I heard recently that Clive Palmer suggested that he had an alternative plan to deal with illegal boat arrivals. His plan is to allow anybody who wanted to land illegally in Australia, to let them pay $10,000 for an airfare, instead of paying this amount to people's smugglers.
Then when they arrive in Australia to process their application for refugee status in a processing centre or centers in Australia. It is not clear whether Clive Palmer had in mind off-shore or on-shore processing centers (what would be the disincentive?)
I find this is novel idea worth considering. I am asking readers here to consider this proposition; and what the possible pros and cons would be by allowing refugees to fly to Australia instead of paying people's smugglers. 
How do you see this situation - a good or bad idea and why?

It shows like Julia and Labor he does not realize or care what the majority of people want which is to stop them coming not make it so easy we would be overwhelmed quickly. As a multi millionaire he would appreciate the extra workers to drive down labor costs, million more in his pocket.
Personally I do not want my tax rate raised or reduced welfare services to support thousands of potential welfare for lifers. Also people who get preferential treatment for housing etc.

Here's what we're looking at jurplesman http://www.news.com.au/national/let-asylum-seekers-fly-in-palmer/story-e6frfkvr-1226412973378

He's talking about undermining the boat business with a fare that undercuts the boat fare by 90%. This obviously raises lots of questions he probably hasn't thought through.

The obvious principal upon which Clive's proposal is predicated is that if we are not going to turn boats back by force to to Indonesia we should not stand in the way of alternative modes of arrival.

Obviously, Clive is out of touch with the views of some here on OLO who are overt or closeted in their position on that point.

His proposal does pry open the whole issue and I like that about it. So, for those willing to countenance Clive's proposal, even if it is against your basic position on the use of force against "irregular arrives", I'm interested to see where the discussion goes.

Are you working for Qantas, Jurplesman?

Now seriously, anyone should be able to fly in (or arrive by ship/boat, swim, walk on the water or ride on the back of a wild goose) and enter Australia on a tourist visa so long as they can prove that they have the means to support themselves in Australia, including a ticket back, or have Australian sponsors (either individuals or organizations) that are willing to provide for them here (yes, Clive Palmer may be one of those!). In other words, they should prove that they won't be a nuisance while in Australia. A bond may also be required to vouch for their good behaviour. Those with no funds or sponsors, should be sent back on the same plane (or goose).

All new migrants should pay a flat fee for migrating - or someone should pay it for them. Apart from health and character, this should be the only requirement to migrate to Australia and refugees are to be no exception. Also, migrants should not be entitled to welfare until many years later when they become citizens.

Those people and charities who care for refugees, should be the ones to care for them, not the government. They could for example set up their private processing centers where they house and feed those that claim to be refugees with no money or other support. They could also set their own criteria, terms and conditions on whom they accept into those centers and inform airport-authorities about these criteria for immediate matching. They could then conduct their own assessment whether the people in their centers are genuine refugees or otherwise: if they find them to be genuine, then they can pay the fee to make them a resident - otherwise (assuming no other sponsors come up), they may send them back.

In summary, those who care for refugees should prove so with their own pockets. If we are caring-loving people, then to that extent will refugees be welcome, no more, no less.

Exactly Yuyutsu,
Let the rich or middle class do gooders support Refugees from their own pockets, I don't really care about "taxpayers money" and "Welfare cheats" as much as I do the issue of inequality. It's not the issue that the government is importing a non White underclass its that they're importing and underclass at all.
Look at Canada's experience with Tamil "Asylum Seekers", apart from their propensity for crime 70% of them have subsequently returned to Sri Lanka on business or for holidays.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html

What a difference a day makes, ay?

Clive Palmer campaigns against the mining tax and, in Wayne Swan's words, he’s part of a “ 0.01 per cent group, who mobilise their considerable wealth against policies designed to benefit the majority”.

He wants to build Australia’s biggest coal mine in proximity to the Great Barrier Reef and he’s associated with “ buffoonish caricature capitalists”.

He tells us that he has uncovered a plot involving the CIA , the Rockefeller Foundation and The Green's and it’s labeled “bizarre” .
And some are asking if he’ll be talking about UFOs and the Australian branch of the Illumnati next.

For everyone left of centre he’s up there with those other dastardly, multibillionaire magnates Gina Rinehart, Andrew Forrest & Rupert Murdoch.

But then, he expresses similar views on illegal immigration -–and suddenly, he’s got credibility-- they take down his craven image from their pantheon of baddies & reposition it in their pantheon of goodies, right next to Gough.

If I cry poor will Clive send me $10,000 too?

NO, jurplesman, Clive will NOT save you -- and, it will NOT do Tony Abbott's prospects any harm being seen to be at odds with him