"AN OVERCROWDED boat suspected to be heading to Australia and carrying hundreds of asylum-seekers has sunk off Indonesia's main island of Java.

Reports have put the number of asylum-seekers on the boat at between 250 and 380, but only up to 76 had been rescued, Indonesian emergency chief Sahrul Arifin has been quoted as saying. Earlier reports said 33 had been rescued.

One survivor said the boat had been headed for Christmas Island."

While Labor will point its fingers at the people smugglers, the reality is that more asylum seekers have perished at sea in the last couple of years, than had come to Australia in the last 6 years of the pacific solution.

Will Labor swallow its pride and accept the off shore processing that the coalition has offered?

Dear Shadow Minister,

I read the same article in The Australian - and you
again choose the relevant bits that suits your
political affiliations and agenda - which is to continue
to point the finger at Labor.

According to the article in The Australian newspaper -
Indonesia has more than 18,000 islands and thousands of
kilometres of unpatroled coastline, making it an ideal
transit point for smuggling migrants.

In this recent tragedy -
tropical storms are sweeping the region producing extreme
weather conditions. The boat was overloaded carrying twice
it's capacity making the vessel unstable. That combined with
the tropical storms caused the vessel to sink off Indonesia's
main island of Java.

Most of the passengers were from Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

Susan Metcalfe (The Pacific Solution) reminds us:

"While Opposition leader Tony Abbott likes to cry havoc each
time the government twitches - let's not forget that detention
centre riots, self-harm, and tabloid sensationalism were just
as prevalent during the Coalition's last spell in government."

"As boats keep coming and battle lines blur in the fog of
political war, the time is ripe to sort through the past
decade's irrational policymaking and offer a more logical
set of policies, driven by the needs of human beings rather
than politics..."

People smugglers and assylum seekers now know that whether they are to be "processed" (hate that word) on mainland Australia (Green's preference) or Nauru (Noalition's preference) all they have to do is pay the money, hop on a boat and head for Christmas Island, and pray.

The Malaysian "solution" (hate that word too) worked for the brief time it was being proffered. It stopped the boats.

Tony Abbott's NO-machine knew it was working but couldn't be seen to have lost momentum. SM is trying to maintain that momentum - that is all.

Using text out straight out of Abbott's sparse and vacuous handbook of opposition vocabulary - 'NO" (Shadow) Minister.

Deaths on the seas since both Abbott's and Brown's mobs squashed the Malaysian option can be directly laid at their feet.

What would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, is that you are the first out of the blocks ... in trying to worm and squirm out of the responsibilty for the most tragic events that your mob has been so complicit in.

Of course, you and all of your fellow travellers will deny this.
Nonetheless, what has happened was predicted by the Australian Government months ago, ever since Abbott and Brown said 'NO'.

Don't take this personally SM but your ravings make me puke.

Dear Lexi, while I don't blame labor for this latest tragedy, nobody can deny the fact that their inability to resolve this issue, that's after scrapping the Howard solution, that did work. Has most certainly lead to the imcrese in numbers.

The numbers are something like, 300 in the last four years of Howard, as opposed to 14,000, that's fourteen thousand in the past four years.

Irronicly, madam pm is now trying her very best to blame Tony Abbott for her I'll concieved Malisian plan. Tony opposes it because of the way they treat their people, but has made the same suggestion since day one.

Buy she has bigger problems looming in the way of one Krudd. He simply won't go away.

The part the amuses me is that there we have these three independents, sitting there knowing full well this government is totally dysfunctional.

They to are a disgrace to both the people and thier respective electorates and they are also fish out of water because of their betrail.

They have cooked their own goose.

Ever heard the saying, enough rope!

If we weren't illegally invading and bombing their countries most of these boat people would be content to stay at home.

Labor is not to blame.
People smugglers, their rickety boats, and asylum seekers themselves are to blame.

They all either saw or heard about the terrible loss of life on the reefs at Christmas Island. They all understand the risk they are taking by travelling to Australia in this way.

The adult asylum seekers are all responsible for their own decisions.
It's the children I feel most upset about.

Shadow Minister, I applaud your efforts to keep this issue in the spotlight on OLO.

I share your disgust over the whole affair. It is just mind-boggling in the extreme that we have this onshore asylum seeker issue to deal with, after it had so effectively been dealt with by Howard.

Lexi, I don’t get the point of your post.

<< … tropical storms …The boat was overloaded … caused the vessel to sink … >>

Yes, but Australia’s open-door policy caused them to be there in the first place.

<< … the time is ripe to sort through the past decade's irrational policymaking and offer a more logical
set of policies … >>

Phoowey to Susan Metcalf!

Howard’s approach was eminently logical. I’d love to know Susan's (or your) ‘more logical’ policies that would bring an end to this absurd onshore asylum seeking debacle. Or is she (and you) happy for it to continue forever, and at the current or a greater rate of arrivals?

For all the detention centre riots, self-harm and other impacts on asylum seekers, the loss of people at sea is far more significant.

As SM points out:

<< … more asylum seekers have perished at sea in the last couple of years, than had come to Australia in the last 6 years of the pacific solution. >>

So while the bad impacts on detainees is significant (albeit probably nowhere near as significant as some refugee advocates would have us believe), it is far far less significant of the loss of life at sea and the effects that losing loved ones and compatriots has on the survivors.

So I reinforce the urgency of SM’s question;

<< Will Labor swallow its pride and accept the off shore processing that the coalition has offered? >>

They’ve GOT to do this, and quickly…. or else they’ll be expelled to the political wilderness at the next election, for sure.

Dear Ludwig,

The best way to answer your post is to refer you
to the following link:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/09/13/The-Pacific-Solution-was-a-fraud.aspx

The article is an interesting one from the Lowy Institute and I do suggest you read it. It becomes
quite clear that "nothing of
any substance is being offered by both parties
regarding asylum seekers. "

Bonmot,

The Malaysian solution slowed the boats from 600pm to 250pm. It did not stop them. What Labor conveniently forgets is that the Malaysian solution had an end point of 800, which would have been filled in 10 weeks.

Secondly I am surprised that you are happy to send unaccompanied children to Malaysia where they have no protection from the militia and can be beaten at a whim. (which is why the high court rejected it)

The Coalition has offered to amend the legislation to allow the deportation to 148 signatory countries, and the Labor immigration minister at the time recommended to Juliar that they accept it.

Lexi's Link to an article in the Interpreter by Michael Clarke is not representative of the Lowy institute, just an opinion piece in one of their magazines. It just shows how desperate Lexi is.

Susan Metcalfe's claim that " let's not forget that detention
centre riots, self-harm, and tabloid sensationalism were just
as prevalent during the Coalition's last spell in government." is vacuous, as during the last 5 years of the pacific solution there were only a handful of boat people in detention (4 in Nov 2007).

The maths is simple in the last 6 years of the Pacific solution about 300 people risked their lives on boats, in the last 3 years under labor the figure is over 14000.

Labor's on shore processing is like offering free candy to school children to cross a busy road.

I had no intention, of being low enough to blame Abbott.
Yes he, the greens, and a handful of Lawyers [what a dirty word that is] hold some blame.
SM knows he is twisting the truth, his party can not offer on other country's behalf a place to send migrants/refugees.
Malaysia has done a deal.
Ludwig, mate, it would stop the boats!
We must stop them!
ABC TV today re run old doco filmed in Indonesia, talking to those about to come here by boat.
Would you believe one said this *Australia has no right to stop us*
We must understand, known death toll for those lost at sea is very big, unknown likely to be more, on its own.
Arjay? when did we bomb Iran/Pakistan/Ceylon?
Shadow Minister,I must maintain my calm, you feed on the NATURAL results of that post.
Know bloke if you are ever on fire it will not be me coming to your aid.
Life in prison, for every smuggler no release, murder charges for this event.
And Australian Citizens living off the blood should be made to leave and serve that sentence in Indonesia.

Here is a quote from an ex Labor leader.

Onshore processing is killing boatpeople, says Mark Latham

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has blamed "so-called compassionate" politicians who support onshore processing for the deaths of asylum-seekers at sea.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/onshore-processing-is-killing-boatpeople-says-mark-latham/story-fn9hm1gu-1226224975481

Labor is not to blame....by sue...
People smugglers, their rickety boats, and asylum seekers themselves are to blame.......and thats the facts jack. The Australian Government has no head to hang low, and the people know it.

Its also being found by my research, that most that call themselves true asylum seekers are not even close to the fact.

We as a small population, must see these people as invaders, and true people in need.

If they die, its by there own stupidity or sleaze in as I like to call them.

They know this country is weak and soft, with the tear's in the eyes of humanity......and some say, it could be the end of our country as we know it.

Look into future, and I do share a small amount with jay of, but as I have pointed out, head counts do matter very much considering the amount of food production and space, not to mention the......(they will be good workers just like the Mexicans to the US.

Australian business people know the advantages to this, and it just goes what low tactics that we adopt for the US.


CACTUS

Dear Shadow Minister,

Quoting from the article that you choose to ignore -
which the Lowy Institute saw fit to publish in their
press (just as The Australian does with its "opinion"
pieces):

A few clarifications:

"Between 2001 and 2008, 1637 people were detained on Nauru and
Manus Island, 1153 (i.e. 70%) were settled in Australia or other
countries. Of this group, 705 (i.e. 61%) were ultimately settled
in Australia with the remaining 448 resettled in third countries."
The deterrent value of such an exercise as Graham Richardson
suggests, is from from clear:

"Your average people-smuggler would not have to be all that
bright to be able to sell to a potential client that there
was a 70% chance of success in finishing up in an acceptable
Western Nation, most probably Australia, after spending a year
on a Pacific island. Asylum-seekers will hand over the money
and risk their lives when the odds are as high as 70%."

"However, is the alternative of onshore processing, as Richardson
argues, a viable one? Practically "yes," but politically, "no."

"Certainly it may seem more cost-effective, given that the
cost of housing detainees on Nauru and Manus Island between 2001
and 2006 came to approximately $1 billion..."

Shadow Minister it's not me who's "getting deperate."
It's you who keeps bringing politics into this issue - and
I feel obliged to respond to the one-eyed view you keep perpetuating.

As Richardson "somewhat ruefully concludes, "Australians
apparently will revolt at the prospect of releasing a trickle of aliens into our midst. A few thousand a year really shoudln't
trouble 20 million but they do!"

The author of the article - sums things up rather well by asking
the question:

"Has the language of security and threat poisoned policy so much, that as far as Australians are concerned, there really is no
asylum here?"

Obviously not - for some.

Dear Shadow Minister,

For your information and to clarify things further
for you Sir, here is a link explaining the "Lowy
Interpreter," and its connection to the Lowy Institute
for you. I want you to have the full facts before you go
ahead and in a desperate measure try to ... never mind -
you know what you're trying to do as does everyone else here.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/page/About-The-Interpreter.aspx

Lexi,

A few clarifications of your misrepresentations:

In 2000 there were nearly 4000 boat arrivals, under the pacific solution from 2001 to 2008 there were 1637, most of whom were in the first six months. The last 6 years saw only about 300.

Of the 1637 coming to Nauru, 750 (or 43% of the total) were given residence to Australia) and 30% were returned. Presently more than 95% of boat arrivals get residence. It was an overwhelmingly effective deterrent. And in a short time we have gone from less than 100 a year to nearly 1000 a month.

As I said the attraction to asylum seekers is like labor encouraging children to play in the traffic. Juliar has some responsibility for the genocide that is occurring.

Of course Labor has some responsibility for the boats starting up again, but it was mostly Ruddy, not the majority of the party at fault.

Of course Julia has stuffed it up, just like everything she gets involved in. It would not be Julia if it worked.

But it is still only some responsibility, & not much at that. I have not heard of Julia or even Rudd herding the illegals onto the boats, or even helping organise the boats or the financing.

No it is only those trying to cheat on our immigration system, & impose themselves on us, with the aid of our bleeding hearts, that are at fault. If they were not trying to cheat, they would not be on the boat in the first place.

There will only be people smugglers as long as there are undesirables wanting to cheat our system, so don't blame then either. They are merely filling a need, created by these undesirables.

Send them all back, & the boats will stop.

It really is time to pull out of all UN treaties, & in fact get out of the UN itself. It must be the most dysfunctional, corrupt organisation the world has ever seen, & the sooner we are out of it the better. We should never compromise our sovereignty for any reason, particularly, to an organisation like the UN

SM

The High Court determination has changed everything, whether you believe that or not is your problem ... and Abbott's.

What we have left is the Australian mainland – boats are on the increase, as the Australian Government predicted, as are the deaths.

The 'Noalition' under Abbott typically wants to ‘play’ politics. These latest deaths would not have happened under Turnbull.

Abbott knows this, Turnbull knows this, Gillard knows this, Brown knows this, and the Independents know this, most people know this.

You have jumped into your ‘defence’ (post) much too quickly, Shadow Minister - unsurprisingly, as does Abbott.

This is a most tragic event Shadow Minister (as all ‘asylum seeker’ deaths are),

Your much too quick ‘squirm and worm’ (my patent) Shadow Minister speaks volumes.

People hear/see this.

Hypothetical
What would happen if Australia didn’t ‘own’ Christmas Island?

They wouldn't have happened under Howard either, Bono.

You are starting to sound somewhat rattled, trying to blame the opposition for government stuff ups.

...Listed among the passengers were Turks. Can anybody explain how a "Turk" could be classified in any way shape or form a "refugee"? Turkey is a well established secular stable Democracy, with an expanding economy!

...In about mid 1900's Lebanon was a confused state whose people were often miss-classified as Turks, and at times Syrians. Are Syrians now being classified as Turks? Does anybody have an idea on this one?..

Perhaps Hasbeen, but;

Howard's gone, old news, passed it, irrelevant, retired, not with it, not here, defunct, superfluous, whatever - he's gone.

Abbott is da'Man Hasbeen, although by your tag I assume you still live in the past - hence your post.

Abbott is not Howard Hasbeen, or do you think Howard is still running the country?

completely different standard the press held when Howard was PM. I see those who railed so much against Howard refuse the same for one of their own. How tragic.

Diver, the way the media initially reported it was that they were "migrants" (not 'refugees' or 'assylum seekers' or 'illegal imigrants' etc) - but migrants.

Why?

BM,

The real question is whether this would have happened under the pacific solution, and the answer is a resounding no.

Why was the pacific solution lifted? The reason was that Juliar and the labor left believed their own myth that the deterrent of the pacific solution was irrelevant and that on shore processing would not increase boat arrivals significantly. As it rapidly became apparent to all that 10 years of labor rhetoric was the worst kind of rubbish that Labor started to panic, and Juliar promised the East Timor solution, then the Malaysian solution, anything but admit that they had got it wrong.

The reason they cannot process off shore is because the shonky Malaysian solution was struck down, their alliance partners the greens wouldn't let them strip all the protections away from the asylum seekers, and hubris wouldn't let Juliar go with Nauru.

Juliar has blood on her hands.

SM

The High Court determination changed the playing field - which part don't you understand?

The "solution" as you put it, "Pacific" or "Malaysia" is defunct - another salient point you also don't seem to understand.

What we are left with is on-shore "processing" - which won't stop the boats - it encourages them.

The Australian government can't do anything about that because Abbott thinks he is running the country. Delusional!

Spin, squirm and worm all you like Shadow Minister - the 'monk' has blood on his hands, period!

Xmas tip: check out the legals before you spout your nonsense tripe.

The "Pacific Solution" succeeded in the intimidation of asylum-seekers in boats by naval force. This was wrong and has rightly been ceased.

The fact that naval intimidation worked, saving Australia from having to process refugees anywhere (offshore or onshore) for several years, is not a reason to endorse its reimplementation. The Australian Navy's mission was compromised and Australia failed in its humanitarian responsibility towards others.

The "ends justifies the means" attitude that intimidation entails, as well as the complete lack of compassion towards our fellow man spouted by some here is sickening to me also, bonmot.

The Malaysian Solution ensures asylum seekers are cared for under Australian scrutiny by the Malaysian Gov't that has stated its good intentions in relation to its part of the arrangement. Those at the end of the queue will be propelled ahead of those who seek to jump ahead in a 5 for 1 swap. It will work and should be given a go.

Lexie, as much as I respect your attempts to succeed in getting SM et al to acknowledge any point of fact, it is time to understand there are only three ways on the table to stop the dangerous boat journeys. These are:

1) Reinstate the Pacific Solution, not just processing in Nauru but its only actual working part, intimidation by the Australain Navy.

2) The Malaysian Solution.

3) Provide safe transport to anyone who wants to come and claim asylum and be processed here.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

I doubt we have the capacity to handle the avalanche of the third path, and nor would Australians support it, hence it is not viable.

We are left with one of the first two solutions, and that's what this discussion is about in my view. Let's think of our nation and people who are dying while we have open borders.

It doesn't help the discussion when some, who must know they are doing so, spout lies and half-truths to support spurious assertions and refuse attention to any evidence that does not support their views. Such people should get a blog, not be a part of a forum that needs balanced thinkers over blind political adherence.

I wish to aknowledge, as I was misrepresented on another thread, that the Pacific Solution worked. My argument is that just because it did does not make it the right path for our nation going forward. We are a better nation than that.

Who is to blame? Our Australian bleeding hearts are to blame.
Unable to think things through, overwhelmed with emotion and lacking
in reasoning skills, unable to understand the law of unintended
consequences, they will blame everyone else but themselves.
Our political leaders will do what they normally do, kick each other
in the political shins to try and score a point.

But our bleeding hearts are the reason why we offer first prize of a cushy
lifestyle, to anyone who can sail across the water and tell a good
enough story that is hard to disprove. With that kind of carrot
dangling, people will respond, what do you expect? No such first
prize and then there would not be a problem.

There are solutions staring us in the face, which need tackling but
need a little err backbone and intelligence.

Take all refugees from refugee camps around the world. They would not
be there, if they were not refugees. Finally insist that the 1951
Convention is brought up to 2011 standards and stop imagining that the
world of 1951 still exists. Close the loopholes.

All this won't happen whilst our bleeding hearts are shrieking away.
Sorry, but the lives of anyone drowning to win first prize,
will continue to rest on their shoulders, whilst they insist that
we offer a boat race as a 1951 solution.

Hang your heads in shame, bleeding hearts. All bleeding and no
thinking, is not going to do it for you. Sad but true.

Shadow Minister.

If there is any guilt to be laid it's against those who would seek to make political capital from the suffering of others.

Whether it's Howard's initial brave statesman-like action in sending SAS troops against women and children in a leaky boat to garner votes, or your own opportunistic response.

No compassion for the victims - just a handy chance to score a political point.

The three great pillars of Liberal philosophy have always been Fear, Greed and Selfishness and this is another demonstration of it at work.

Even Abbott concedes that the Pacific (so-called) Solution will no longer work and cannot be resurrected. The truth is that they have no solution to offer themselves and get more capital by stopping any alternative.

The boat would have sunk regardless of whether it was en-route to the Mainland or to any other port or if it was towed back into Indonesian waters by the Navy (as per the Pacific Solution). It also wasn't quite the same as the unresolved Siev-X matter was it?

You don't need UN conventions to know right from wrong, Yabby.

Our nation turning boats back out to sea with the implied self-justification that one must be 'cruel to be kind' is not something I can quietly live with. Only the Pacific Solution involves turning boats back, hence I oppose it. If that makes me a bleeding heart by your definition, Yabby, I am guilty.

I'd be interested in hearing from supporters of the Greens rather than more from those roped to the mast of HMAS Abbott's Endeavour. What would the Greens do to dissuade tragic boat journeys given their rejection of both the Pacific and Malaysian Solutions?

BM,

The high court decision did not make the pacific solution completely defunct. The decision covers what can be done with people once they land on Australian soil. If people were intercepted at sea and directly transferred to Nauru, then the high court decision would have no effect.

Similarly, TPVs have not been excluded. Sending children on a boat is a great way to get the rest of the family a visa which is why there are so many children on these boats. A TPV stops this.

LF

"The Malaysian Solution ensures asylum seekers are cared for under Australian scrutiny by the Malaysian Gov't that has stated its good intentions in relation to its part of the arrangement. Those at the end of the queue will be propelled ahead of those who seek to jump ahead in a 5 for 1 swap. It will work and should be given a go."

That's a lie and you know it. The people are released into the community with no support other than access to UN doctors and schools, and a piece of paper saying they are permitted to live and work there. There is no income or protection guarantee. This difference to the pacific solution was made very clear in the high court decision.

Wobbles:

"If there is any guilt to be laid it's against those who would seek to make political capital from the suffering of others." Nope, the fuzzy bleeding heart labor left and greens are responsible for the idiotic onshore processing that has left a now estimated 600 people dead at sea in the last 3 years.

Deterrents are there for a reason. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you can be fined or jailed for repeat offences, even if you can't hurt anyone else because the state has a responsibility to stop dangerous behaviour. Labor has completely failed to do this and is responsible through negligence.

Bonmot good morning.
In answer to your question the High Court changed every thing why do you not understand.
Well many commentators do not.
Others, good morning SM will not.
Why has no one asked NEGATIVE MAN is drowning at sea less cruel than not being flogged in Malaysia?
An agreement exists promising it will not happen.
Dislike of a party, person, has become a reason for comments boareding on dysfunction.
Rants and raves, constant referrals to a past no one can change.
A blind belief conservatives siding with the greens, is normal!
This plan will pass the lower house early next year,will it pass the senate, will Abbott put Australia before his self interests.
Can we, forever IGNORE most Australians want the boats stopped.
Get it done, stop mud throwing , do it.
recall Parliament on Christmas day, showing commitment to this country's voters.

Some here say Labor is not to blame, well I do say Labor is entirely to blame and since 2008 there is now at least 400 deaths. The blood is on their hands. If Gillard and Rudd had any consience or integrity they both would resign from parliament.

They demolished a system that was working OK and stupidly enticed these gate crashers to come here and sponge off us. Another stuff by Labor.

I do not have a lot of sympathy for the shonks that drowned except to say it was needless, if they had been discouraged beforehand.

SM are you aware that Lexi and that stupid greens woman, Hanson-Young, both want Us to give the illegals safe transport to Aus.

The illegals can effectively be discougaged from making the voyage, if government is strong and sensible enough.

Belly "the High Court changed every thing"

That's a matter of perspective. Julia has other options but they are not politically palatable. Eg she could have gone with the options offered by the coalition which as I understand it offered options other than Naru.

Malaysia may have worked but there were a lot of questions around it, on one side the perception of treatment of refugee's in Malaysia and concerns about sending kid's there. On the other the exchange rates involved, eg Australia takes thousands of refugee's in exchange for hundreds of boat arrivals is hardly going to cheer many. Also a lot of questions about what happens when the 800 quota was full.

The whole thing is a messy business that I think Australia could do far better with although I don't think that there are any perfect solutions.

I've previously stated my liking for the idea of TPV's (or similar) and a preference for us to use the opportunity to do what we can to train people while they are here with skills that they could take home when things settle to make their countries work better.

Rather than further dehumanise those who have already been through hell we could be helping them recover from the trauma and giving them tools to make a difference.

Expensive in the short term but not necessarily worse than keeping people imprisoned and possibly a lot cheaper overall if others starting to do the same and it made a difference to the way the countries of origin operated.

R0bert

You don't have to be too smart to understand what happens to the population of a country that does not repel an invasion. An invasion does not have to be by an army.

You only have to look at our own aborigines, or the North American Indians to see the result of failing to repel a settler invasion. Progressive invasion by small groups is just as overwhelming, just less dramatic.

The fact that both of these peoples had no organisation, or coordination made suitable resistance impossible. They had little chance.

We on the other hand have control, & could stop this invasion any time, if we would just stop pandering to a minority, to buy a few votes. Long term it will be our bleeding hearts, rather than lack of courage,that well destroy us.

Most of the comment here is illogical.
First, the government could pass its Malaysia legislation through the
House of Reps even if the lib/nats opposed it.
In the senate it would be up to the lab/greens to pass it.

Whats the problem ?

Well, the greens would have to own up to their own policy and wear the
opprobrium that they deserve.
To avoid the greens getting the blame the govt won't put the
legislation into parliament. So they blame Tony Abbott !

That is totally illogical, but when did the govt use logic ?

Thanks Lexi for referring me to this article:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/09/13/The-Pacific-Solution-was-a-fraud.aspx

But it really is the biggest load of bunkum!

OF COURSE the Pacific solution was a major deterrent. It is not hard to imagine what would have happened if we’d had a much more lenient mainland policy instead.

Graham Richardson said:

'The original Nauru solution was arguably the greatest and most successful fraud committed by the Howard regime'.

What a load of codswallop!

Howard managed to pull off the extremely difficult balancing act between treating onshore asylum seekers pretty damn well while at the same time decisively deterring further arrivals.

Given the current onshore asylum seeking debacle, we can all now appreciate just how important that was.

The notion that:

< nothing of any substance is being offered by both parties regarding asylum seekers >

is completely wrong. Abbot is miles ahead of Gillard.

There is a major contradiction here. The article writer suggests that if potential asylum seekers were being told that they’d go to Australia or some other wealthy western country after spending a year in detention on a Pacific island, then they’d jump at the opportunity.

But… the detention centres are/were apparently so bad that there were riots, self-harm and all manner of other bad effects on the people involved, word of which would have quickly filtered back to potential asylum seekers.
.

It would seem from this experience that an indefinite period in detention was something that most potential asylum seekers really didn’t want and would have been considerably deterred by.

Lexi, what do you want to see happen? An end to onshore asylum seeking? A continuation at a considerable rate of arrivals, for ever more? How should it be managed?

What about this from Shadow Minister?

Onshore processing is killing boatpeople, says Mark Latham
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/onshore-processing-is-killing-boatpeople-says-mark-latham/story-fn9hm1gu-1226224975481

Absolutely right!

bonmot: thanks...

...Seems the answer to my question: Why Turks ? Is, whatever the national base of the people smuggling syndicates, will determine the nationality of the “potential” illegal immigrant. Obviously Turks are not in need of refugee recognition. Either the smuggling syndicates typically recruit candidates from their home turf, or neighbouring countries. What the presence of a “Turk” indicates, is the incidence of Middle Eastern people smuggling syndicates and their origins.

...The above fact proves the difficulty in proving the status of the legitimate refugee in the host country. The case of the Turks on-board refugee boats to Australia, highlights the incidents of economic refugees simply looking for a better life, not related to personal survival, as in the case of a genuine refugee.

...Of course, the most effective place to determine refugee status, would be Indonesia. If that task were affected effectively prior to “illegals” emigrating from Indonesia on shaky boats, the whole risky process of “boating” the void to Christmas Island, would be avoided. That then puts the “Malaysian solution” somewhere towards the top, I would think: Or at least, a definite thumbs-up to “Off Shore” processing, and urgently!

...The obvious absence of Chinese on these boats also points to the less dramatic, but equally problematic, less-known incidence of “true” people smuggling into Australia; the conventional shipping routes and the Chines connection! Here is another subject for another time

I would say that every post here that blames someone, or several someones, has a point.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
But, so what? How does that help?
Ought we not spend a moment contemplating what is a) morally the right thing to do, b) what is consistent with our international treaty obligations, and c) seeking a sense of perspective about this issue.
Say a thousand boat people a month come all year. That's twelvethousand people a year. Spread that across our major cities and it's a few hundred extra people each city has to accommodate.
I really don't think that contitutes a crisis.
The regular occurrence of Hundreds of people drowning on the other hand, now that a crisis.

Belly, BM, Lexi, LF, et al,

The prime purpose of off shore processing is that the Australian court system has no jurisdiction. This means that if asylum seekers never enter Australian territory, the high court decision is meaningless.

The Malaysian solution requires that asylum seekers are processed in Australia, and some are sent to Malaysia. The High court decision stops this.

The pacific solution where people were transferred from Xmas Island to Nauru has been stopped, but the direct interception and direct transfer to Nauru is not subject to the Australian courts and thus unaffected by the high court decision.

The coalition has offered Juliar the option of the tried and tested pacific solution, and Juliar has rejected this against the advice of her immigration minister. Juliar's arrogance has played a large part in this tragedy.

The "bonmot Solution"

Quote...# Here is another subject for another time! Hypothetical
What would happen if Australia didn’t ‘own’ Christmas Island?
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 6:50:30 PM...#

...In this glib remark lies another, yet simpler answer to illegal boat arrivals: Give Christmas Island back to the Indonesians to whom it belongs! Christmas Island is correctly part of the Indonesian archipelago. Why not simply abandon the nightmare as a free Christmas gift to Indonesia? and term the move an “organised” retreat!

...And as a complete solution, and while we are at it, abandon Tasmania in the same vein: A move that would eliminate the destabilizing influence of Bob Brown and the Greens effectively; the other 50% of the illegal immigration problem!

...A far more acceptable solution it would be than the total failure of the existing solution from "end-up land", at the joint house of "Blame-Game" in Canberra.

PS:

...This solution only gets better!!

...Further, ANYBODY admitting to an association with the “Greens”, will, under LAW, be exiled to Tasmania for the “Term of Their Natural Life”!

...I can't believe the simplicity of this! Why didn't you think of this before the Christmas parliamentary recess bonmot?

Dan...

Ludwig <"Onshore processing is killing boatpeople, says Mark Latham"

If that dreadful ex-politician Mark Latham believes in offshore processing, then I think the current Government should stick with onshore processing...

People smugglers are killing boat people. It's as simple as that.

Anthonyve,
You obviously do not understand why most Aussies are against the invasion of these illegals.

They are con merchants, shonksters, who get here by buying their way, with false papers and bribery. They pay far more than the air fare to jump the back fence with the object of deceiving our officials. Knowing they will get permanent residence and the ability to bring out the remainder of their families.

In short, we are being conned and that is the reason they are not liked.

Like most Aussies, my forebears, and myself, worked bloody hard to build this and protect this country and we expect to hand on the hard won benefits to our decendants, and those that come here on our invitation. Not just let some arrogant free loaders come here and take what they want. Make no mistake, these gate crashers are sponging off us, reducing the heritage we can pass on to Aussie Kids.

Understand this and that we expect our governments to stop the invasion and control our borders. This government has failed completely and will pay the penalty.

I did actually, but was affraid of being suspended :>

"I can't believe the simplicity of this! Why didn't you think of this before the Christmas parliamentary recess bonmot?"

Tend to agree Dan:

"the most effective place to determine refugee status, would be Indonesia"

And I'm sure the Guvs (OZ & Indo) are working behind the scenes to try and pull it off. Who'd want to be a diplomat - well, except for Rudd :)

Wasn't it Howard who "excised" Christmas Island anyway?

"Give Christmas Island back to the Indonesians to whom it belongs! Christmas Island is correctly part of the Indonesian archipelago. Why not simply abandon the nightmare as a free Christmas gift to Indonesia? and term the move an “organised” retreat!"

I wondered about those pesky Taswegians too Dan and you may have a point but ... it's those snappy sleepy sheeps across the Tasman that gives me the heebie-jeebies, most!

Hey, here's something novel:

Government and Opposition sort it without playing games!

Oh, sorry ... I forgot :(

Hi Banjo,
You may be right, but I have a question.
If the refugee boat people are the commercial queue jumpers that you say they are, then how is it that in the end, most of them are found by heh courts to be genuine refugees, according to Australian law.
If, as you seem to be asserting, they are not genuine refugees, then how is that so many are found to be and end up becoming citizens?
Just askin'
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

SM:

...# The pacific solution where people were transferred from Xmas Island to Nauru has been stopped, but the direct interception and direct transfer to Nauru is not subject to the Australian courts and thus unaffected by the high court decision...#

I beg to differ SM. This action would be challenged now by by Bob and Co. in defense of laws applicable to the "High Seas". The Navy could possibly get away with the diversion, by waving a few thousand dollars in front of the boat of illegals, and encourage them to change course to Nauru!

...Naturally the offer would be challenged by the boat people, and the "anti" would be upped to the millions for the inducement; but I think it would be cheaper to pay Lawyers back home to find another way!!

Dan...

Diver,
There are Aussie residents living on Christmas Island, don't abandon them.

Better to set up a illegals centre on MacQuarie Island, to give them an idea of the variety of our climate. Cool fresh breezes there to clear the head. Could also make them wait 10 years like the poor buggers in Africa. No visa, no PR and no relos brought in, there is lots of disincentives we can impose. No legal aid for starters, that is for citizens.

bonmot:

...# I wondered about those pesky Taswegians too Dan and you may have a point but ... it's those snappy sleepy sheeps across the Tasman that gives me the heebie-jeebies, most!...#

...They are quite innocuous if wearing "high-heeled gum boots"...trust me!

Dan...

Anthonyve,
You give me the easy questions.

The answer to that is simple. We cannot send back or deport those we cannot confirm where they come from, that is why they destroy their docs.
Because to confirm our suspicions of their nationality would be time consuming and costly, it is far easier to let them in.

The illegals know this and are coached in lieing to our officials.

Those that arrive by air, without valid papers, are sent ASAP back to the place of embarkation.

Banjo:

...#Better to set up a illegals centre on MacQuarie Island...#

Wonder what the diving's like down there. Might pack-up the "dry suit" head down, and apply for a guards job!! Should be worth big "bikkies"!

Dan

According to Wikipedia Pakistan and the U.N have repatriated five million Afghans since 2002, why is our government taking any illegal Afghan migrants at all?
Send the Hazara back, if they don't want to go to Afghanistan the Iranians should have to take them, after all they backed and organised the Hazara insurgents and criminals.
There's a reason Hazara are hated by other Afghans, people need to read up on the post soviet era and find out why.
"Ordinary Afghans" are merely the enemy of our government's enemy, the Australian people owe them nothing.

Suseonline, from your first post:

<< Labor is not to blame. People smugglers, their rickety boats, and asylum seekers themselves are to blame. >>

Labor is VERY much to blame!

The watering down (corruption) of tight border-protection policies by Rudd was one of the stupidest political moves in the history of this country.

Once it became apparent that this move was leading to an increased rate of arrivals it was the DUTY of our government to clamp down on it!

It’s as simple as that. Labor has utterly failed in its duty of care to uphold tight border-protection policies and forego the enormous monetary cost, heartache, death, misery and domestic social upheaval that is now happening…. and to keep our efforts to help refugees to within our formal immigration channels and international aid programs.

From your second post:

<< People smugglers are killing boat people. It's as simple as that. >>

Wow, that really is extraordinary.

You are effectively saying that our government has not contributed significantly to this issue and doesn’t have the responsibility to decisively deal with it. Are you not?

I can’t fathom how you can possibly say that Labor is not to blame!

Well that went down like a lead balloon;

"Government and Opposition sort it without playing games!"

Oh well;

Ka mate Ka mate Ka ora Ka ora
Ka mate Ka mate Ka ora Ka ora
Tenei te tangata puhuru huru
Nana nei I tiki mai
Whakawhiti t era
A upa … ne ka upa … ne
A upane kaupane whiti t era
Hi

Message from administrator: "There is no need for that many exclamation marks. Remove them to continue."

You might know, the haka blends different actions and expressions together in the strongest way possible to convey; challenge, welcome, reverence, defiance or contempt. It is disciplined, ferocious and emotional. ‘Ka Mate’ is the most well-known Haka, a Maori dance.

(Ok, just imagine the exclamation points after about every 2nd word)

Dan, can't say I've seen them doing it in high heeled gum boots, but I trust you :)

Ho-hum, another half-truth from SM to counter, the High Court made no judgement about the treatment of refugees that Australia would send to in Malaysia under the swap agreement, only the legality of it under the Migration Act, which can be changed.

Another pearl from SM "The pacific solution where people were transferred from Xmas Island to Nauru has been stopped, but the direct interception and direct transfer to Nauru is not subject to the Australian courts and thus unaffected by the high court decision."

Wrong, and irrelevant in any case. Sending boats to Nauru, alone, has no effect on their arrival rate. That's why Mr Abbott will use the Australian Navy to turn boats back. Nauru, Christmas Island, it's all the same to boat-people. If he really thought Nauru alone would do it, he wouldn't bother compromising the AN. Everybody, including Mr Abbott and the readers here know this truth, but it still evades poor old SM.

I am interested in the Green notion of decriminalizing transport of asylum seekers with no jailing of crews or impounding of boats. We might expect that would quickly lead to better boats, better crews, better safety.

With the reduced peril to boat occupants, they could be turned away without risking life and limb. However, what I am doing in raising this is to bare a deeper situation to scrutiny, the humanity of our nation.

Now of course, we know the answer of some is "Just stop the boats, whatever!". However, for those willing to rationally discuss hypotheticals surrounding the Green position, without prejudice, please fire away. Misinformation and the blame game are not progressing discussion.

Diver Dan, and LF

If you disagree with me on the legality of diverting asylum seekers directly to Nauru based on "the laws of the high seas" perhaps you could point them out, as my review of maritime law indicates that there is no basis whatsoever for Bob Brown's bleeding hearts to make a case, and even to pursue legal action would need to go to the international court, as the high court has no jurisdiction.

Anthonyve,

What is the morally right thing to do? Coming from industry, the first question is Is it safe? If it isn't then it has to be stopped.

More people died on Sat night than from the Bali bombing, yet Sarah Hanson Young's response is that on shore processing is the right thing to do, and shot happens.

LF

The greens's solution of a shuttle service for asylum seekers seems humane, but how many should we make it for 1000/month, 10 000/ month, more? All expecting a visa, home, education, and welfare.

Luc,
If you think that rational people should consider any Greens policy without mirth you are madder than them.

That Hanson-Young sheila reckons we should provide the transport for the illegals from Indonesia or Malaysia, which is ludicrus.

What is wrong with building a detention centre on Macquarie Island, it is part of Aus. The demand for boats to sail to Aus can be stopped if proper deterants are put in place. It has been proven and can be done again.

Frankly I do not mind our navy firing shots across the bow of any vessel that won't heed request to heave to, in our waters. You do know that the Oceanic Viking has mounted 50 cal machine gun for that purpose relating to suspected poachers.

I'm not surprised you don't agree with me Ludwig!
In your mind, Labor is to blame for every problem Australia has, even when the Libs are in power!
Am I right?

I don't vote for either party, so I don't see all this carry-on as just an Australian political problem.
We live in the wider world as well you know.
We can't ignore all other countries problems.

No Government wants to encourage illegal immigration, but all Governments have a duty to accept asylum seekers.

These 'boat-people' must be pretty desperate to come here if they are willing to take on such a dangerous boat journey?
That's just it though.
It is their initial decision alone to take on the journey, and no one else's.

I would be very reluctant to give Indonesia any of these people for offshore processing, after reading today's paper.

'The West Australian' front page stated:
<"Many of the asylum seekers flew from Dubai to Jakarta, where Indonesian officials are said to have been ready for the migrants to arrive, charging each $US500 to pass through the airport without visas..."

So here we have at least 2 other countries governments colluding to get these people to where they want to go, so they can make money.
So we have any number of people along the line 'encouraging' these asylum seekers to make this perilous journey for profit.
This Labor Government seems far down the list of people to blame...

<< In your mind, Labor is to blame for every problem Australia has, even when the Libs are in power! Am I right? >>

Wrong of course Suse. Let’s not jump to silly extremes.

Like you, I don’t vote for either party and I haven’t for probably twenty years.

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times on OLO – Labor and Liberal are like two peas in a pod. I often refer to them as one entity; the Liblabs. I detest them both, first and foremost because of their worship of continuous rapid never-ending expansionism, which just flies totally in the face of sustainability.

Apart from border-protection policy, there wasn’t much that I supported Howard over.

<< This Labor Government seems far down the list of people to blame.. >>

Aha, so you can now see that they do at least deserve a bit of the blame.

<< So we have any number of people along the line 'encouraging' these asylum seekers to make this perilous journey for profit. >>

Yes, of course there are abundant would-be profiteers out there. The same applies in all manner of ways across our society and around the world. That’s why we need a strong rule of law that is effectively regulated.

Surely if we had a free-for-all on our roads for example, with weak laws and ineffective policing, you wouldn’t just be blaming the people who broke the law for accidents and deaths, you’d be blaming the government for not implementing effective rules and making sure that the policing regime was at least half-decent, wouldn’t you?

The same applies to onshore asylum seeking, doesn’t it?

This comes right down to one of the most basic roles of government.

If the navy intercepted the boats Australia would either have to
return them to Indonesia or take them to Australian territory.
Once on an Australian ship, I believe they would be considered to be on
Australian territory.
The solution is to buy and register a ship in Pakistan and then they
could be taken to Indonesia or Pakistan.
Instead they could be taken to Nauru.

The main solution at sea would be for the captain to declare the
vessel in danger of sinking and return them to Indonesia as their last
port of call. This is best done from a merchant ship.
Alternatively set up a buyer of some product in Indonesia and run a
regular shipping service, which just happens to be always in place
to pick up those in peril of the sea on its way to Indonesia.

Senator Hanson-Young could ask the government to charter one of the
Bass Strait ferries and run a regular ferry service to Christmas
Island from various Indonesian ports.
I am sure that would make her happy.
Oh why not go the full hog and take them to Sydney or Melbourne ?
It is getting b$%^&y ridiculous !
There are plenty of solutions available for those well versed in trickery.

Come on Bazz! never start a post with the words we do not understand when your next sentence proves it is you who do not.
Labor before the chairman thing knew it could NOT PASS THE LOWER HOUSE.
It with drew rather than be defeated.
Now it can, and will.
HOW can you ignore, GREENS CAN BE CRUSHED.
Majority get its wishes, IF CONSERVATIVES VOTE that way.
Gentlemen and Lady's, we are getting emotional again.
I challenge SHADOW MINISTER,Sir you twice spoke untruths here.
Was it by intent? or do you know no better?
You said the MALAYSIAN SOLUTION, had cut boat people the 250 a month.
You do know, don't you? it was never ever even started? high court and your mob never let it.
2008?
Are we going to be fair dinkum, HIGHT COURT changed every thing.
Verbal combat using things like that SM a symptom of what?
Leave it to others to find the raw verbal inexactitude in your post.

Belly,

Unless my memory is fading, Chris Bowen on announcing the Malaysian solution stated categorically that it would apply to everyone landing after that date while the final draft was expected within a couple of weeks. For all intents and purposes, the Malaysian solution started then, and while slowing the boats failed to stop them.

Secondly while claiming that I am lying about the possibility of using Nauru by diverting the boats directly, you have failed my challenge to put up even a smidgeon of supporting evidence.

I take great care not to state things I cannot support, and if you challenge me, you need to put up more than invective.

Athonyve I saw great promise in you after your first few posts.
But must, just must, be on the other side this time.
This government my government, has got it wrong.
Too late to cry, or change the past.
I warned you about this subject.
Like sleeping on a bull ants nest under a disturbed hornets one.
Rational debate is gone, blue faced red necked screaming takes its place.

But this is true, Labor must NEVER adopt policy's only the very few want.
Surely as we see right now, the softer approach only invites more to attempt to come.
Politics has never been about other than doing things the voters want, or being tossed out, for long periods.
The blue faced rage seen here, ignores fact.
Labor, pushed and dragged to its new position, wants just what conservatives want.
What most of Australia wants.
OF SHORE PROCESSING [understood your bit SM]
and like it or not, we must not be blinded, Turks are coming and not for other than a better life.
12.000? Mate if we invite them it will be ten times that first year and this country needs to breath and consider its ability to be that big.
Those chanting the anti Labor things here, seem incapable of understanding, at the very least, both party's and the idiot greens hold the blame.
Flogging in Malaysia or drowning?
The flogging will not happen.
Most of this country has rights if minority's rule time after time our system is dead.
Steam roll the greens and mate, please do not condemn the ALP to the other side of the house for decades.
Love conservatives using filth like Latham!

Bazz,

On a ship, they would be subject to maritime law.

Asylum seeker activists are fond of quoting refugees stories --here's one I'll bet they're not keen to repeat.

"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted.

"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and THEN NO-ONE WILL COME."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html

And remember all those stories about long arduous journeys over land and sea to make it to Indonesia --well here's how they really get there:

"people-smuggling syndicates ...are funnelling their clients through JAKARTA'S AIRPORT, taking them BY BUS across Java, and packing them on unsafe boats bound for Christmas Island."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/160-asylum-seekers-feared-dead-20111218-1p0v8.html#ixzz1h3ocPORj

Wake-up Australia you're being had.

SPQR, we do not often agree, your last post every word could have been mine.
If you look you will see on this issue I have over and again, said what yabby has said and you.
I will not ever, blame only Labor.
But the bleeding hearts must in the end ask themselves questions.
How much is this costing our country, welfare alone.
Once we get the cash added up and after catching our breath, we can consider what good we could do with half that money, for the country's they flee.
The other half could stay here for us.
Time after time Humanitarians talk of the dreadful circumstances of these folk.
Who got together traveled a very long trip, paid an estimated $600.000 to smugglers.
In the end , staying home in these country's some people have to decide what one of the children should starve to death so one can live.
Those are the refugees we get migrants cashed up ones unwanted ones.

Belly,
I may have been a bit direct and forcefull to Anthonyve but I thought I was rational. The illegals are not nice people so do not deserve to be addressed in nice manner.

See you mentioned what it is costing us. Yeah, not only do I hate us being conned but all that money wasted on the illegals could be used elsewhere, like Pacific Hwy or new rail line for commuters, or some other usefull projects.

It is our money so we should benefit. Is that selfish?

Or, could be used to help genuine refugees.

*I am interested in the Green notion of decriminalizing transport of asylum seekers with no jailing of crews or impounding of boats. We might expect that would quickly lead to better boats, better crews, better safety.*

No problem Luci, I could soon charter a liner or two and ship
straight from the Middle East. How many asylum seekers would
you like? Half a million a year or more then that?

We could dock right there in Sydney, unload the cargo and the
rest would be for you, the Greens and taxpayers to deal with.

Labor is not to blame for the tragic loss of life incurred when a group of hopeful people decided to take the risk to reach Australian shores for the opportunity for a better economic life and a country where religious and political freedom is the norm.
Nor does the blame rest with the liberals or even the Greens.
The blame for the loss of life rests with the individuals on the boat.
Each person decided to make Australia their destination knowing full well that the alternative to queuing for admission and flying safely to our shores was to pay a smuggler and play boat roulette.
People constantly argue these people have no other choice, but is this really the truth?
Australia does not have to be the safe haven if one is fleeing war or political persecution. To reach Australia, people fleeing for these reasons pass through other nations like the UAR that are politically stable countries and not at war; yet obviously unattractive to many asylum seekers. A choice has been made - and consequences will result.
It's time to be honest and admit that people make choices and other people are not always to blame

"""
No problem Luci, I could soon charter a liner or two and ship
straight from the Middle East.
"""

Hehehe! Onya, Yabby. Might beat shipping live cattle; after all they want that banned!

Ludwig, I am sorry. I was confusing you with that Labor stalwart Shadow Minister!

I see another voice of reason (other than my own of course!) in the
excellent post above by WWG.

You are right WWG, in saying the blame for these boat tragedies lies with the people willing to pay for sub-standard boat passages.

How are we to know that the current situations in all the countries that people are fleeing from, would not have also caused the boats to still sail to Australia even under a Liberal Government/ offshore processing situation?

We need to work with the Indonesian/Malaysian Governments to stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place.

If that means ensuring it is financially worth their while, then surely it would be cheaper than putting up all the asylum seekers here, or allowing them to stupidly board dangerous boats for Australia?

Welcome to the Bear pit WWG hope you stay.
Banjo I understand.
Dare I ask these questions?
In resolving any dispute, no good is served other than to inform, in rehashing things that can not be changed.
Shadow Minister seems determined to tell us 150 other country's are WILLING to take our refugees, how many of us think that is near true?
Government, now forced by public opinion, has set a REGIONAL FOCUS on solving the problem.
The Shadow Minister, not our gentleman, spoke of sending boat people to Iran!
Why has the right refused to take owner ship of that?
Will NEGATIVE MAN suggest North Korea as the solution?
Conservative talk of floggings, that will not take place.
But talk of our Navy,turning the boats around at gun point at sea?
A REGIONAL SOLUTION, starting with Malaysia, we know, surely if we do not we are not equipped to comment?
The 800 swap for 4.000, other than a damp cloth for SM to miss represent as an Axe is to make boats stop, and give hope to those who waited, did not get on boats.
If we are equipped to comment here we know two that 800 will if not stopping the boats be renewed.
The Malaysian solution speaks these words loudly.
*If you get on a boat and get to Australia, you will not be able to stay*
Consider please, this hung Parliament is giving power to enforce views not held by most on us all.
But conservatives and Labor,80% of our country want an end.
I with true 100% belief, think Tony Abbott fears most the Malaysian solution will work.
And he fears it would then be used world wide, and succeed.
20 million refugees, name them that.
World wide, we the majority let minority's tell us we can settle this world wide problem by lowering our living standards and turning our city's in to ghettos.

Belly,

I've never seen you deliberately lie before. I never spoke of sending people to Iran. Because Iran is the worst example of a signatory to the UNHCR does not mean that it is coalition policy. North Korea is not a signatory, and following your logic it is a labor policy destination.

At the 2010 election Juliar informed Australia that Labor was pursuing an East Timor solution (apparently forgetting to tell East Timor) and that Labor would never consider Nauru, as it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. (just another lie).

A year later, and when the only amendment that the coalition wants to the stripping of rights from the immigration act is to uphold Labor's promise, Juliar stomps off in a huff.

Labor's policy is that if it cannot have exactly what it wants, it will do nothing and let people die.

Belly, why would be the govt's legislation be rejected in the Reps ?
They got everything else through. Even if the green voted against it
they would still have a majority.
The independents would vote for it.
If the PM could not get the legislation passed she should go to the
Governor General and ask for an election.
Surely that is the normal Westminster practise ?

Bazz, go wash your mouth out.

Do you want to give our illustrious prime minister a heart attack?

Please in future avoid that dirty word, "election", just the thought of one ruins her day.

I'll choose but one half-truth from SM's last post to counter, re the 2010 election "...Labor would never consider Nauru, as it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. (just another lie)."

Back then, SM, Nauru was not a signatory, that only came recently thanks to the tireless politics of Mr Abbott.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nauru-signs-un-refugee-convention-20110617-1g830.html

In any event, expecting the switching of processing to Nauru alone to stop the boats is pointless as everyone in Australia, except SM, well knows.

I can't stand by and watch Belly, a respectable straight-shooter on OLO, called a "liar", outright, over a single error of interpretation. By all means, point out errors and have strong opinions SM, but consider cleaning up your own backyard before making rich accusations about others with good track-records. It's easy for Belly and others to find themselves confused by the barrage of half-truth that riddle your posts, whether they are purposeful or otherwise.

I also think SM's posts would have more cred if he didn't wear his hatred on his sleeve. Respect for the position of the PM of Australia would be demonstrated by calling the PM by the correct acronym, the correct name of the person holding office, or both.

WWG, your ‘logic’ defies….um…logic!

Australia’s open border ‘policy’ presents a HUGE pull factor, and hence a huge factor in the decision-making processes of people who are trying to work out whether the risk and the expense is worth it to get to Australia.

I mean, this is blatantly obvious, really!

As SPQR points out;

"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and THEN NO-ONE WILL COME."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html

You can blame people-smugglers, asylum seekers, corrupt officials in Indonesia, the Greens, etc. to some extent. But the lion’s share of the blame rests fairly and squarely with our incompetent (Labor) government.

<< We need to work with the Indonesian/Malaysian Governments to stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place. >>

Yes Suse. And whose job is it to see that this happens effectively?

Our government.

I find it interesting that you can see the need for this but apparently not see the need for us to greatly reduce the pull factors, by tightening our borders, implementing offshore processing, introducing TPVs, tightening the interpretation of a refugee, or whatever.

To attempt to address the issue with Indonesia and Malaysia while leaving huge pull factors in place would be completely nonsensical.

As far as working with the Indonesian and Malaysian governments goes, they would be right to tell Australia to get its own border-protection policies in order before sticking its nose into their business!

So, you agree that we need to take action to reduce the rate of arrivals if not stop it entirely. But you are loathe to do anything about reducing the attractiveness to Australia!

That really doesn’t compute!

<< How are we to know that the current situations in all the countries that people are fleeing from, would not have also caused the boats to still sail to Australia even under a Liberal Government/ offshore processing situation? >>

Look at the differences between current border-protection and that under Howard. There’s the difference. It’s huge!

Look also at the differences between the push factors under the current government and under Howard. Not much difference at all.

We can be pretty damn sure that the people (or at least the vast majority) that are now heading our way and have over the last ~three years, are doing so because of one changed factor: the tightness (or looseness) of Australia’s border protection policies…..initiated by our worst-ever PM; KRudd, and exacerbated beyond all belief by the second worst ever PM; Dillard!

What does it mean to "close the borders"? Must all the boats past through a checkpoint to get in?

I've got a ripper idea, yeah, let's put up a big barrier in the ocean to stop the boats!

"Closing the borders" is another way of saying "Solution", be it Pacific or Malaysian.

Back to the real discussion.

Luciferase,

You claim I am lying, but provide a link that proves what I said. Juliar said in the election debate that I watched that Nauru would never be considered because it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. Nauru had been dithering around signing it, but after a push by the opposition finalized the process.

When Juliar and Bowen announced the Malaysian solution, Nauru was a signatory, and Malaysia wasn't. Juliar has no excuse other than arrogance.

As for Belly's out burst, there is a difference between bending the truth, and breaking it.

As for Nauru not working, how can you explain the dramatic increase in boat arrivals when Nauru was closed? I also think that the vast majority of Australians believe that the Pacific solution worked.

Dear Ludwig,

Michael Clarke tell us:

"Offshore processing of asylum seekers, whether in Malaysia,
Nauru, Manus Island or any other regional state of island,
does not, contrary to the claims of both the Government and
the Opposition, deter people smugglers nor the asylum
seekers themselves from undertaking dangerous boat journeys
to our shores."

As for perpetuating the consistent line that "Howard succeeded?"
All the Howard Government did was strike the pose of being
"tough" on people that it characterised as "queue jumpers,"
and as potential threats to national security.

Given the rhetoric of the Howard years,
such as the oft-quoted, "we will decide who comes to this country
and the circumstances under which they come," would have meant
that the majority of those detained under the "Pacfic Solution,"
would have in fact have been REFUSED asylum in Australia.

The reality, however, as Clarke points out was that - between
2001 and 2008, 1637 people were detained on Nauru and Manus
Island. Of those 1153 (i.e 70%) were settled in Australia. The
remaining were resettled in other countries. Therefore the
deterrant value of such an exercise, as Graham Richardson
suggested is far from clear:

"Your average people-smuggler would not have to be all that
bright to sell to a potential client that there was a 70%
chance of success in finishing up in an acceptable
Western Nation, most probably Australia, after spending a
year on a Pacific Island. Asylum-seekers will hand over
the money and risk their lives when the odds are as high as
70%."

"Is the alternative of onshore processing, as
Richardson argues, a viable one?"

"Practically "yes," but politically, "no."

"Certainly it may seem more cost-effective, given that the
cost of housing detainees on Nauru and Manus Island between
2001 and 2006 came to approx. $1 billion."

What is actually needed is a change of course - and an
adoption of onshore processing as the preferred option.
This could possibly present the public with a clear
and distinct choice as opposed to the "bland and
ineffective Coke and Diet Coke options we now have."

Ludwig, how, exactly, are you going to close the borders to the largest Island on earth?
Even when we had off-shore processing, some boats still came.

If asylum seekers are desperate enough, they are not going to care what sort of 'policy' we have. Even if they are herded off to concentration camps in third world countries, it is still preferable to where they are fleeing from.

Asking for asylum in another country is not a crime, therefore we should not be treating them as criminals and sending them to our third world neighbours for 'dealing with'.

Australians are better than that, aren't we?

We need to stop the boats in order to save lives, but we have no right to refuse asylum to other people, no matter how they get here.

Lexi,

You are in error again.

1637 people were detained on Nauru and Manus Island. Of those 1153 (70%) were determined to be refugees of which 750 (43% of the total) were resettled in Aus.

"Your average people-smuggler would not have to be all that bright to sell to a potential client that there was a 70% chance of success in finishing up in an acceptable Western Nation, most probably Australia"

Well apparently they were complete retards as they only managed one boat a year. It probably had something to do with not being able to pick their country of destination, (thus being unable to join family), only getting a TPV which meant they could not bring anyone else over, and possibly being repatriated once conditions in their home country changed.

All this debate is futile, the correlation between the pacific solution and the dramatic fall in boat arrivals is too strong to be anything else.

Shadow Minister! are you well?
Quote from my thread you imposed your own words/lie on.
The Shadow Minister, not our gentle man, end quote.
Given you actions can any thing you ever say be believed
BAZZ bloke please, you have not read the post not understood if you did.
Before Labor with drew the bill, from the lower house, some one, who votes with Labor said he would not support it.
In that lower house
Labor, then withdrew the bill.
Knowing it would be rejected and a moral victory for conservatives.
Labor knew/knows it will not pass the greens blockade of majority's wishes in the senate.
But will, in the new year get it past the lower house because slipper changed sides.
I invite protagonists to revisit both my thread above and SM s last three disjointed and quite untrue ones.
This too is of interest NEGATIVE MAN said today NO NO NO to meetings with government to try to resolve this issue.
If Labor does that in opposition we will hear the screams forever.
Please, do not forget, the real SM CAN BE SEEN HERE JUST LOOK AT THE UNTRUTHS.

I said you employ half-truth.

Your statement read, apparently unintended by you, that the PM lied about the status of Nauru at that time. The date of link shows that not to be correct. If you meant that the PM clutched to Nauru's UN position as an excuse at the time, I agree, but she also maintained simply shifting processing to Nauru won't work in any case. She has been inconsistent in the way she applied the UNHCR criterion to Nauru then, but not Malaysia now.

Perhaps I should focus on "Labor's policy is that if it cannot have exactly what it wants, it will do nothing and let people die."

Clearly, Labor desperately wants to do something, something that actually works. Shifting the point of processing alone, at the coalition's insistence, will do nothing to solve the problem except, of course, give the opposition the political sway it is only concerned about.

"As for Nauru not working, how can you explain the dramatic increase in boat arrivals when Nauru was closed?"

Sorry SM, been there done that with you ad nauseum, as have others.
It's to do with the Australian Navy. Go back and read, read, read about it.

"I also think that the vast majority of Australians believe that the Pacific solution worked."

Change that to "everyone" agrees that it worked, including me, and it worked because the actions of the Australian Navy made it work. That it worked is not the only criterion for reimplementing it. The problem is, it is wrong to turn unsafe boat-loads of people back out to sea by force. Australia is a better nation than that now and there is a more humane path Labor wants to take us down. Let them take us there.

Of course, I expect you to trot out your hand-wringing, Cassandra, Chicken Little tripe in response, o concerned are you for the welfare of asylum-seekers (that you would turn back their unsafe boats towards danger).

You, and others here, have given the "decriminalizing" discussion short shrift or derision, so we are still left with two solutions. The coalition wants parliament dissolved over which solution to take, using the issue as a stalking-horse to try to regain government, as everyone well knows. It's the last shot in its locker.

As increasingly stinking and putrid as this strategy becomes with the growing number of tragic events at sea, the Coalition under Mr Abbott clings to it for dear life. Australia deserves better and Mr Abbott needs to be replaced by someone who will allow it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I will again repeat the statistics for you so you do get
it right.

"Between 2001 and 2008, 1637 people were detained on Nauru and
Manu Island. Of those - 1153 (i.e.70%) were resettled in Australia or other countries. Of this group,
705 (i.e. 61%) were ultimately
resettled in Australia with the remaining 448 re-settled in third
countries."

I will again stress that the deterrent value of such an exercise
as Graham Richardson suggests, is far from clear Sir.

We well may ask the question, "Has the language of security
and threat poisoned policy so much that, as far as some Australians
are concerned - there really is no asylum in this country?"

Belly, this is it !
If she cannot get her legislation passed she MUST go to the GG !
No ifs, no buts !
or resign.

LF,

English not your strong suite? Maths neither, I see. I asked for you to account for why the boat arrivals surged when Nauru was closed. As no boats had been turned around for 5 years, this cannot be a valid reason. Using the boats being turned around is a flimsy excuse for why the boats stopped under the pacific solution, but is not at all valid for the sudden increase.

I see Labor is suddenly interested in "talks" on a "compromise" with the coalition, but are not offering any change to their position. I guess that they will compromise their principles with the greens and independents, but not budge an inch for the coalition.

If you are actually interested in the correspondence:

http://images.smh.com.au/file/2011/12/20/2849933/Corro.pdf?rand=1324338106916

Usual tripe about the devastating effect of the prospect Nauru processing (or Christmas Island, for that matter) on the asylum-seeker psyche. Just drop it SM, your on your own. Terra-firma under Australian immigration control is enough incentive for any prospective boat-person.

How about this compromise, SM, the Australian Navy meets the boats to ensure passengers are safely transferred to Christmas Island or Nauru. Upon recovery from their journey, they be transferred to Malaysia for processing and five times their number of successfully processed refugees be brought back to be resettled in Australia.

That way, you get your Australian Navy and Nauru back into action, just like it was in the good old days.

The PM's letter reads more to me like a plea for humanity.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments about my maths and english.

LF,

As to what people believe, just have a look at this analysis from the left wing Essential Research. Only 21% favour on shore processing.

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/best-way-of-processing-of-asylum-seekers/#more-2676

The off shore in any country (ie Malaysia) gets only 11% support. A surprising 28% go even further and want the boats turned around.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/most-prefer-pacific-solution-poll-finds-20100606-xn85.html

Shows that 2/3rds prefer a return to the pacific solution.

So before you depart on your flights of fantasy, remember, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably is a duck.

It was a storm, storms happen. Nearly 1,000 people were killed in the Philipines by a storm, who can we blame for that now.

And why do the media even pretend to let the pollies pretend to care that some refugees drowned when all the media in this country actively and openly support the slaughters in Afghanistan and Iraq and then whine about the victims coming here.

Haven't heard anyone say we should stop the stupid wars.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30035.htm

Like this little gem for an example.

It is nothing to do with saving lives, we don't care about the live ones so why pretend to care about the dead ones.

Marylin,
I didn't even bother reading any of the posts because I knew how it would turn out. You are so right with your comment. Why is it Australia that's made to feel guilty by a bunch of its own ? It's the war mongers who are to blame , no-one else ! Stop the wars & religion & no more refugees, full stop.
I shudder at the knowledge how many still cannot see that so much of this is agenda based.
Keep on running around with the rose-coloured blinkers & before long there'll be an Australia by name only.

Marilyn,
Reports say the boat capsized.
This suggests overloading, not weather.
Remember most of these people have probably never been at sea previously
and did not realise the effect of many being high in the vessel.
What surprises me is that the crew would even consider going out of
the harbour. Most of them are reported to be fishermen.
The crew should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Bazz I respect and quite like you, true.
But you are in way above your level of understanding, rude? yes maybe.
But you hold nothing in reserve in blasting my party, even when wrong.
Had Gillard, put that Bill before the lower house and lost it, an outcome she knew would happen, past,not now, Governments may have been forced to call an election.
NOTHING happened, even your side has put a bill before the house, then not voted for it.
Shadow Minister,we all get it wrong, me too.
I measure a man by his actions.
You Sir got it very wrong.
And seem not to be man enough to say so.
I rest my case.
Life is not about niceness kindness and that is the truth.
Uniquely those wanting on shore processing and acceptance of just about every one.
Think, us the majority, the realists, are awful.
And well educated and all can not/ will not see open doors are invitations.
MATHEMATICS helpful always!
How many under stand an open door will see AT THE LEAST a million in ten years, and maybe five times that in the next ten?
Democracy is about the best over all out comes, never minority ruling.
Never about blind humanitarianism that will destroy our life style here.
Give food give aid remove dictators give these folk home land but not mine.
Once here the bleeding hearts inform us we must except not just another culture but one KNOWN WORLD WIDE to want to change ours.
Last I challenge the greens the true humanitarians the just uninformed.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ABOUT NORTH KOREA?
NEGATIVE MAN went on record this day he only wants his plan no others.
SM is that ok?
No talks no discussions just NO NO NO .

But wait hope exists.
I walk on my own reputation here in very dirty gum boots.
My life time union /party has many who despise me for this.
But the Rudd dismissal was poorly done,we the voters never got a look in.
Gillard never was going to be loved, like it or not men will/have judged her for the wrong reasons.
I admire her past her achievements.
But she must go.
No trick nothing, can see her other than trounced .
She spent her last penny in insulting Kevin Rudd at conference.
Julie, and backers, your victory, the giggling behind the scenes at that childlike victory hurt our party.
People had just started to turn on NEGATIVE MAN, and you reminded them? that Bitchy behind the curtains victory's matter more than my party.
Despite the Lady's inability to control such urges I predict by the end of January NEGATIVE MAN will have slipped those poll points and More.
He is over reaching , the Greens Tony thank you, but ask you not cut down a tree for Christmas Bob may be hiding in it.

SM, you just can't lie straight in bed! Your link is 18 months old, and the Malaysian swap was proposed only 6 months ago!

Golly, two thirds of people prefer Cereal A when there is no Cereal B! Please run that one past us more slowly.

The beauty of this particular attempt at deception by half-truth is that it is so shameless, careless and blatant that it is accessible to absolutely everybody, even those in a vegetative state!

After many instances like this, exposed by me and others, you have completely blown any shred of credibility you may have had.

Time for another alias or, better, Get a blog! Maybe call it "Inconvenient Half-Truth". Other suggestions. anybody?

LF,

Your half truth is blatant, you can't even lie properly. My first link is a week old is clear comparison between the two solutions and blatantly avoided by you.

The older post was not meant to be a comparison to the Malaysia solution, just to show how unpopular on shore processing was and how strong the belief in the Pacific solution, a clear kick in the crown jewels to your posturing that the pacific solution didn't work.

English and logic are clearly not your strong points, though spin is. Work for Juliar do you?

Belly,

Juliar's team has given no indication whatsoever that they intend to change their position. I think they only want to talk so that the voters think they are trying to do something.

Juliar only compromises with someone that can vote for her.

Abbott's position is clear. The coalition has already conceded 90% of what Juliar wants with the one amendment ensuring that what ever country is used is a signatory to the UNHCR as she claimed in 2010 was a minimum requirement.

Lexi, you quote this Michael Clarke character:

< Offshore processing of asylum seekers … does not … deter people smugglers nor the asylum seekers themselves from undertaking dangerous boat journeys to our shores >

Rubbish! Of course it does. All else being the same, it would be a considerable deterrent. But in isolation it probably wouldn’t be a sufficiently strong deterrent, to take us back to the trickle of arrivals that we had under Howard. It needs to be part of a package, which includes temporary protection visas, a stricter interpretation of the definition of a refugee, etc.

< Given the rhetoric of the Howard years, such as the oft-quoted, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come," would have meant that the majority of those detained under the "Pacific Solution," would have in fact have been REFUSED asylum in Australia. >

Yes. Most asylum seekers could have been refused under a tougher interpretation of the definition of a refugee. If the judgement of a refugee had been anything near the same as we use for selecting offshore refugees, then very few onshore asylum seekers would have been accepted. And this should have the been case!

But despite accepting most applicants, Howard still managed to implement a strong level of deterrence which reduced the number of arrivals to a very low level.

Clearly once potential asylum seekers got the message that most applicants were being accepted, the offshore detention factor and indefinite period of detention became even more significant in deterring new arrivals.

continued

< "Is the alternative of onshore processing, as Richardson argues, a viable one?"

"Practically "yes," but politically, "no." >

Come on! Practically, yes and politically, yes!

If something decisive isn’t done to stop the boats by the current government, they’ll find themselves in the political wilderness for sure, at the next election!

It is politically untenable for them NOT to do it!

< What is actually needed is a change of course - and an adoption of onshore processing as the preferred option. >

Was does Clarke mean? He doesn’t elaborate. Does he want onshore processing with or without detention?

Clearly, a no detention policy has created a huge pull factor, which is completely inconsistent with the apparent desire of both the Labs and Libs to stop the boats.

So mainland detention centres would have to feature prominently, surely. But of course, Clarke is not thinking of that, which can only mean one thing; he’s totally confused, as are many who are battling to reconcile the desire to be as accommodating of onshore asylum seekers as possible while at the same realising the importance of stopping the boats.

Oh dear, SM, it just gets worse!

"....a clear kick in the crown jewels to your posturing that the pacific solution didn't work."

Posturing? Let's see:

Today SM wrote:, "I also think that the vast majority of Australians believe that the Pacific solution worked."

I wrote in response: "Change that to "everyone" agrees that it worked, including me, and it worked because the actions of the Australian Navy made it work. That it worked is not the only criterion for reimplementing it. The problem is, it is wrong to turn unsafe boat-loads of people back out to sea by force. Australia is a better nation than that now and there is a more humane path Labor wants to take us down. Let them take us there."

On Sunday I wrote, in response to SM's effort on another thread to falsely attribute the same suggestion to me, "I wish to acknowledge, as I was misrepresented on another thread, that the Pacific Solution worked. My argument is that just because it did does not make it the right path for our nation going forward. We are a better nation than that."

The central working element of the Pacific Solution was the use of naval force and the message it sent. The Pacific Solution, in its entirety, worked and I have consistently acknowledged so.

I rest my case, and, again suggest that SM that gets a blog to give his/her failing critical faculties an overdue rest.

Labour stuffs up big time, the Liberals cop the blame while the true enemies of rational thinking the Greens go untouched by the left loving media. They are a disgrace as they place their ideology above human life.

Yes, very divided indeed.

Processing off shore is the solution.......and I'll tell you why.

Australia needs to watch its borders very closely, and remember, pathogens from these people can spread like wild fire, and your children will become the one,s that will be the casualties for our kindly softened approaches that will become our curse and down fall.

There are cells right here in the comfort zones with us all, and if one needs a revision on the Global status, its just not as safe as it used to be or once upon a time as it used to be.

See! the problem is,(just like the English speaking Germans) our guard whether its a pathogen or not, this is a risk to this wonderful diversity no matter how one looks at. We do live on the biggest island of isolated from "all" in-coming threats that in all definitions...."we are in the southern hemisphere all alone" and we are:)

I for one say, don't contaminate the only home we have, "process them off shore"....before something gets in we don't like.

CACTU

Runner!...are you up\set again at us environmentalists:)?....shame on you:)....we just want a smaller world to save us all.

We have given all religions a fair go.....mate..our numbers are at 7 billion sonny Jim:) and we are not against the killings of humans like you go on about, and I find that very offensive that you look at me/us in that context.

We just want to make the best commonsense idea's thats best for all.

I bet you love unclear reactor's as well.......look went your comings come....I'll all ears:)

Have a Merry Xmas all.

CACTUS

Woooops:) spelling typo...

Can you find it:)

CACTUS:)

<< Ludwig, how, exactly, are you going to close the borders to the largest Island on earth? Even when we had off-shore processing, some boats still came.>>

Suse, we can have pretty tight borders pretty easily, as Howard has proven. A very small number of arrivals, as we saw in the latter Howard years is not a concern. Our borders don’t have to be water-tight.

<< If asylum seekers are desperate enough, they are not going to care what sort of 'policy' we have. >>

It would appear that we are not so much dealing with desperate asylum seekers as with economic opportunists. By and large, the people arriving here are not the sort of desperate people that would have come anyway regardless of our border protection policies. It is pretty clear that they would not have come with the border protection regime that was in place before Rudd STUFFED it up.

<< Asking for asylum in another country is not a crime, therefore we should not be treating them as criminals and sending them to our third world neighbours for 'dealing with'. >>

It is the perception of some refugee advocates that if asylum seekers are not welcomed with open arms and accommodated in open society straight away that they are being treated as criminals. This is just silly.

We’ve got to make sure of two things – that applicants are genuine and that we implement a strong deterrence factor to make sure that the number of arrivals doesn’t get out of hand. The processing of applications while the applicants are in detention centres is thus perfectly fair and reasonable.

<< We need to stop the boats in order to save lives, but we have no right to refuse asylum to other people, no matter how they get here. >>

This is confusing Suse. We need to stop the boats, but we need to accommodate refugees, and very openly, with no offshore processing and indeed no detention at all? Is that what you are saying?

continued

You are neglecting to consider a few important points;

The scale of onshore asylum seeking, now and into the future. It could become enormous if we continue to be seen as a soft touch.

The cost to the taxpayer and all the other needy things that this enormous amount of money could be spent on.

The level of discontent in Australian society and the social and political ramifications.

The displacement of more needy refugees that would have been brought here through our formal immigration program.

The sovereign right for a people and their government to decide who will come to this country and to expect their borders to be tight.

If the whole business escalates, you can bet that a much tougher stance will be taken pretty soon, with many more people being caught in the middle.

Meanwhile, humanitarian people like you Suse should be lobbying for an increase in our offshore refugee intake and international aid expenditure on refugee issues. THIS is where we should be directing our efforts… while shutting down onshore asylum seeking.

LF,

The pacific solution worked, and virtually no one believes that the turning back of the boats was anything but a minor part.

If you had any critical faculties, then why in 2008, 5 years after the last boat was turned around, did the removal of TPVs and the closing of Nauru cause such a dramatic upswing in boats.

You have continually failed to address this point as it renders your argument useless.

The Pacific solution should be restored, as any other option will continue the carnage.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/malaysia-plan-still-possible-says-ruddock-20111220-1p421.html
Let us please, see with open eyes, these words in the link from the man who crafted and bought to life the Pacific solution.
Then those of the last Foreign Minister in Howard's government.
The words of Liberals quoted in this link.
Saying HIGH COURT HAS MADE NEHRU no longer the answer.
Look at the present, stone Labor for past sins if you wish.
Can you rebut my charge?
NEGATIVE MAN is unconcerned at these deaths,if not that not concerned enough to put his flogging stick away and sit and talk.
What basis has put us here,how do we talk about not the deaths.
Not the increasing arrivals.
Not the victory for the minority greens.
Average Aussie rightly has had a gutful.
My often defense all politicians are not useless is looking weak.
As NEGATIVE MAN , no one else,is refusing to even sit and talk.
Conservative Australians.
This man is no John Howard, no statesman, no leader.
If only, Santa like all good transport contractors needed a back load.
He could give this country a very real Christmas Gift, taking Gillard and NEGATIVE MAN HOME WITH HIM AS A BACK LOAD.

Catcus you ask

'Runner!...are you up\set again at us environmentalists:)?....shame on you:).

Are you so gullible to believe that the Greens really care about the environment? Their is a difference between worshipping the earth and taking care of it.

Belly,

Juliar said NO to off shore processing. Her government cannot get any legislation through as her partners in government have abandoned her.

Juliar has a compromise on the table that she could get off shore processing tomorrow if she so chose. But Juliar is so NEGATIVE that she would rather do nothing than accept the proven solution the coalition has to offer.

Juliar's offer has not changed by one comma, and her request for talks is hollow, as Chris Bowen who advocated accepting the coalition's offer clearly has no authority to negotiate a compromise. Morrison and Bowen talking can only result in both sides stating their position and no more. In your terms Belly, this would be like trying to negotiate an EBA by having a shop steward and a HR manager sitting down to talk.

Any serious offer of talks would involve direct talks between Abbott and Juliar, as clearly only they have the authority to compromise.

Dear Belly,

Do yourself a favour and save your breath.
Christmas is just around the corner, it's
cricket season afterall, tennis is coming up,
there's plenty of other things to argue about.

Best to remember that it's pointless trying to
convince some people - to actually buy into
silly notions like facts and reason.

Politics to some, it seems to me, for years or
all too ling has been concerned with right or
left instead of right or wrong.

Shadow Minister, I await STILL your reply to my one.
The one I answered and indeed Challenged your disgusting view I had DELIBERATELY LIED.
Sir, in your defense, I have re read both my post and yours following.
A chance exists, you are claiming you are THE SHADOW MINISTER in this matter.
If that is true.
My defense is clear HANSARD!
It records at least five times the charge has been leveled in the house.
NOT ONCE has the shadow minister/you? denied it.
I rest easy, know this, your diatribes here, your party's, are in this matter a rock around boths necks.
On this matter the sea you sail on is getting rough.
As little truth exists in you rehashing the past as runners here.
Dispute resolution demands first an agreement to talk.
NEGATIVE MAN is under mining him self, creaks and indeed groans are audible behind his back.
As 2012 progresses even you, will under stand it was this issue that gave first voice to internal questioning of his ability to lead a Nation.

Any chance of making threads in pairs ? One for academic responses & one for pragmatists.
I have had enough of this to-ing & fro-ing. The real issue is why do people leave in the first place ? Those who are against invading these countries are also pro refugee. I for one would like to see no refugees & rather see coalition forces once & for all grab these idiot dictators & religious mutts & put where they belong, On a big islands (no, not Australia) with each other.
natural selection will do the rest.
This would stop people having to leave either due to persecution or more than likely, agenda driven i.e. silent invasion.

Belly,

To your statement "The Shadow Minister, not our gentleman, spoke of sending boat people to Iran!"

If you did not mean me then I apologize whole heartedly. If you meant Scott Morrison, then I still find it extremely difficult to believe you. I would like to see the Hansard excerpt where Morrison spoke of sending refugees to Iran.

I think that the knives are out for lying woman, and the reason she won't talk to Abbott is that she will have to take responsibility for the outcome and is too scared to face the greens and Labor left. But without Juliar and Abbott at the table there is no outcome possible.

According to LNP strategists "boats equal votes" and they were thrilled to have as many arrive before the last election as possible.

Now that their forced early election plan seems to have gone awry they will need to do more than make the empty claim that the boats will stop simply by voting for them next time, otherwise it will be seen in the same way as their other claim that "interest rates will always be lower" under them.

Time to put up.

Sadly it seems a dead refugee is worth more to them electorally than a live one.

SM says "You have continually failed to address this point as it renders your argument useless."

Wrong again, SM, however although I can barely bring myself to waste another keystroke in your game of pea-and-thimble, I will re-explain per your request, why it is clear that Nauru is no deterrent and why naval force is.

I have previously offered this link, which draws from the senate inquiry into the SIEV X incident and others

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/07/the-consequences-of-turning-boats-back-siev-towback-cases/

Consider the dozen or so SIEV (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel) encounters with the Australian Navy where asylum-seekers went to extraordinary lengths to be detained rather than be forcibly turned away. The prospect of offshore detention clearly did not deter asylum-seekers. They knew about the prospect of Nauru but just wanted terra-firma under Australian care, Christmas Island, Nauru, it clearly didn’t matter to them. Read about it in the link

The opposition insists that processing on Nauru will deter boats despite this string of SIEV episodes that prove the opposite. Asylum seekers fought to be allowed to be detained anywhere under Australian care, to the extreme of putting their own children’s lives at risk through desperate acts. Read about it in the link.

Mr Abbott vows to re-employ naval force, because he knows the above to be true. No force, no deterrent. it's clear.

The use of force clearly had the strongest deterrent effect, judging by the huge drop in boat arrivals following the SIEV episodes. Many boats were unsafe so turn-arounds led to deaths at sea, adding further to the deterrent effect. That deterrent has been residual and effective up until the present Gov't closed Nauru, which signalled the end of its employment of naval force to people-smugglers (still don't like this term). This has been tested by them with first a trickle and now a growing flood of boats, and mishaps.

If naval force was re-employed today the boats would dwindle again to a tiny trickle. Everybody knows this to be true but you, SM. Even Mr Abbott is not a denier. Don't you wish he never publicly stated he would again use force it and just left the matter with a nod and a wink, kno wo' I mean? I'm sure he does now too.

As an addendum, SM, you continue to assert that the asylum-seekers transferred to Malaysia face beatings, rape, torture, despite Malaysian assurance under the agreement. You are so concerned that Malaysia is a non-signatory to the UN convention on refugees that, using naval force, you would return unsafe boats to ocean danger and back to Indonesia which is also a non-signatory.

You will now, no doubt, throw something else at me I've already answered ad nauseum, but sorry, that's me done.

I'm with Lexi, it's a beautiful day outside.

Merry Christmas to all

Luciferase I admire your in put, it looks much like me here not all that long ago.
I and others, left this place a few times, after head butting SM.
Stay, you can not penetrate his NEGATIVITY, he may be Abbott's mentor
Look however, at the watered down, weak, unmanly withdrawal of his claim I lied .
This subject, like climate change, is war on the Tower of Babble.
Every one wants to be heard, some do not bother to read others thoughts.
And, sadly but true, some know nothing in fact, about the subject.
We here, and Australia as a whole let ourselves be hood winked and side tracked conned.
While we squabble, if an election was near both sides would be fixing this problem on Christmas day in both houses of Parliament.
I want those who have the ability and openness to do so, to watch the similarity's with Americas Republicans.
And NEGATIVE MANS shell of the once proud Australian Liberal party.
And just in case some care,consider why America has developed a bird flu that can kill two thirds of the world.
And is barring reports of it.
United voters can ask questions like that,but with both sides giving a victory here to greens?
LIBERALS? LABOR both door mats to greens?
Poor fella our country!

LF,

Let me use small words. If the turning the boats around stopped them, then what started them in 2008/9. There was no naval intervention before or after just Nauru and TPVs. The links you have provided have said absolutely nothing on the cause of the boats starting, hence I assume you have nothing.

Labor on scrapping the pacific solution anticipated a small uptick in arrivals, that they increased 50 fold showed that the pull factor was the main factor, and that the pacific solution was a deterrent.

In debate, formal or informal we each get a chance to be heard.
May be we get an even better opportunity,a chance to hear, even learn.
Shadow Ministers post above speaks both to me and for me.
He like one of those sucker fish,latches on to wrongs Rudd and Labor committed.
IN 2008/9!
Yes INDEED sm, they did!
He infers he needs to use small words, to both put a poster down and wander further from?
Both reality and the truth.
In what way would John Winston Howard saying he was wrong, or being found guilty, for introducing work choices help in todays IR world.
SM ignores, refuses to be side tracked by, TRUTH.
High Court at least! challenges , without law changes, offshore processing.
I charge the 150 country's SM says his party has offered Labor to be a known untruth.
Am I wrong.
Is it not true AUSTRALIA wants this over?
Would most be happy to see Conservatives in bed with the Greens?
Without a meeting is any one of the view this can be fixed, is NEGATIVITY and self interest more important than resolving this issue.
2008!
Dispute resolution is not started by such muck raking

Belly it's my understanding that the coalition has offered to support offshore processing in countries that are parties to the convention on the status of refugee's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

I'm not quite sure how the numbers work, 19 signatories and 145 parties.

As I understand it Malaysia is specifically not part of that.

R0bert

Well, Belly, it looks as though the commencement of a bit of common sense may have returned to the government that could foreseeably permit the present parliament's handling of at least that part of the asylum-seeker issue exemplified by 'the boats'. Here's how it was headlined on Twitter at 12:20 AM today, 22 December 2011: http://twitter.com/#!/australian/status/149479263563825152

The link posted in the tweet is to a news item in The Australian that states that:

"Cabinet has given Immigration Minister
Chris Bowen the authority to concede the
Gillard government will adopt Nauru as
part of its border protection regime in
return for Coalition support for legislation
to circumvent the High Court's ruling that
wiped out Labor's plan to send asylum-seekers
to Malaysia."

Addressing that part of SM's topic that asks '... Is Labor to blame?', there exists right across the political spectrum of what the bulk of the interested Australian public view loosely as the 'political master class', an element that seemingly take every opportunity to minimise Australian sovereignty. To seek to lay blame exclusively at the feet of the present Labor government is, in my opinion, a dangerously short-sighted approach that diverts attention from this underlying malaise.

FWIW, when the 'Malaysian solution' was first announced (and before the High Court decision), the all but universal response to it amongst a fairly wide cross section of working Australians with which I have periodical contact (most of whom have little or no online presence) was that the 'five for one' aspect of it was no deal at all so far as the wider interests of the Australian public were concerned. I haven't noticed that aspect of the issue mentioned much, if at all, on OLO.

This link, http://www.smh.com.au/national/malaysia-plan-still-possible-says-ruddock-20111220-1p421.html , posted by Belly on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 4:43:26 AM, contains a statement that epitomises for me the shabby way the wider Australian public interest is served in this respect:

"the Coalition will accept any proposal from the government in strict confidence".

Secret deals. So sick of this!

Belly,

"And just in case some care,consider why America has developed a bird flu that can kill two thirds of the world. And is barring reports of it." Actually it was a Dutch vaccine lab that developed the virus, and the Americans wanted to prevent the scientist from publishing how they did it.

The conservatives and the Greens are in agreement that the Malaysian solution is an abomination with no legal protection.

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion"

This does not apply to Malaysia. The militia who are largely above the law enforce Sharia law and target foreigners. The agreement with Malaysia ensures that they will not be deliberately targeted, but gives them no protections whatsoever.

As for my irritation with LF he keeps stating his ridiculous position without any support other than an opinion piece, and completely fails to address the gaping hole in his argument with regards the boats restarting.

That reminds me, you quoted Morrison as advocating sending refugees to Iran, and saying that it was recorded in Hansard. I challenged you on this and you have also ignored it.

Forrest, thanks for a good post.

I concur with your point about the openness of negotiations we seek from our politicians. A well managed public debate between our immigration minister and his shadow would be where each speaker was forced to address points made by the other would be a good thing.

It was interesting to read the following in your second link:

"Mr Bowen unsuccessfully proposed to cabinet in September that the government should accept processing on both Nauru and Malaysia and senior Coalition sources said yesterday Mr Abbott should acknowledge Immigration Department advice that opposition policy for processing on Nauru alone would no longer act as a deterrent."

I obviously agree with the point about Nauru. My question is what was the basis for the Immigration Department's advice?

If that is the advice, then what does the ID think caused a dribble and now a flood of boat arrivals since Nauru was closed in 2008? As not one of theses boats has been forcibly turned back since 2008, one can draw their own sensible conclusion. Mine is that that people-smugglers properly sensed the signal that the closure of Nauru sent and their business grew to the bustle it has become.

cont'd

From your first link, regarding the proposed compromise:

"This would involve using the Pacific Solution-era island of Nauru as an immediate interim measure while the government gets its Malaysian deal in place to swap 800 asylum-seekers for 4000 genuine refugees."

I suppose writing Nauru into the deal gives one party the opportunity to save face, which is the only real reason to compromise, IMO, given the ID advice. It will get the deal done.

Regarding the 5 for 1 swap, the numbers involved would be adjusted into our annual migration intake, which was recently raised. Two points of opinion on this.

Firstly, we should be raising the intake given the massively rising number of displaced people in the world.

Secondly, if the Malaysian swap deterrent works, the numbers arriving from Malaysia under the arrangement will dwindle as boat arrivals dry up.

That there is concern by some about the swap ratio perhaps suggests their lack of faith in the swap working.

If it is given a go, we can see if it does, or not. There is an election in two years, by which time it will be apparent. The swap is worth trying and is far preferable to forcibly turning asylum-seekers in unsafe boats back out to danger in abrogation of our moral (and legal) duty.

It is good to hear Philip Ruddock bring some commonsense into the question of Malaysia's status under the UN convention on refugees and it's possible role in the swap. His suggestions are right on the money.

Forrest Gumpp I have never in all my years here seen a better post.
You from a different side of the fence than me put the facts together that I wish I had.
Our country is in trouble, no not just Labors refusal to admit Gillard is the wrong person.
This issue, this easy fixed issue, may now be fixed.
ALL of us, every one every side of the debate, have let our personal views/politics blind us.
This issue is more important that a pub arm wrestle.
Shadow,you weary me, I consider your part retraction spineless, under stand your naming me was the act of a weak person.
You could, if you had it in you, been seen as truly strong, if you true admitted you got it wrong.
Bloke your man wrote a well reported paper, putting Iran up as one place to send some to.
3 Times this went in Hanzard,during question time, as he was jeered for it.
He never defended it.
You are doing a good job, I take it your task is to defame Labor on every issue.
And to defend Conservatives every time on any issue.
But you are part of the problem, a dreadful awful illness taking this country away from honesty in politics.
And to wards Republican America!
We can do better AUSTRALIA!
Your second reference that I construct lies to rebut you, both over estimates your ability's and under estimates mine.
I hope your Christmas is good do not get too close to the BAR B Q .

A few days ago I suggested that the boat may have been overloaded and this is why it capsized.
Having now seen the boat on the TV it looks like it would not have been overloaded at all.
It looks like an inter island ferry and would have capacity well over 300.
It did however appear to have very low freeboard.
If most of the passengers were on the upper deck, where the row of
windows are and presumably where the seating is located and the lower
deck was unloaded then I would not be surprised if it capsized in the
first open sea swell.
It was probably a ferry intended for sheltered waters, not the ocean.
I am surprised the crew would have taken it out.

Whoever organised it should be charged with manslaughter.

Belly,

I spent some time using a search engine going through Hansard, and the only person talking of sending people to Iran was Chris Bowen. So it would be good if you admitted you got it wrong.

I am not defaming Labor, as what I am saying is true

After listening to Abbott's responses on the morning news this morning re a bi-partisan approach over asylum seekers arriving by boat, it becomes abundantly clear that Abbott is the lowest form of political beast there is.

First him and his party spend taxpayers money during their last reign on changing school text books to those promoting xenophobia and racism. Books that distort the truth from history towards the ideological view of the LNP, then they spend the last 15 or 20 years drumming up hysterical fear about boat people in Australians, now wants to dictate to the Govt, the taxpayer, that we should drop everything, come back from our christmas break and do what he says.And magically everything will be solved.

Some knob jockey on this site on another post attempts to blame the Labor Party for this problem.

Instead of contributing to your society, it makes you feel angry enough to want to stay home instead and be disruptive towards it.

Liars,spivs and urgers abound, all frothing at their self righteous mouths, encouraged and inspired by the the lowest lying,urging Spiv in Australia's political history Tony Abbott.

People can die on boat's until you get your way Tony, because it's all about you and your party in opposition that everybody knows should have been the Govt.Isn't that right.

Dear thinker 2,

I guess it's true:

You can't help serving up lemonade if
you've got nothing but lemons to work with.

There are many politicians of principle in
both parties in Australia but the Liberal Party
under Mr Abbott is certainly no party of principle.

Looking at this from an historical angle - a view from above - it seems the West is looking a little like the the dutch boy who plugged up the hole in the dyke with his finger...except in this instance the flow continues.

Humans have always migrated, often in waves, and for whatever reason. That Western countries hold allure for the dispossessed of other countries is not surprising. It's fascinating to watch as we squabble and lay blame as a reaction to our little patch of paradise being coveted by those who are still breeding in the middle-east and beyond.

Things change - humans migrate. If you think for a moment you can ultimately stop it, you're dreaming.

SM you and I know, your last post intended to deceive.
In that quote you found,Chris said, three different times, of the paper suggesting Iran.
You know that and I can say much about you.
But refrain from further because OLO is better than the thoughts I now hold about you.
Many times I , and others, have left or not contributed to your threads.
I think the day must come I make up my mind once and for all what I want to do.
your man, in print, spoke as I said.
I truly, think you are quite aware of that.

Belly it's time to provide some more detail on your claims regarding Morrison wanting to send refugee's to Iran.

I've been trying out the ParlInfo search engine to try and find the references and have not found anything like what you've suggested in 2011. Search criteria Iran (Date:01/01/2011 >> ) Dataset:hansardr,hansardr80,hansards,hansards80 (then checking for places where anyone called Morrison was the speaker or questioner. Found a few but none like what you have claimed.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/summary/summary.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Iran%20%28Date%3A01%2F01%2F2011%20%3E%3E%20%29%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansards,hansards80;resCount=Default

The closest are comments by Bowen, not by Morrison.

It looks to me as if the Iran comments are a Labor invention which you've taken seriously but which don't have any truth to them. I'll happily retract if you can point to a credible record which shows otherwise.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

The following link may clarify things for you:

http://www.asrc.org.au/in-the-news/bizarre-and-unworkable-morrison-plan/

You owe someone an apology.

Thanks Runner for your reply.
You said.....

"Are you so gullible to believe that the Greens really care about the environment? Their is a difference between worshipping the earth and taking care of it.

And the answer is no....

Runner, I know you don't need any reminder, whether it be for the left and the right:).....As for the balance of power, you need little revision on that front as well.

The reason why the Greens are where they are, Iam happy to take the lower seat on this as politics needs a third party or referee.

Yes Iam very much an earth worshiper and I don't try to hide it.

PS Runner. I would like to think we all love the environment since this is the only planet we have got.

Iam sure there are plenty of GOD people that care about it just the same as all of us.

See you round, and Merry Xmas.

CACTUS:)

"You owe someone an apology." or Belly could have backed his claims earlier when asked to do so by Forest. Useful to be able to put the comments in context.

From what appears to be a transcript of the speech I gather this is the part that's sparked the outrage.
"In my view, Australia’s participation in a regional solution for Afghanistan should seek to trade off Australia taking more refugees out of the camps in countries of first asylum in that region in return for the ability to return those who have sought to advantage their asylum claims through illegal entry to Australia, to those same camps or other safe places established for that purpose, as part of the regional solution." I'll have a think about that one, some parts appeal and it would definitely sort out the queue jumping idea.

I did like the following, similar to a point I've made a number of times on OLO (although it depends on what detention means).
"It strikes me as worthy of consideration that we should assess the feasibility of using the time spent in our detention network to provide training, skills and education that will assist those who return to make a greater contribution to their nation’s future. "

Belly I was incorrect in my view that the suggestion was a Labor invention but sources are important. Context means a lot.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

It's big of you to admit that you were wrong in
blaming Labor and I agree that context is important.
However - before making any judgements - it always
pays to Google subjects - one usually finds more
than one source on the web.

The problem here is that we have one party that absolutely MUST forge a solution to the boat problem versus another party that absolutely MUST NOT! The "must nots" have the power in this and, like a cat, is playing with the mouse. "No" is so easy. Meanwhile, desperate people are dying.

This is surely the nadir of Australian politics, making "the dismissal" look like a high.

The Greens must see by now where blind principle can lead. In human history, it has led to some of the greatest injustices. Pol Pot comes to mind.

Given that Mr Abbott has put his own personal ambition ahead of life itself, I call upon the Greens to counter him with the pragmatism needed.

Greens, consider how much longer you want you influence to extend. You have established a beach-head in Australian politics that will quickly evaporate if you perceive a beach-head alone as victory.

Greens, your moment has arrived

LF,

What we have is a labor party that must fix the situation where people are dying that it created, and is proposing a solution that sends people including unaccompanied children to countries to fend for themselves with little or no protection. It allies in government The greens) are so disgusted with it that they prefer to have people die on the high seas.

The opposition has offered a solution that works and gives the refugees the protections required under the UNHCR charter.

The Labor government has said NO to off shore processing unless it is any where but Nauru.

RObert this you should know.
I am no crawler, I understand you are from the opposite side of the fence.
But too you are a balanced poster,I hold no concerns about your minor mistake.
You rise head and shoulders above another in retracting it.
Lexi thanks,I do not research well, but do not lie either.
3 times in question time the statement was made direct to him, he never defended himself.
I should have remembered the BARON of MUD, would need far more than truth .
I ask this, of CONSERVATIVES not my fellow travelers.
Just read this thread again, as if you are looking for truth, not putting a road block to it.
SM has here displayed not much resemblance to it.
The tactic, remember it is that,of changing the subject to labors past sins.
Is with intent, to stop that spotlight swinging around in the darkness to fix on NEGATIVE MAN
remember watch the polls this issue is descriptive of conservatives unfitness to rule.
SM thanks for not withdrawing, thanks for changing the subject.
It proves my view mirrors side show alley!

Belly,

Before you get your dander up, the only references to sending refugees to Iran in HANSARD are those of Chris Bowen, not by Morrison as you claimed. Perhaps you should read the actual speech given by Morrison, not the article by the Asylum Seeker Resource centre with its selectively excised bits of his speech.

http://www.scottmorrison.com.au/info/speech.aspx?id=179&page=1

Morrison was not advocating sending people to Iran, rather that if Juliar was to copy the Comprehensive Plan of Action that worked in Indochina, using East Timor was useless, and that if it was to work that the countries of first refuge would need to be the focus point. As the follows excerpts show:

“In framing the regional processing idea the Prime Minister and others have sought to draw parallels with the Indochinese refugee crisis, and in particular the Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The Prime Minister is working from a false premise.

Firstly, camps were established in places of first asylum in the region where asylum claims were assessed to determine eligibility for resettlement, under the auspices of the UNHCR.

The regional crisis that faces us today is centred on Afghanistan and surrounding nations – that is where a regional solution is needed. That is where Australia should be focussing our diplomatic efforts for a genuine solution that draws together and implements the lessons of the response to the Indochinese refugee crisis. “

He reaffirmed the coalition policy: (trimmed)

The first solution the region needs is for Australia to change our domestic policies – and restore the suite of measures, with enhancements, that have proved to be effective in the past.

1. Reinstate temporary protection visas – and deny the people smugglers a product to sell;

2. Re-open the processing center in Nauru;

3. restoring the policy to turn boats back

4. Tighten the appeals system ;

5. End Labor’s no doc entry process for illegal boat arrivals ;

6. Implement a returns policy to ensure those whose asylum claims have failed go back to their home country;

7. Afford priority processing status to offshore special humanitarian visa applicants ,over illegal boat arrivals,

Belly, I do agree with SM's last post. Have a read on Morrison's speech to see what he actually said rather than the spin put on it by Labor (and refugee .

I don't get the emphasis put on either Nauru or Malaysia by the two major parties. Processing on Nauru does have the advantage of it being largely under our control and perhaps the spin off of providing some much needed financial input into their economy without it being straight handout's. The obsession with either solution though does have the stench of political point scoring rather than seeking best outcomes though.

One of the problems with the whole claim of boat people being queue jumpers is the suggestion that there is no queue, eg if you are sitting in a camp in Pakistan, Iran etc there may not be a legal and real means to seek entry to Australia. Not sure what the truth is on that claim. Morrison's proposal if taken at face value (yeah I know he's a politician so that's a stretch) would ensure that there was a queue, queue jumpers would be sent to the back of the line.

Clearly there is a lot that could be done to help those waiting in the camps, those who may not have the funds to get to Australia or do much else to help themselves. Giving them hope, some skill's, better living conditions are all things we could do without needing to run prison camps in Australia or Nauru.

R0bert

Butch and susie,
You should blame Labor. They dismantled a process that was working and put in its place a carrot to entice these people to engage smugglers to ship them here.

Now, after billions of our dollars wasted, and some 400, or more, lives are lost, the government suddenly wants to talk about Nauru. Mind you they will not admitt their ideology was wrong and they stuffed up, again.

Still nothing about the illegals being denied Permanent residence and all the perks that go with that, and unless they do Nauru will fail as well, so the illegals problem will continue.

I wonder if we can endure another 2 years of this stupidity. Poor fella, my country.

R0bert wrote: "I don't get the emphasis put on either Nauru or Malaysia by the two major parties."

One is a stalking horse and one is a solution, R0bert.

From an earlier link "...senior Coalition sources said yesterday Mr Abbott should acknowledge Immigration Department advice that opposition policy for processing on Nauru alone would no longer act as a deterrent."

The Immigration Department obviously talks to refugees about their motivations. If their words aren't enough, their desperate fight in many SIEV episodes to be detained under Australian care, anywhere including Nauru, rather than be forced back to sea, by their actions tell the story.

Nauru is clearly a device, not a solution. Using asylum seekers worked a treat for Mr Howard and Mr Abbott reckons it'll work for him too. Thing is, John Howard had more ammo' left in his locker (including incumbancy) while Mr Abbott is all out, so things are really, really desperate. Boats = Votes.

Enough has been written here about the Malaysian swap arrangement to pick up the main points, R0bert. The general idea of a swap doesn't phase Scott Morrison, he just wants to change the swap region. Does that mean it has to be his region or no region?

Let the Coalition, when in power (OMG they are in power, sorry, I meant when in government), forge its own properly thought through and negotiated swap arrangements with other countries. Right now, however, why should nothing more than a geographical nuance within a bizarre thought bubble be an impediment to solving the immediate problem? (Of course, someone here will spout just how marvelous it is being an Afghan in Iran compared to Malaysia).

Firstly however, according to Mr Morrison we must re-implement a hardened up Pacific Solution, including restoring its only working element, the policy to turn boats back. Boat arrivals would stop right there, albeit inhumanely and against UN convention, no swap arrangement necessary.

Therefore, we are back to either the Malaysian or Pacific Solutions. Don't be side-tracked from this essential dichotomy

A difference between Iran and Malaysia

Iran is a party to relevant conventions regarding the status of Refugee's, Malaysia is not
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

Country Convention Protocol
Iran, Islamic Republic of 28 Jul 1976 a 28 Jul 1976 a

I don't know in reality how much difference it makes to the treatment of refugee's within those countries.

On the face of it sending someone to a country that is a party to the convention's is easier to justify than sending them to a country that's not a party but reality does not always work that way.

Nauru is not on that list (but has now signed) and wasn't as I understand it a signatory when coalition government was sending people there.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

May I humbly suggest that Belly is absolutely right
in getting his "dander" up and it is you guys who
need to actually read the facts.

Had you bothered to read the full article of the link
I gave - you would have realised that Scott Morrison
spoke at the Lowy Institute and outlined the Coalition's
proposal for what they planned to do with asylum seekers.
Sending them back to Iran was definitely part of the plan.
This was also confirmed by Morrison to Ali Moore in his
interview on Lateline (21/06/2011).

It's very disappointing to say the least that you're buying
the spin that Shadow Minister continues to sell. I thought
you were better than that. Obviously I was wrong.

Lexi more to the point your obsessive hatred of the coalition is distorting your perspective very badly.

SM is far more biased than I prefer but that does not mean that he's always wrong. In the post I referred to he made some good points.

I don't much like either sides approach but the whole issue of dealing with refugee's seems like a no win scenario. We don't have the resources to solve the whole problem, showing compassion seems to encourage more to make the trip and I don't want our country to have to stoop to the depths that either Gillard or Abbott seem to want to take it to discourage the boat arrivals without offering better options.

Morrison's comments should be taken in context with the point about taking more from the first points of refuge, something the anti-coalition voices seem to have forgotten to mention. Maybe that does not play so well for the spin.

R0bert

Lexi,

If you had read the transcript of lateline interview:

"The proposal I made last November was not instead of reopening Nauru, it was not instead of reintroducing temporary protection visas. What I was advocating in that speech was effectively a mirroring of the arrangements put in place after the Indo-Chinese crisis in the 80s. I was advocating that the UNHCR should take a lead to put a framework in place in the Central Asian region in which Australia could take Parliament, as could the US, Canada, New Zealand, the UK. So what I was proposing was not an Australian bilateral deal with one country. What I was suggesting is what we want the UNHCR to do is to take a lead in the Central Asian region,"

Which is IF the UNHCR puts something in place that complies with the UNHCR charter Australia would participate, not a Australian only arrangement. Where if it was safe people could be returned to UNHCR administered refuges, and most organised a safe return to their own countries. Which is very different from the Malaysian solution.

This would not a replacement to the Pacific solution, rather

Again denial of facts.
Insulting references to those who think differently as driven by hate or not understanding.
I truly could roll on the floor laughing, but it is more a matter to cry over.
I make this challenge, SM sits on his high horse waiting for my forecasts to fail.
But makes none of his own.
Polls, next few, will show NEGATIVE MAN is not doing his team much good.
INCREASINGLY, Abbott's team is not all behind him, he walks on thin ice.
2012 is his final year, part of it, as leader of his party.

As we near our brand new year,before we sully it with our words of rage.
Can I thank every poster I have squabbled with this past year?
All of you have helped me grow.
That young man who left that small school has been hooked totally, on learning from that day.
Your informative education you gave me is adding to my learning.
You SM,RM, BANJO, MATE, showed me the truth
There are CERTAINTY'S ABSOLUTES even gravity may well be untrue.
It is certain Labor is always totally wrong.
I can ABSOLUTELY be charged that my every word is Labor bias, yours considered thought.
Been a fun year.
Safe ground here, might get one thing right this year.
Having been hood winked in to thinking NEGATIVE MAN is a self seeker with no ideas or talent.
And giving him more blame than any one for recent boat deaths.
I think we, middle Australia, have forgotten.
If the Greens truly cared, the fools could get around the NEGATIVITY
Just think, by voting with Labor, taking NEGATIVITY'S TOYS away,no more drownings!
However humanity runs last if the race is named self interest.
enjoy your holidays!

Dear Belly,

Thank You for your kind words and I second your
wishes to everyone for a Warm and Joyous Festive
Season and a Healthy, Safe, and Prosperous New
Year. May we all have plenty of reasons to smile
in 2012.

We've had some very robust discussion during
this year - that's for sure. People have accused
us of "hatred," towards the Liberal Party. How can
anyone "hate" a party. One can only point out its
faults (as we see them) and hope for a change
of leadership soon. - Which
is after all what most of us try to do - (some more
persistently) regardless of our political leanings. Anyway,
enjoy this Festive Season.

All The Best,

Belly,

Unlike you I tend not to make predictions based on what I would like to happen, rather on facts and trends.

In Late 2008 I predicted that the abolition of the pacific solution would lead to thousands perhaps even tens of thousands coming, and you scoffed. In Sept 2010 I predicted that the most successful strategy for Abbott would be a negative one, and that for Oakeshott and Windsor that their conservative electorates would turn on them, especially if Juliar's government was perceived as a failure.

As for the talks between Morrison and Bowen, there are several indicators that give me hope:

One, that the posturing has stopped and both sides are keeping discussions confidential, which indicates that they are negotiating in earnest.
Two, that Labor is starting to back down, which means they realise that this is killing them in the polls, no matter how they try to share the blame with the coalition.

What I feel is that for the coalition to have buy in to the final outcome, they must be satisfied that it won't be another half rsed labor stuff up to which they get part responsibility, and that they won't accept Nauru being opened just as a gesture.

I foresee that for Labor to get Malaysia as well as Nauru, they will need to implement at least the TPVs.

Belly, your thanks to others for you education is magnanimous.

I admit to being bit miffed that you left me off your list, but perhaps you only wish to mention those you have squabbled with, or sought apologies from.

You listed one that is never wrong, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and when major government departments and the leader of his/her own political party disagree with him/her.

Even better, he/she has 20/20 foresight so that all one need do is read OLO to see how each day will end, a horror-scope!

Regarding your forecast for Mr Abbott, whether he stays or whether he goes, it's all good!

Enjoy your holidays too.

Belly and Lexi,
Happy Christmas to both of you and to your families.

Interesting next year, will Rudd make a comeback? Some say yes, I wont predict. Belly says Abbott will go. Spose that could be but while he is leading the polls why should the libs change. Gillard is doing a good self distruct job.

Anyway tomorrow is a family day and boxing day will see me glued to the box watching the start of the Sydney-Hobart and following by tracker on the PC for next few days, indispersed with cricket updates.

Hope my young and favourate team does well, but weather could be rough, a big test for young ones.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You and the same to you and your family.
I love the Sydney to Hobart race as well -
and will be watching.

Not sure about either Rudd or Abbott. But things
can change in politics in a flash as we all know.
I'd love Malcolm Turnbull to challenge for the
leadership - but as you say that probably won't
happen (unless he can get the numbers).

Hopefully next year will see many of our current
problems on the way to being resolved. When does
Parliament go back - anyone know? We're going to
be in Canberra towards the end of Feb. (for the
Rennaissance art exhibit at the National Gallery).
I'd love to go to "Question Time." But I suspect
they don't go back until sometime in March.

Enjoy your Christmas - and Thanks for keeping me on my
toes during 2011. You made me think seriously about
so many issues.

Merry Xmas to all my favourite sparring partners, and to your families.

I am sure that a solution will be reached within a couple of weeks, and I am sure that none of us will like it.

Merry Christmas every one. Eat drink & be joyous, & recharge your batteries for a cracker new year.

Please be careful on the roads, there'll be quite a few there, who are still a bit too merry & shouldn't be out & about, so extra care folks, so you can see in the new year in style.

Thanks each of you.
Hasbeen, you give me this opportunity.
Please every one,think about road safety.
At this time of the year joy happiness and excitement kills.
Far too many forget drive to survive.
Joy turns to horrible tragic events.
Lifetimes of if only.
If only I could return to the day before , leave early drive slower, or just be late.
Emergency services road first response workers.
Other travels
Under stand we all hold in our care our passengers our selves and other motorists.

As the year draws to a close, I would like to remember the nearly 600 that have perished at sea since the Pacific solution was abolished.

Dear Belly & Lexi,
Here is wishing you both all the very best for 2012, may you keep on posting, and standing up for what you believe in.
Having said the above, I think that our two political parties are to blame, both sides need to eradicate the useless point scoring debacle and get down to important solutions to Australias' problems.
I am not sure what they are trying to achieve, but it would be a good thing if they indulged in a lot more efficiency in trying to process the asylum seekers and doing their jobs which, I am reminded again, are funded by the tax-payers....in the real world, they would have been sacked long ago, for wasting precious time at the expense of others.
Cheers for now,
Noisy Scrub Bird.

Dear Noisy,

A great Big Hug and the Warmest of Wishes to You
and Your Family. May the New Year prove to be
better than the last (for us all)
and may we continue to count
our blessings in this wonderful country of ours.

Hopefully our pollies will come through for us in
the end - and that an amicable and satisfactory solution
will be reached regarding asylum seekers.

Finger-pointing
and playing politics has not achieved anything to date. The
time now is for some rational thinking and not the attitude -
"Do it My Way or Else!" But I won't hold my breath. The only
way that things may change - is if there is a change in the
Party Leadership.

NSB,

Interesting, perhaps you could point out the coalition policies, that have been implemented, that have caused this great rush of boats?

If you can't, then Labor is entirely to blame.

Lexi, I agree that it will take a change of Party in leadership to resolve the problems.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I received the most superb Christmas email
from Malcolm Turnbull. I assume you would
have received one as well. It was charming,
witty, and beautifully expressed. A high
note in my Christmas mail as he'd obviously
gone to some trouble with it (either that
or he's got excellent staff). Anyway,
it certainly impressed me and my family.
Which just to goes to show that there are some
fine politicians around.

I got one too, also one from Juliar, and another honourable politician Tony Abbott.

Lexi well said.
Heard a rumor Turnbulls first move on retaking the leadership is to launch one more refugee boat.
Abbott Pyne both Bishops it seems will be launched heading for much loved Nehru.
A tent for a home , nothing fit to live in there now.

We've got to have a sense of humour don't we.
Still our pollies are not as crazy at the ones
in the US. Anyone been watching the American
elections? On a happier note - I went and saw
the new film - 'The Iron Lady,' with Meryl Streep
and actually felt a bit of nostalgia for Col Rouge.
Can't help wondering if he's seen the film yet.
Stupid question, I know.

Happy New Year Everyone - May this next year be full
of rewards and opportunities for all of us, and that
we handle the disappointments with grace and wisdom!

All The Best.