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

Entertaining post about Clive Palmer NT, SPQR, but what of his idea?

Oh Dear, this idea is probably the most impractical that I have seen so far.
Do you really think that there are enough aircraft available to bring
the millions that would front up ?

The one positive thing the smugglers do is to filter out those who are
aware of the dangers at sea.

A more practical scheme might be to charter the Queen Mary and run a
ferry service from Indonesia to Melbourne.
Melbourne wants to be bigger than Sydney so lets help them.

@ Luciferase

<<entertaining post about Clive Palmer NT, SPQR, but what of his idea?

As Sheldon would say: “Pure hokum!”

For further details, see the comment from Bazz, above.

Well it's a step up from the ten pound poms.

It is my understanding that Clive Palmer never offered to fly or ferry refugees into Australia, but rather to allow them to pay their own $800 air-ticket and come.

<<allow them to pay their own $800 air-ticket and come>>

LOL

Two weeks of (Oz) welfare would reimburse their seed capital.

And three months welfare would be enough to secure the passage of their relos.

With that sort of return-on-investment it would be a real growth industry

<<Two weeks of (Oz) welfare would reimburse their seed capital>>

That's of course only if you give them any.

As per my suggestion (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5241#141903), they will remain on tourist visas and only be eligible for welfare once they are Australian citizens, many years later.

@ Yuyutsu,

<<That's of course only if you give them any...As per my suggestion...>>

But unless you are really Julia Gillard operating under the pseudonym Yuyutsu.

And I doubt that can be the case since Susilo (bang bang) Yudhoyono &
Julia (pop pop) Gillard are supping together tonight in Brizzy .

Your suggestion aint going to be much of a goer

Jurplesman, it’s an interesting idea from dear old Clive.

This is my considered opinion.

Reduce immigration to net zero. That’s an intake of about 35000 per annum when it stabilises, as far as I can determine.

Within this, raise the refugee category from the current ~13000 to about double: 25000. That is; refugees sourced from our offshore programs, being those most urgently in need of resettlement. We could then have ~7000 for essential skills and family reunion…and ~3000 for asylum seekers who are willing to pay their way to come here by air.

But only if we have….

Net zero immigration.

A strict limit on the number of onshore asylum-seekers coming by air.

And an end to onshore asylum seeking by boat.

If irregular arrivals are allowed to come by air, then transferred to offshore destinations approved by the UN, then processed to await their turn for resettlement, the message will go on up the line to points of first refuge that attempting advanced placement by arriving directly is a pointless exercise. Australia will draw its refugee intake from around the world and not favour those arriving directly.

This, together with a large increase (tripling) in the annual refugee intake is something the will drive the UN to bless the arrangement. Such an annual increase has only minor impact on the total population projected over the next ten years and this should be understood by OLO'ers before knees jerk into reaction.

A multiplicity of offshore transfer destinations should be investigated. The idea that it should be only Nauru will only bring expense and the very possible problem of under-resourcing the scale of the arrangement so it is overrun before it bites.

The three alternatives to this are the status quo, the Greens way with its limitlessness, or stopping entry to asylum seekers by force. The first of these is responsible for a death rate of 4% of arrivals. The second has no hope of acceptance by the large majority of Australians. The last of these is something the nation rejects, IMO, but will vote for in the absence of any other solution (the coalition's strategy).

I come back to the Greens and the need for them to see their future dying by paving the way for the coalition's strategy.

Luciferase,

<<If irregular arrivals are allowed to come by air, then transferred to offshore destinations approved by the UN>>
<< A multiplicity of offshore transfer destinations should be investigated>>

Wu up a minute, Luciferase. Your side has just walloped us with a Carbon Tax (remember?).

But now you’re proposing allowing (read,encouraging) the illegals to 747 in from half way around the world.Then you’ll 787 them half way back across the world to an approved UN centre [no doubt equipped with all the latest developed worlds naughty CO2 producing conveniences]. So that they might sit a while until their number in the queue is called –as it inevitably will since they are in no way disqualified –then you'll 787 back to OZ-- or the US or Canada or the UK (all many carbon burning kilometres away)

It’s not April 1st is it?

[have you run that plan by your climate guru Tim Flannery?]

Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler and economically & environmentally less costly to toughen our onshore procedures?

And I am NOT exaggerating—see below:

"An empty 737 plane chartered by the Federal Government was used to transfer a single asylum seeker from Christmas Island to Perth at the weekend."
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/14036715/737-chartered-for-one-asylum-seekers/

Clive Parlmer's immigration policy is not worthy of discussion

However Ludwig, yours has merritt and I would not have to modify it much.

The point is Australia should gain from allowing others to share what our forebears have built. At present the only ones to gain are the immigrants, property developers and retailers.

Simply increasing our population is not an advantage.

"Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler and economically & environmentally less costly to toughen our onshore procedures?"

No, because over a reasonably short time arrivals would be discouraged to a stop under the offshore arrangement. Under an onshore arrangement with detention we'd have the status-quo (without the drownings) or, without detention, we'd have the Greens scheme.

Where's the disincentive, SPQR, in the onshore arrangement?

Also, there would be considerable internal pressure to limit the detention period to way, way less than that refugees might wait for resettlement in offshore locations.

Luciferase,
I am not proposing the Green’s idiotic open door, rubber stamp all comers approach.

The below well encapsulates our problem -–and hints at its solution:

“At its core perhaps the biggest embarrassment in this whole debate is the way that Australian law-makers (politicians) are running away from Australian law. The whole unsavoury point of offshore processing is to restrict boat people from Australia's appeals courts, which give them numerous opportunities to prove their refugee status. That's why Christmas Island was excluded from the migration zone in the first place. That's why politicians want the navy to intercept boats and ship them to offshore sites, whether it's Nauru or Malaysia or anywhere else.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/australian-politicians-are-adrift-on-a-sea-of-hypocrisy-writes-peter-van-onselen/story-e6frezz0-1226413146824

Toughen our processes/ assessments. As it currently stands over 90% of “asylum seekers” get through before or after appeals.
(including only god knows how many capt Emads-or worse!)
With those sorts of odds why wouldn’t you give it a try!

<<There are at least three points where we could staunch illegal maritime immigration:
1) Discourage accomplishes.
2) Toughen scrutiny , &
3 Reduce entitlements.
And each one has been effectively castrated.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5233&page=0>>

"Toughen our processes/ assessments."

As a statement, SPQR, this rolls off the tongue quickly but what does it mean?

If Nauru was about keeping the legal process at bay how does onshore processing help your cause? In what ways should we "toughen" without denying natural justice or contravening our obligations under the UN convention?

The onshore "solution" does not discourage direct arrivals. Any law that is not supported by the UN or contravenes the refugee convention will be put down in our High Court.

As stated in another post I would welcome Clive Palmer into parliament with open arms, but only as an independent. He and the likes of Katter stirring the possums, (or is it feeding the chooks for Queenslanders?) would be great for our parliament.

I thought his push to get lobbyists out of party positions was an excellent idea and all Australians who care about their democracy should have applauded it.

As to Clive's idea about flying in Asylum Seekers we all ready do it. The majority come in by air but only 20 percent of these are even given refugee status. The minority who come by boat have between a 75-90% success rate. Therefore we are forcing the group who is the most legitimate to undertake a dangerous sea journey at highly inflated costs.

Let them fly instead, most of them could afford to pre-purchase a return ticket at the prices the smugglers charge so if unsuccessful they could be flown back at no expense to the Australian government.

But most importantly it would save lives. Anybody who discounts or disregards this, or wishes the risk to continue to deter desperate people are cruel, hateful, misguided and inhuman and should be denounced at every opportunity, and I'm happy to include the Greens in that lot as well.

I think it would serve Australia well to have a little more humanity brought back into the debate.

Luciferase,

<<As a statement, SPQR, this rolls off the tongue quickly but what does it mean?>>


I'm not necessarily opposed to offshore processing. It no doubt has a part to play. But as some have said in relation to climate change amelioration, we should pick the low hanging fruit first.

After what you (or, at least the rest of us) have seen with regard to capt Emad & family (ALL of whom still hold “genuine ” refugee classifications by the way!). And the Burmese “refugees” who admitted to taking part in regime killings.And the Somalis “refugees” who went back to fight for al-Shabaab. And all the other “refugees” who see fit to return home on VFR— are you still trying to maintain that our processes cannot be tightened?

And just in case you weren't aware -- the parliament of Australia makes the law of OZ, and the High Court needs to operate within those law.

I suspect that only a very small percentage, perhaps 5% are genuine
refugees. The rest are economic immigrants.
Anyone who believes different is a mad trendy fashion follower.

Bear in mind in a time of zero growth everything that they get here
whether earned or not comes out of your pocket.
We now have a fixed size cake, and each slice they take is a slice you
cannot give to your children.

At some point in the future that cake will get a little smaller and
keep getting smaller.
The only way we can now take immigrants is if we reduce our population first.

Don't like it ? Well tough, thats the way it is so live with it !

csteele,

You ignore the question of the total numbers we might be likely to get. This article shows the UNHCR statistics as of this time last year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/20/unhcr-report-refugee-numbers-15-year-high

Note that in addition to the 15 million refugees, there are more than 27 million internally displaced people and 12 million stateless people. How many of them all do you want us to take? One reason why so many of us are against the 1951 Refugee Convention is the open ended nature of the commitment.

You also seem to believe that the higher acceptance rates for asylum seekers arriving by boat are because genuine refugees are more likely to arrive in this way (why?). Airlines and legitimate shipping lines are held financially responsible for bringing people without valid travel documents into Australia, so they avoid doing it. This means that we know the identities and nationalities of asylum seekers who arrive by air. If their asylum claims fail, they can be sent back, because governments cannot afford to dishonour their own travel documents.

Those who arrive rregularly by boat can afford to destroy their travel documents (a pretty good clue that a claim isn't genuine, as a genuine refugee would want to establish his/her identity). They can then tell an uncheckable story that ticks the boxes of the Refugee Convention. No official wants to take the chance of rejecting an asylum seeker who is then sent back and killed, so they are given the benefit of the doubt. We can't send them back in any case if we don't know who they are or where back is. This also gives their home countries an excuse not to cooperate.

csteele,
I have a far better plan than you or Palmer.

Continue processing at Christmas Island.

They get one shot at proving they are genuine refugees, no appeals and no legal aid.

Those successfull get TPVs for 5 years and no family reunion rights ever.

Those that fail and have documentation are sent packing.

Those that do not have any docs are sent to Macquarie Island (our land) where they are housed and the UN informed that they are stateless persons and are now the UN's responsibility. We could fly these to Hobart and then by Oceanic Viking to Macquarie Island. She could keep an eye out for possible fishing poachers on the way. The illegals advocates could keep themselves amused by knitting some woollen jumpers for the illegals.

I garrantee this will reduce the numbers and sort out the sheep from the goats

Dear Divergence,

Those millions are not going to suddenly land on our doorstep, that is absurd fear-mongering, I know it and you know it, so why not park it?

I suspect, and the figures bear me out, that those without documentation are more likely to be found to be refugees. Those who have had to flee suddenly from persecution and death may well be caught in a position of not being able to secure their documents. I would be far more suspicious of a boat load who had all their documentation in order. Wouldn't you?

But if they do have everything required then why not fly them in at their expense with a prepaid return ticket in hand if needed?

Dear Banjo,

Luckily there are decent people in this country who would like to see a more humane solution found.

csteele,
Where is my plan inhumane? None will drown.

It is called dissincentive, only the genuine need apply.

I would be willing to fly them from Indonesia to Christmas Island, if they had docs. Check on boarding.

If they flew into Malaysia or Indonesia, they would have docs.

Where does it say they should be housed in a tropical climate. Am sure the UN will take good care of them after they pick them up from Macquarie.

csteele,
what's humane about having your country invaded by a fundamentalist religious agenda ?

Dear Banjo,

I wasn't talking about drowning.

How many of the Jews that we took in after WW2 had all their papers. Their records and synagogues were destroyed. Should they have been abandoned on Macquarie Island too?

I'm proud that my country is a part of the UN Refugee convention which for the most part accepts the obligations it imposes. We take only modest numbers compared to the need and other countries. But the toxic public debate that has been fuelled by our politicians has allowed views like yours oxygen. I am not proud of that.

Dear individual,

We are not being invaded by a fundamentalist religious agenda so what is your point?

.....are you still trying to maintain that our processes cannot be tightened?"

Of course not, where the bucket leaks fix it and I'm assuming that's what the authorities do when they find a leak. What are you proposing, SPQR, something more prejudicial, such as risk assessment and the granting of tourist visas to certain ethnic groups?

Regarding the High Court vs Parliament, the current Migration Act precludes Malaysia as much as it does Nauru, so must be changed by parliament to enable either prospect. The opposition, if it wins a ruling majority, can change the law, while Labor is always at the mercy of the Greens to do so. That's why Joel Fitzgibbon is right to want to push the boundaries on the alliance. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labor-mp-joel-fitzgibbon-questions-green-alliance/story-fncynkc6-1226416297059

csteele, I'm not sure whether you count me as someone who "... wishes the risk to continue to deter desperate people" as cruel, hateful, misguided and inhuman". Does your statement refer to those in support of offshore processing?

csteele,
The fact is that the illegal boat arrivals are shonks. They fly to Malaysia and get to our waters by coruption, bribery and buying their way. Genuine refugees would come via the front door because it is cheaper, with any docs they had and present themselves for assesment. Not pay many times more to hop over the back fence. The illegals are gate crashers who are coached to lie to our officials and destroy their docs so we cannot actually identify them and validate their stories. We cannot send them back, so we take the easy way out.

Aussies do not like being conned.

We need to take tough action to let them know we are serious and the influx of boats will be stopped.

The Howard government took far too long to implement the required action and now, thanks to Rudd, the illegals know we are soft and stupid so much stronger action is now required.

All immigrants, including assesed refugees, should not get family reunion rights. Legal aid should only be given to Australian citizens.

Past time the UN refugee agreement was gone over and changes made to our immigration policies. Perhaps we should withdraw from the UN entirely.

Everyone on here are not considering that EVERYTHING has changed !

We are now in a time of zero growth at the End of Growth.
We cannot accept migration or a natural increase in population without
a decrease in standard of living.

All those wanting to accept the illegals at their word please list
what facilities and products you will do without.
Please no comments unless you first list those items.

Thanks for the support Banjo.

There is one more requirement to my idea of allowing ~3000 asylum seekers to come here each year by air, and that is a complete clamp-down of visa overstayers and the current airborne onshore asylum seeking movement that stems from it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all visa overstayers should be expelled forthwith, but it does mean aligning the law with general practice.

And if some are to gain asylum by that means, then they need to be included within this ~3000 asylum-seeker figure.

The key point is that we have got to have control over our borders and over all aspects of our immigration program.

The wonderful thing is that we can do this, and have all the essential elements of a stable population / sustainable society, essential skills intake and a highly respectable humanitarian immigration program, all at the same time.

Or at least, we would be able to do this, easily, if only we had a half-decent government or a half-decent opposition (next government)!

csteele.

I never claimed that we would get all or a even a large proportion of the world's people who have a genuine humanitarian claim, just that there are a great many of them. (If you include all the people who might like a better life, you are talking about billions.) Even so, we might be able to get enough to be severely disruptive. Britain got half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004. This doesn't include dependants who arrived later. See the Home Office figures

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Note that only 23% were found to be genuine, including after appeal. 14% were given leave to remain, although found to not be refugees, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but often because there was no practical way to deport them. All the rest were classed as failed asylum seekers, but only 24% were deported. Refugee advocates blithely talk about deporting fraudulent claimants, but that isn't so easy if you can't prove where they are from or the home country won't cooperate.

Others say that we are protected from large numbers by being surrounded by water, but so is the UK. On another thread, Yabby pointed out that he or some other entrepreneur could easily bring in huncreds of thousands of people by buying up old sheep transport ships.

Apart from (very few) Tamils who came directly from Sri Lanka (and I would make an exception in this case), the boat people would have had to have travel documents to get through one or more transit countries. Airlines won't take you if you don't have them. Tell us another.

Ludwig,
As I said i would not have to modify your immigration plan much.

You and I may not agree on climate change or some other things but I think we are both practical and realize that people have to make a living and the country must make enough funds to pay for neccessary changes.

We may agree and disagree on other things also but I call it as I see it, as I am sure you do.