Dear Philip S.,

You apparently got your information from looking at the map. I got my information from talking with refugees. My wife was a volunteer who helped integrate refugees into Australian society by teaching them English. She can teach English without knowing the language of her students. Sure, they hope to live a better life in Australia, but their main motivation was definitely not to make more money. Australia is a land where one can speak freely, practice any or no religion and generally live a decent life without fear of arbitrary violence. I appreciate Australia and so do they.

Alexander Aan is an Indonesian who openly admitted he was an atheist. He is spending two years in prison for that offense. Australia is a country which is far more tolerant of dissenters. It could be better than it is, but it already is better in that respect than a lot of other places.

Dismiss them as economic refugees if it makes you feel better.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You accused me of bluster. Bluster - To speak loudly or in a bullying way. I have not done so. If you want me to respond to you address me politely and with respect.

david f - your whole reply to my comment does not address the fact that they have bypassed a lot of countries where they could have sought asylum, there are countries that were closer that they could have got exactly what you said they supposedly wanted.
Here is another one for you can you explain why the majority on a lot these boats are 95% men, when in Africa and Syria they are mostly women and children?

Poirot, thanks. ( :>(

.

Pericles:

<< I suspect that much of the Green support comes from the vast army of public servants, who are essentially a form of middle-class welfare recipient. They are answerable only to themselves, and have been largely protected - through endemic featherbedding - from any economic variations. They are therefore able to apply themselves to the woolly, feel-good, non-commercial aspects of our society - hence the "luxury vote". >>

Ooh…. those pooor hard-working servants of the public, striving to make your and my life better and keep us safe and healthy……. And you bag them to the hilt!

What about all the securely well-off people all over this country that are not in the public service?

They would surely have the security of a ‘luxury' vote as well.

And pensioners and welfare recipients who would not expect their benefits to be significantly different under either government.

And lots of other people who would likewise not think that there is any significant difference between the two, as it effects them or as it effects their childrens’ future.

So, the ‘luxury' vote is everywhere.

Then there is certainly the 'peeved-off-with-Lib-and-Lab' protest vote.

And the 'genuine-desire-for-something-better-than-more-of-the-same-but-never-getting-us-ahead-BS-that-Lib-and-Lab-have-imposed-upon-us-for-decades' vote.

But you have just picked out your pet-haters; the public service!

<< As we can now see, this has been a disastrous choice… >>

Why was the increased Greens vote at the last election disastrous choice? It was the level-pegging of Lib and Lab that gave the Greens their power. But even so, I can’t see that it has been one tiny little bit worse than if either of them had won by a clear majority.

Now, if the Greens had just been on the right track, we could have seen major improvements in our political arena with the current balance-of-power setup.

And if they were to find the wherewithal to get themselves onto the right track, towards a sustainable society and a properly under-control humanitarian program, then the combination of the 'luxury' vote, protest vote and genuine-desire-for-a-better-future vote could see them really surge into a position of great power.

David,

Like many English words, there are often different nuances of meaning. Given that this is a written thread, Loud is probably not a component of the meaning. Another meaning that does apply is "indignant talk with little effect" which captures your post with delicious accuracy.

I contended that offshore processing complied to the letter with the UNHCR charter, contrary to your statement. You reply was an emotive (and incorrect) comparison of refugees in Indonesia with Jews fleeing the holocaust, and irrelevant to the UNHCR charter.

One can't be precious and confuse criticism of what one writes with personal attacks.

I note that you still haven't linked the pacific solution with non compliance of the UNHCR Charter.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Pacific Solution is expulsion. Asylum seekers are removed from Australian territory. To arrive in a country seeking asylum is not an illegal act and expulsion is banned by the following provision of the Convention:

Article 32

expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence lear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.

Asylum seekers are entitled to due process. Expulsion without a hearing justifying such expulsion denies them due process.