interpretation of the definition of a refugee, more people would probably have died at sea, there would have been a much larger scale of discontent in the Australia community, and so on.

Howard did the right thing.

@Ludwig: There was a very strong and obvious principle.

Yeah, and it seems it spoke to you and the majority of other voters real clearly. But you were claiming Howard didn't do this this to send a message to the voters, rather it was to send a message to the asylum seekers. I and a few others here are scratching our heads saying, "surely, you can't be serious - a couple of weeks out from an election and you say the Prime Minister was spending time trying to connect to the asylum seekers". It was an election stunt, pure and simple. You seem to acknowledge that in hindsight it had no effect on the boats. I put it to you that Howard ain't stupid - he never intended to it have an effect on the boats. All this lying and conniving was done to win an election.

To Howards eternal credit, at a deeper level he was a very honest politician. I admire that in him. When he won the election on the basis of stopping the boats, and after being elected he promptly went about putting in place policies that did just that despite the heated criticism it attracted. There were no half hearted measures. He did the same with with the GST - told the electorate what he was going to do before an election, and once elected on that basis went about doing it. At this level, I don't know of a more honest politician.

And there we have the conundrum of Howard - a lying bastard who was an honest politician.

<< And there we have the conundrum of Howard - a lying bastard who was an honest politician. >>

How strange, rstuart. You think that Howard was basically an honest pollie on every issue except the one at hand. Why do you pull this particular issue out as being so different? Why would you attribute a ‘lying bastard’ approach from Howard on this matter only? It makes no sense, especially given that there were very good reasons for his actions over the Tampa and the subsequent handling of the onshore asylum seeking issue.

The timing of the Tampa’s arrival a short period before an election was just completely coincidental. Howard would have probably done just the same thing, all else being equal, if it was two years to the next election?

The Tampa presented an opportunity, and a need, to act decisively. That’s it. The proximity to an election was in all probability entirely incidental.

And gee, if he had done it with some re-election motivation in mind, so what? The important thing was that a decisive political action was taken, at great risk, which proved to be the right action when considered along with the whole subsequent approach to the issue.

@Ludwig: You think that Howard was basically an honest pollie on every issue except the one at hand.

No, no. The picture Howard lied, dogged and deceived on all sorts of things. No doubt if you asked him, he would to this say he believed Haneef was a terrorist threat at the time. They all do that sort of thing, bless their black little hearts. But we seem to be willing to forgive them for that provided they are true to their word on the big picture items. As far as I can tell Howard always was, and to a remarkable extent.

If you want a prime example of the contrary, try Anna Bligh pledge "I will not sell off Queensland Rail" right before the election.

@Lugwig: The important thing was that a decisive political action was taken, at great risk, which proved to be the right action when considered along with the whole subsequent approach to the issue.

Sorry, I missed this bit. No action was taken before the election that had any influence whatsoever on whether the boats arrived. You acknowledge this.

You say he "took decisive political action". Since he didn't do anything that altered the refugee outcome, it could only have been decisive in the effect it had on on the electoral outcome. In other words when it comes to the boats arriving saying nothing would have had a similar non-effect, and perhaps just announcing the policies he did in implement later would have had a bigger effect. But instead he instructed his military to not keep him informed, knowingly broke the law of the high seas, got into a diplomatic row with another country, told the voters things he knew were probably not true, and daemonised a group of refugees.

Now you are probably thinking if he had not have pulled this stunt he made not have been re-elected. It's doubtful. It was right after September 11, and the Ansett failure. But lets say you are right. I imagine you then going on to claim if Howard hadn't been elected nothing would have happened on the refugee front. Since you evidently wanted decisive action on boat arrivals you think the ends justifies the means.

I don't think it would have worked out like that. Howard's Labor predecessors, Hawk/Keating were pretty harsh on the refugee front. Notice that now the boats hit the same level they did on the eve of the 2001 elections, Labor is now looking at solutions very similar to the ones Howard used. So my guess is the things you wanted done would have been done regardless of the who won the election. After all Hansen had freshly ploughed the row. It was there for either side to sow and reap the benefits, and the rising boat numbers would have made it difficult to do otherwise.

Hello Ludwig,
What ever comment I would make is irrelevant now, as the Mighty John Howard is no longer at the helm, so to speak.
Perhaps I should have commented on those refugees who are not genuine, I am more interested in the welfare of the genuine ones.
But I have to admire the pluck of those who are not genuine, it shows the level of desperation, and I would like to think that i would never be in that situation that they find themselves in, don't be too hard on me my friend, because let's face it, even the high flying politicians don't really know what to do with the folk who are claiming political asylum, they still have to be processed, and if they fail the test, they get sent back. What else can I say.
Cheers NSB

Hi King Hazzu,
Thankyou for your precise and accurate post. I totally agree, let us process them all so that we don't send the wrong ones back. Politics really should be left out of this, although I realise that it would be impossible. It really is a subject of humanity, I am appalled at a lot of these posters who seem to regard any refugees with contempt, God forbid that they ever find themselves in the refugees' shoes.
Well said,
Noisy Scrub Bird

Politics really should be left out of this, although I realise that it would be impossible.
Noisy,
therefore the above is a pointless statement.
You say don't send the wrong ones back. That is precisely the crux of the dilemma. How do you propose we go about finding out who is & who is not a genuine refugee when you have the oppressors travelling on the boats with the victims ?

Noisy, who on this thread is regarding refugees with contempt?

NSB,

I believe the world refugee problem is beyond the scope of any country to resolve in a proper manner.

It only requires a major disturbance in a particular part of the world and the problem assumes a different nature dependent on the demographic the refugees real or imagined happen to be migrating from.

Our government past and present has never had any coherent system or solution just making do as circumstances were or are dictated by domestic politics.

The refugees no matter what their ethnic background or whether they were true refugees or not have been buffeted by the vagaries of the Australian political scene for quite some time.

Join the queue! By the time a refugee had advanced a few paces down this supposed queue the goalposts have shifted yet again in Australia.

Consistent we are not, for a variety of reasons, most hard to reconcile and understand from the refugees viewpoint.

Howards claim to fame was that for a short period of time he was seen to be very decisive but sadly not necessarily right His decision did appear to make the electorate happy and that is what it was all about. Ethics and humanity were not part of his decision.

The situation is on going with no resolution in sight. To find the balance between votes and ethics is always a difficult task.

Shaggy Dog

Quite so, Noisy Scrub bird;
This SHOULD be an extremely simple issue for most people;
Sadly it seems many people only have the capacity to pick a 'side' that argues for the most generalized "let them all in" or "shut them all out" angles;
It only gets worse when either side presents completely baloney arguments and stances they probably don't even believe themselves;
Some noteworthy ones are the "we only want to stop people smugglers from putting people in danger!" by the anti crowd, and the various weak attempts by the 'pro' crowd to link hostility to our more recent refugee intakes to Middle Americans against Mexicans, Nazi Germany against Jews or even the White Australia policy- when the differences are quite clear.

To be honest I'd rather make a clear point and expect to stand up for it rather than sugar-coat a stance I have.
When people start to fudge their supposed reasons to something more politically-correct or marketable, the entire debate takes a pointless turn and never gets resolved.

Dear King Huzza,
Well said my friend, quite frankly I am sick of the goal post shifting
indulged in by some Politions. I reckon that a Government who would be capable of enacting unpopular policies, such as illegal/legal boat people, carbon tax etc, just because it is the right thing to do, would have my vote any day. Whilst I was not impressed with Julia Gillards' delivery on carbon tax, she at least is doing something which should have been done a decade ago, I fail to comprehend the Oppositions leaders' stance especially knowing that he thought and vocalised that climate change is crap, he might enjoy the popularity of the wealthy voters, but he doesn't cut it with me., his put-down of Climate Change is to protect the wealthy voters and big business. Ah Well!, I guess I will sit back and see how many people sling pooh at me today.
Keep posting my friend, I look forward to reading them.
Noisy

Dear Shaggy Dog,
What a good 'levelling' post, you said it all in an even handed, measured way, both calming and insightful, in my view I think you have summed up the whole issue of boat people. Well done, my friend.
Noisy Scrub Bird.

Rstuart

Well said.

The action taken on boat refugees has remained as "the end justifies the means" for both sides of politics for decades now.

Only those retired from the political system appear to have developed a moral compass, shame their views and the demonstrations by many concerned Australians have been and continue to be blatantly ignored.

"Refugees

Australia has historically welcomed a large number of refugees. Currently they make up a fairly small percentage of immigration to Australia. The number of boat people coming to Australia is small, even compared with the number of refuges allowed in.

The boat people do not affect Australia’s population at all. This is because they are included in the rather meagre number of refugees allowed in. So, if a thousand boat people are given permission to stay, a thousand other refugees will have to wait. Our population, and our population growth are not affected by the boat people"

http://ergpower.info/Refugees.php

And a few facts:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/SearchResults.asp
www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

Rstuart, you wrote:

<< To Howards eternal credit, at a deeper level he was a very honest politician. I admire that in him >>

And then you wrote in a subsequent post:

<< Howard lied, dogged and deceived on all sorts of things. >>

I’m having trouble understanding that.

You seem to think that the onshore asylum seeking issue was not a major policy area and that Howard was only honest regarding bigger things. I’d say that it certainly is a major political subject and it continues to make no sense to me as to why you think he would be basically honest regarding big issues, except for the asylum seeker issue.

<< I imagine you then going on to claim if Howard hadn't been elected nothing would have happened on the refugee front. >>

In all probability nothing would have happened until the issue had escalated considerably, and then actions would not have been as decisive as his, resulting in something similar to the mess are now experiencing, but on a considerably larger scale.

But ultimately, similar policies would have to have been implemented, be it Liberal or Labor in power. And by that time they could well have been considerably harsher.

<< Howard's Labor predecessors, Hawk/Keating were pretty harsh on the refugee front. Notice that now the boats hit the same level they did on the eve of the 2001 elections, Labor is now looking at solutions very similar to the ones Howard used. So my guess is the things you wanted done would have been done regardless of the who won the election. >>

YES!

What alternatives were there??

As I keep saying, a no-detention policy, along with the rest of NSB's and Sarah Hanson-Young’s wishes of how to treat asylum seekers, would have resulted in an opening of the proverbial floodgates.

A ‘turn-the-boats-around policy would have been unacceptable.

A middle-ground Howard-style policy, which Labor is now looking at through necessity, was/is the ONLY real option!

Come on, it really is time that you and NSB stopped condemning Howard for his part in all of this.

What gets me is there are some people in Aus that are so ill informed, naive and gullible that they feel compassion for the illegals that arrive here by boat.

Simple facts are that the illegals are shonks that get to our shores by fraud, cheating, bribery and deceit. Then further blatantly lie to our officials here. They elbow others out of the way, that may have been waiting years to get a place.

Not one of the 4-5 pro-illegals posters here can give any reason why the illegals should be given advantage over those that have not the funds to buy their way here. I am refering to the poor wretches that are stuck in, say, Burma, Malaysia or Africa.

The pro-illegal advocates try falsely to take the high moral ground but the ethical ones are those who have empathy for genuine refugees. The refugees who do not gate crash our borders.

In all fairness the illegal arrivals have to be stopped,if for no other reason but to give the others a fair go

@Ludwig,

Time to summarise Ludwig, because I'm fairly sure you get my main points, even if you don't agree.

The first issue is how Howard handled the boat people post 2001. I gather you approve of what he did. I have purposefully avoided making a comment on it, because this issue has been done to death here with me being in the thick of flame wars that went on for weeks. However we both agree that Howard was successful - he did stop the boats.

The next issue is the Tampa affair. You initially argued Howard's handling of the Tampa affair was the reason the boats stopped. I disagreed, pointing out that quite apart from anything else the boats didn't stop (then). You seem to concede this point.

You also argued the major reason Howard staged the Tampa affair was to stop the boats. I again disagree. I thing it's pretty clear the Tampa affair was an election stunt and little more. What little more it was could have been achieved by Howard simply stating his revised policies on boat arrivals. I don't know whether you ended up conceding this point or not.

Next there is the disappointing and somewhat puzzling observation (at least to me), that despite my personal disgust at the Tampa affair, it was a success for Howard. It did get help him re-elected. On this we have always agreed.

This prompted my guess as to why the average voter isn't like me, and so didn't pillar Howard over his deliberate misleading of the electorate, breaking of maritime law, yada yada. For me these things are unforgivable. But they aren't "big picture" items. The big picture item in this case is Howard came out before the election and clearly said "if elected, I will stop the boats". And he did. And apparently your average Australian is willing to forgive him sacrificing a few sacred cows along the way. On this particular point I am not even sure if you understood what I was trying to say. But it doesn't matter. It was idle speculation on my part.

Dear RSTUART,
Well said, I totally agree with you. I also agree with Ludwig, in that this thread has done its' dash, I for one thought that this site was an opinion site, 'tis more like a battlefield at times. I thought that every one had the right to post their opinion without fear or favour.
But I reckon the thread was all about boat people, it is stunning to see that many Australians (all of whom were boat people, either in person or ancestry) are so against other people, even if they are from other cultures. The Chinese fitted in, as did Greeks, Italians Europeans, Indian, etc. etc. Is it a case that we persecute that which we are either afraid of, or don't understand.If there is such a thing as a 'finis' post, it would have to be shaggy dogs.....onya shaggydog.
Cheers,
Noisy

Noisy Scrub and Rstuart;

Good that you asked, and I will probably have the answer;

Simply, over the past 20 or so years there have been widespread reports and personal accounts of our present refugee intake (Muslims from the Middle East) causing numerous social problems, extremism, crime, hate-crime and threats to others; along with extreme cultural relativity and religious fanaticism to top it off- and these cases are most definitely true- although what ratio of our overall Middle East Muslim intake was never reported other than a bit of fluff speech that they're not).
To top it off, all these cases are within Australia, and identical stories in Europe match it).

Basically, in 2001 all Howard did was actually notice that a lot of people (if not the majority)
1- did NOT want to let any more of such people into the country
2- presumed that was exactly who was coming in via the boats these days
3- was too afraid to admit it, remembering what happened to Pauline Hanson
So he simply jumped on the vote- but took advantage of the shame-factor to capitalize himself as the only major anti-immigrant politician- secretly, "he understands your concerns- but the world doesn't so it will be our secret and I'll make an excuse to keep the shame off your back"- it became a form of manipulation (not helped by Labor trying to cash in on the remaining votes)- that effectively kept him in power;

The annoying part is, despite either stance on refugees has become perfectly acceptable to discuss- so many people are playing stupid games thinking they have to pretend a false case.

Don't get me wrong- even if someone is fleeing persecution, if that person were to go irrationally violent when another Danish cartoon finds its way into the papers- that person should not be let in at all.
The problem is, the assumption that everyone coming in is like that.

<< However we both agree that Howard was successful - he did stop the boats. >>

Yes rstuart.

<< You initially argued Howard's handling of the Tampa affair was the reason the boats stopped. >>

No, not at all. Howard’s whole approach to onshore asylum seeking stopped the boats. The Tampa was just the very first thing that happened in that process, I think, from memory. I thought I had clearly elucidated that in an earlier post.

<< I disagreed, pointing out that quite apart from anything else the boats didn't stop (then). You seem to concede this point. >>

I agreed that the boats certainly didn’t stop then (following the Tampa incident). But I had never suggested that they had.

Anyway, thanks for the summary. It has been good exchanging a few thoughts on this subject with you, again. Cheers.

The whole heat in this argument is generated because many, most ? think
that those arriving on boats are not really refugees fleeing risk of
life, but are those with enough money to obtain travel visas and
airline tickets and either apply for or already have passports.

Anyone in a country where they are under threat will not risk leaving
through official channels. These are the reasons why the queue jumpers
have only a very small number of refugees amongst them.

Put yourself in the place of someone wanted, do you think you would
go to the government dept and make a passport application ?
If you already had a passport would you go to the local International
airport ?

Does anyone know if Indonesia requires a visa to enter the country ?
If so they would need one before boarding the plane.
In any case they have transited several safe countries which means
that they were not at risk when they arrive in Australia.

The whole thing is a rort and should be declared to be so.

Dear Bazz
Good on you my friend, there are too many detractors re the boat people, even if the illegal attempts fail, they will get home, but in so doing they will be shot when they return.
It is alright for a lot of Australian fat cats to put Asylum Seekers down, what happened to the "Fair Go" tag that Aussies were synonymous for.
Cheers my friend,
noisy scrub bird.

Noisy Scrub Bird- to be quite frank I think the main reason for the staunch opposition is most Australians think that the people coming in among our current intake would only start causing problems when let in; and as such are not remotely sympathetic to this current intake, compared even to our past refugee demographics from Europe and later Asia (and it corresponds fairly closely to the jump in popularity of both Pauline Hanson (who previously focused on Asians) and John Howard when they started to focus their ire on potential immigrants from Muslim backgrounds.

Some facts re the "Tampa" incident are needed. The "Tampa" rescued over 400 survivors from a sinking ship. Normal maritime practice. The Master intended to take them to an Indonesian port - again correct. His alternative was to take them to Singapore, his next port of call, but much further. Some passengers objected and made him steer to Christmas Island. That is defined as piracy and had it been possible to identify them they should have been charged.
The "Tampa" was a Norwegian ship, Norwegian territory, and it was the duty of the Norwegian Government to take the asylum seekers when they claimed asylum. Howard correctly sent the asylum seekers to a 'neutral' country where they could be 'processed'. Most, but not all, were eventually accepted as refugees and of these most were admitted to Australia.
The boats that bring them to Australia are "Passenger Ships" under international law - they are on an international voyage and carry more than 12 persons in addition to the Master, Pilot and Crew. Almost every one of them breaks the SOLAS Convention in not being properly constructed or equipped for the voyage, and their Masters commit a crime in departing from Indonesia in such a situation.
Finally, re "children overboard". The Captain of HMAS Adelaide (?) did not say he had seen children being thrown overboard. The officer he was speaking to (radio telephone) thought he had, but did not check or confirm the statement. Nobody bothered to check (Government, Opposition and the Press accepted the story) till a newspaper did so just two days before the election. Note, I think it was a Murdoch paper!

NSB,

"It is alright for a lot of Australian fat cats to put Asylum Seekers down, what happened to the "Fair Go" tag that Aussies were synonymous for."

I think you are confusing "fair go" and "sucker"

Noisy Scrub Bird
It is all nice and cuddly to say "oh the poor things".

The only reason so many of them get in, is I suspect, because they
cannot be reliably identified. Throwing their passports away should be
the primary reason for being repatriated. They certainly should not get
residency.
We know that they had a passport because they could not get to
Indonesia without one. The absence of the passport should be proof of lying.

Bazz

Yep that is true.

G'day Bazz,
I agree with you, but on the other side of the coin the Government has measures in place to decide whether or not the applicants are genuine, what I am trying to say, is that there is not a one-size fits all in the case of all people trying to get in to Australia.
Noisy

PS Bazz,
I am not a warm & cuddly culprit, I can and do try to be even handed in my opinions.
NSB

Noisy Scrub Bird
One of the problems must be if they give a false name.
When the govt tries to check they find nothing.
They could be a criminal feeing either the police or a gang war.
Very difficult isn't it.