http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/jakarta-opens-door-to-talk-about-tow-backs/story-fn9hm1gu-1226679874057

As the last obstacle to towing back the boats falls, the question is whether Kevin Rudd will honour his 2007 election promise to tow back the boats, or whether it will be left to the coalition.

SM, contrary to Abbott's mantra of "I'll turn back the boats" unilaterally without consultation with Indonesia. Remembering last October Abbott was given ample opportunity to raise the issue with the Indonesian President and failed to do so. It is good to see that Indonesia is prepared to discuss the asylum seeker issue with an open mind, unfortunately the same cannot be said for Abbott.
I have always maintained that a solution will require dialog with our neighbors and will not be achieved with simplistic slogans, which only appeal to the bottom feeders in our society.

Why would Indonesia put themselves in for having refugees returned, it's not their problem. Malaysia is where they came to Indonesia from.
I feel these ground breaking headlines are sensationalism.
Sounds like something that is exclusive to the Australian newspaper.

It appears, that while Indonesia is willing to listen to policy initiatives on this issue, that Natelegawa does not support boat tow backs.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/marty-natelegawa-says-indonesia-will-not-accept-boats-which-hav/4822114

Anyone watch "Q and A," last night?

Julie Bishop tried to talk up the same line as
Shadow Minister is trying to do here.
Bishop was corrected - and made to look foolish.
But then the Coalition has a habit of using
these tactics. Except that now people are finally
beginning to see through them and they are being
held to account. More scrutiny is required on
everything that's being presented by them.
Indonesia definitely does not want the boats towed
back - no matter what the Coalition tries to tell us.
And that's no crap!

Kevin Rudd should not be making policy on the run and entering into new commitments with other countries without the scrutiny of Parliament. This is just creating speculation and more serious divisions in society.

Either call Parliament back, or hold the election ASAP.

Oh come on onthebeach, this is GOD KEVIN you're talking about.

You know he never consults anyone about anything, just goes off half cocked, with our money by the way.

No need to wonder if this is the Real Ruddy, there is only one. Learnt his lesson, like bloody hell. What a peanut.

Paul, Doog, Lexi, and other human trafficking deniers,

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and legalities.

Towing the Indonesian boats with Indonesian crews back to the edge of Indonesian territorial waters complies with international law and Indonesia cannot do anything about it. While Indonesia is unlikely to support the tow back, they cannot stop it and the proposed talks will be how to ensure that it occurs safely, and perhaps Indonesia pockets a few quid.

SM,

As I understand it, interferring with a boat registered to a foreign country in international waters "without the agreement of said country" is a violation of international law.

Indonesia do not want them back.
But all this could change for a few shillings.
Everyone will turn into traffickers, and Indonesia will be rich.
Professional boaters could make some money for themselves.
To simple to be of any use to anyone.
How long is the Indonesian coast line.
I bet tony came up with this one.
You better put a mosquito net over the boat to stop them jumping overboard.
And don't forget to take the axe of of them.

Poirot,

You don't say that the loading, operation, ship's course and behaviour of the master, crew and passengers is at all suspicious?

You are ignorant of the responsibilities of the ship's owners and master.

SOLAS as well.

Parliament needs to be redcalled or an election held forthwith. This issue is of crucial importance to the electorate and vagueness in available policy combined with gossip and speculation are negatively affecting other areas of government policy and business operation.

The political gameplaying must end.

It is up to the Prime Minister to call an election
at a time he sees fit. That is his right and must
be respected despite all the bleating from the
opposition and their colleagues to the contrary.

Towing the boats back will only antagonise Indonesia.
A regional solution with regional co-operation
is the way to go.

Indonesia is wondering why they have not been consulted about this plan of Tony's. Turnbull is watching and talking.
I thought the coalition had the problem in hand, but they seem to have nothing in hand.
All this time in opposition has come to nothing, have they wasted their time.
Slipper, Cambell, These were the tools that was going to put them in power years ago.
All the ammunition has been fired, so where to from here.
How many boats do we have.
Our politics sure makes world news, not sure if it is for the right reasons.
The latest world currency, Co2 and you can't even see it.
Who would want it, the big banks do.

P,

The general rule is that interception of vessels in international waters is not allowed, and Australia intercepting a yacht travelling from PNG to Malaysia would not be acceptable. But with this law, as with most laws there are exceptions. If a boat is known to be heading for your shore, especially with the intention of committing an unlawful act, then interception is allowed, and is used frequently by many countries.

Indonesia has never publicly agreed with the tow back policy, but the proposed meeting with the coalition shows that as with the pacific solution they will work with it, with not even a murmur. The only objections they give are prompted by the labor government.

SM you are as aware as I am that is not true.
A nation of 250 million it has a problem.
As many other Nations in our area have.
It is no more happy with refugees/economic refugees, that we are.
Can you, and those holding similar views, tell me what we should do, about yesterdays arrivals, from Vietnam?
They as in the 70,s never came via Indonesia.
A regional solution remains our best, maybe only hope.
Twisting the words of that country,s visiting Ministers will not blind voters to Abbott,s increasing failures.

onthebeach just for you.
You must keep your guard up, even if only shadow boxing.
Your question as to why this country,s Prime Minister is making choices.
Has as an answer why is Abbott a man who will never be Prime Minister doing just that, in the long run damaging his party and the task ahead for who ever takes over from him?

I don't know what the fuss is all about.
Indonesia is OBLIGED to take them back.
It happens quite frequently that people are deported back to Indonesia
because they do not have appropriate documentation.
Haven't you seen it done on that TV program ?
Whether they arrive by air or by sea the rules are the same.
I have never heard of Indonesia complaining about this procedure.
Even those that arrive right at Christmas Island are subject to
deportation to their last port.

Indonesia should support it because if it discourages the illegals
then they will leave Indonesia and stop coming.

It is a win win for everybody.

Marty Natalegawa re-iterated Indonesia'a
opposition to the "tow-back" policy.
Mr Natalegawa stated, "Such a policy would
constitute a unilateral type of measure that
we do not support." He told Network 10.

Perhaps one political commentator pointed
out, "the Liberal Party could adopt the
Jolly Roger as its flag?"

Lexi, read my post above, Indonesia has no choice and they accept
deportees frequently.
That is all there is to it !

I don't see what it has to do with Indonesia. We do not need to even ask them. If a boat is headed for Australia we have every right to turn it around and drag it back to the edge of our territory. What Indonesia then chooses to do with it is their business.
Did Indonesia consult with Australia before allowing boats to pass through it waters heading for Australia. Is that not taking unilateral action without consulting Australia?
Why is this debate frammed in the sense that we need to ask permission from Indonesia for everything. They are treating us like some joke. We give them millions in aid and all they do is abuse us.

Just now, another boat carrying 180 people. 70 n miles north of Xmas island. Why are we doing Indonesia's work. This is nowhere near our search and rescue area.

Bazz! take them back? citizens of Iran? country,s other than its own! joking aren't you.
A wooden horse is alive in this coalition.
It planted the thought carbon tax is crap.
Told us,, even here, we can just turn back the boats.
It was not towed in to the midst of the Liberals.
At a time they wrongly,thought, the west was becoming red neck right Abbott rode his wooden horse /bicycle in to the middle of a party.
That party now chants its own death notice.
It will return, to Liberal hands, but it will too look back and ask what went wrong.
The answer is Tony Abbott.

Bazz just stated the Malaysia solution without knowing it. They were waiting for processing in Malaysia before traveling to Indonesia to catch a boat. Malaysia is where they have to go back to, and rejoin the que.

No Belly & Doog, you have it wrong, all we have to do is the same as
we would do if they arrived by plane, send them back to Indonesia.
The required action is to return them to their last port of embarkation.
We do it almost daily, so what is the fuss ?

Who said anything about Iran, Doog ?

For heaven's sake wake up !

Dear Bazz,

Political commentators point out that the
"tow the boats back" line is "dangerous, illegal,
and threatens our key bilateral relationship with
Indonesia."

We're told that "in terms of safety the risks of
taking over crowded and unseaworthy vessels under
tow by a large warship are obvious. Such an
operation is tricky enough with a friendly vessel
in calm seas - but the Indian ocean is often stormy
and asylum seekers have repeatedly shown they are
prepared to sabotage their own vessels to prevent
tow-backs, placing lives at risk."

The current Chief of the Navy, Vice-Admiral, Ray Griggs
has made it quite clear in Senate Estimates,
"There have been fires lit, there have been attempts
to storm the engine compartment of the boats...there
have been people jumping in the water..."

Those are the realities. What you choose to believe
is political rhetoric. We need a regional solution
with regional co-operation.

Lexie,
What people deliberately do to suicide in open waters we cannot be held accountable. This is a risk we have to take, persons so mentally unstable ought not be accepted into Australia. They are unemployable and would become dependent on Australian Taxpayers. There are avenues to determine if they are genuine refugees before illegally boarding boats to enter Australian territory.

Josephus,

Did you say you were a Christian?

It's strange how those who identify as Christians on this forum seem to exude the most unChristian sentiments.

What was Jesus chatting about in Matthew 25.35 - 40?

http://www.bible-guide-online.com/jesus-quotes-top-ten.html

Check it out here. It's first on the list under "He takes it personally".

Poirot,

Over many years of voluntary work, all of the other volunteers and the organisers with very few exceptions have been from mainstream religions and most commonly Christians. That rule applies from mucking in to cut the grass at the pre-Kindy right on to helping people in the last stage of life. They give their time and very often their own money too, to helping the needy.

I have been surprised, but I guess I should not have been, by Evangelicals who during the floods donated their trades skills for weeks on end and used their contacts to get free gyprock and so on to re-build homes for anyone who was in need AND without any mention of their faith, ever.

I have been left with no doubt whatsoever that the splendid clergy and parishioners who volunteer and most do in some way, are the glue that holds society together.

Can they help everyone in the world? No.

Should they defend their own freedom, laws, quality of life and even sovereignty if required? Yes.

Yours was the usual smart-A insulting anti-Christians snipe to be expected of the smug and comfortable, latte quaffing 'Progressives', very few of whom seem to get around to helping anyone but themselves, ever. Although they always have plenty of intolerance and 'advice' to spread about.

Lexi, Ahhh, you have not read what I just wrote did you ?
I am fully aware of the problems of towing at sea.
For instance the bow could be pulled out the boat.
In rough conditions a heavy weight is usually attached to the middle
of the tow rope. This acts as a big spring to remove sudden jerks.
Now I am sure our Navy would be aware of these techniques.
That is why the phase "Where safe" is always included.
Here endith the first lesson.

However it frequently would be safe and would be the cheapest alternative.
However if you had read my comment you would have seen that I referred
to deportment.
Those that actually reach Christmas Island could be flown back to
Indonesia or taken by ship.

Thats what we do all the time with other undocumented persons.

GET IT !

Poirot and Lexi,

I thought you were humanitarians. Labor's destruction of the pacific solution has meant that Xmas Island has had to increase its mortuary from accommodating 5 people to 50 people to cater for all the drownings.

Turning the boats back is legal, complies with the UNHCR charter, and is not going to cause friction with Indonesia.

Bazz I did read all your posts.
And say with confidence it is you who are wrong.
No ne3ed to debate the truth is your claim is unfounded.
IF ANY COUNTRY, some receiving many more times than us, had the power to send under any law Nationals of a country other than the one they came from.
To that country because it is the one they came from? silly stuff old mate.

Dear Bazz,

The current Chief of the Navy, Vice-Admiral
Ray Griggs disagrees with your take on things.
(BTW - there's no need to put things into
capital letters - and tell me to "GET IT."
That's not very courteous. I don't question
your comprehension skills).

BTW: What the Coalition is telling us is they will
"Tow the boats back," prior to any assessments
being done on the asylum seekers claims.
That makes the act of towing the boats back -
illegal according to the Refugee Convention that
we've signed. People's claims need to be assessed
before they are sent anywhere.

Lexi,

The refugee convention only covers the handling of refugees that are already on Australian territory. It says nothing about the interception of boats in international waters.

It can be done safely as it was done before.

SM Don't bother, nothing will make any difference. I give up !

otb,

I wasn't questioning or insulting Christian charity. (My best friends are Christian and do a lot for other people)

I was questioning why I can't see any sign of it in the rhetoric posted here by Josephus.

SM,

A few corrections:

As the Chief of the Navy pointed out:

The record of the tow-back policy under John Howard
was far from spotless. The Howard-era tow backs
resulted in a number of self-sabotage incidents
and 3 drownings. " In at least several of these
cases the navy had to contend with incidents such
as asylum seekers jumping overboard, threatening
self-harm and/or atempting to sabotage the vessel.
SIEV 7 which had 230 people aboard including
women and children ended up running aground in
Indonesian waters a few hours after being abandoned
by the navy."

According to a report at the time by the ABC's
Four Corners program - three people on the SIEV7
died.

BTW: - Under International Law, a state that has
exercised power over individuals at sea by actions
such as stopping vessels and boarding vessels is
not permitted to return refugees.

Finally, the tow-back rhetoric of the Coalition depends
on Indonesia's co-operation without which it is
difficult to see how turning back the boats can possibly
be safe.

It simply will not work.

Poirot,
My point is we only take in genuine refugees that come by legal means not everyone illegally breaching our borders.

You may welcome criminals to your home, I prefer to meet them elsewhere for the safety of my family. They may burn their transport of threaten to cut their wrists so that I take them in; but there are avenues to deal with such people. I worked for four years in crisis telephone counselling and I never invited anyone threatening suicide into my office. If they were threatening suicide an appropriate team was sent to them to deal with their situation, if it was overdose an ambulance was called.

Good one, Josephus.

Refugees are now criminals who are threatening suicide (according to you)

The mind boggles.......

The federal government has given citizenship to violent men who riot and make arson attacks on public assets to get their own way.

Giving in to threats of self-harm by economic migrants publicises to others who amke more serious threats that the Australian authorities will cave in rather than stand by their own laws and principle.

This clip has fooitage of some of the fires and destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Hi Josephus,

You're pretty spot-on. ASIO has recently admitted that due to the numbers they are now only checking 10-15% of "asylum seekers".

And what they could *check* anyway is rather limited.They only woke up to the recent Egyptian Jihadi because he was foolhardy enough to use his real name.

And, you are right about the emotional blackmail antics they get up to: blowing up boats, burning detention centres, trashing computer equipment, assaulting staff or other detainees, you name it, they've tried it--and most often gotten away with it!

Pay no heed to Poirot's attempt to intimidate you: <<The mind boggles.......>>

Her mind was boggled years ago

It's always good to get various perspectives
on an issue. One of the pre-requisites for
Democracy is access to information. If citizens
or their representatives are denied access to the
information they need to make informed choices, or
if they are given false or misleading infromation,
the democratic process becomes a sham.
Under such circumstances, the people cannot use their
rights in a meaningful way.

Regarding asylum seekers - myths, factual errors and
misconceptions abound.

The following two links are a mere example of why
some people may riot and protest.

Here's a small quote:

"Many don't know how
long they'll be staying or why they're there. There's
no privacy, often no power, or running water, medical
supplies are desperately short - so if people get sick
there they can be in a lot of trouble."

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/29/3745276.htm

Click on - "show transcript."

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s3749309.htm

Click on - "full transcript."

Lexi,

<<It's always good to get various perspectiveson an issue>>
So why is it then that ALL the sources you link us to are left-leaning.

<<Regarding asylum seekers - myths, factual errors and misconceptions abound>>
No thanks to you, I might add.Given that you've always done you utmost to keep the myths, factual errors and misconceptions alive.

<<. There's no privacy, often no power, or running water, medical supplies are desperately short>>
Which would be pretty understandable given they were opened in a hurry

But have you by chance had a look at the detention facilities on mainland Oz. They must be substantially better given that the last time detainees rioted in one they DESTROYED TENS OF MILLIONS DOLLARS WORTH OF COMPUTER AND SERVICE FACILITIES!

Dear SPQR,

This issue should not be made into a Left/Right dogfight.
And frankly I'm surprised at your asking me such an
asinine question. You're better than that. I select
things on content that I think is relevant. It's an
occupational hazard. My aim is to challenge and provoke.
I look for quality - independent journalism. I am tired
of "pack journalism." Therefore I do prefer to use
independent media because there aren't that many alternatives
in the barren Australian media landscape. We live in an
age where so much news and opinion is free - quality
journalism is not.

As for the mainland detention centres and what's being
happening there - and why. I shall have to Google that
and get back to you - but in the meantime
keep an open mind - or at least try to.

Dear SPQR,

I've just done a quick scan on the Villawood riots
and it appears that the Villawood detention centre
holds both irregular maritime arrivals - people
arriving in Australia by boat to seek asylum as well
as people already on the Australian mainland who have
violated their visas. So its a mix of people - with
various complaints.

The complaints from detainees seem to be about
overcrowding and the time it takes to process their
applications. Mental health experts telll us that the
mental health of some of the asylum seekers was
deteriorating because of the uncertainty over their
situation and the crowded conditions in which they
were being held. Overcrowding and mental health
played a big part at Christmas Island and other detention
centres.

Lexi,

Kevin Rudd and Greens Bob Brown and Christine Milne got Australia into this mess. You are an apolosist for policies that have drowned hundreds and enabled criminal gangs of people smugglers to flourish.

You make excuses for the violence in detention centres but Australia welcomed thousands of refugees and displaced people from war-torn countries, particularly following WW2. They didn't riot and burn millions of taxpayers' dollars of public assets.

http://libcom.org/news/riot-asylum-seekers-detention-centre-christmas-island-18032011

otb,

"...Australia welcomed thousands of refugees and displaced people from war-torn countries..."

Yes, they did. Once upon a time we did "welcome" them, albeit sometimes grudgingly.

The reason these people didn't riot was because they weren't stuffed into detention centres for years on end...

If they had have been, they probably would have rioted too.

Poirot,

Where did you come from and how recently that you have such poor knowledge of post WW2 Australia?

onthebeach,

I'm not making excuses. Merely trying to explain the
conditions people have to live under.

The Displaced People who came to Australia after WW11 were
invited to come. They helped to solve an acute labour
shortage in Australia, especially in outlying areas.
These migrants joined in the rebuilding of Australia's
capital structures that were to serve the nation for many
decades to come. They could have accomplished a great deal
more, if the Australian authorities had made full use of
their skills and knowledge, instead of treating them all
as unskilled labour. Nevertheless, their economic
contribution was significant at a time when Australia
needed it most.

These migrants were classified in only two occupations:
"Labourers", which denoted all males, and "Domestics", which
meant all females. The Australian employment officials
had full details of each immigrant's skills and
qualifications, no effort was made to match these with the
jobs offering. The Australian authorities enforced labour
contracts (2 year) strictly.

And we should remember that the early conditions of migrant
settlement were inadequate. There was no family accommodation
in many places to which contract workers were sent. Men had
to live in tents or tin huts, in most primitive conditions.
Their wives and children remained in holding camps such as
Northam, W.A. and Woodside, S.A. to mention just two, for
long periods of time ofen a long distance away from their
husbands' and fathers' workplaces. Marriages suffered,
and the psychological scars of forced separations have
remained for life.

cont'd ...

onthebeach,

I think the difference between the groups is
that one group (WW11 Displaced Persons) did
not have to live with the uncertainty that
asylum seekers have to live with and the length of
time it takes to process their applications.
This as mental health experts tell us adds
to the mental health deterioration of these
people. Plus of course the overcrowded conditions
in which they're being held.

Lexi,

You have publiched the same jaundiced account so many times before that no-one even bothers to correct you.

But even if it were only partly true, you sure demolish your own and Poirot;s excuses for the abominable, criminal begaviour of so-called asylum seekers.

Here agsin, an article concerning the work of asylum seekers who destroyed millions of dollars of TAXPAYERS' assets to threaten the very soft government. No need for Google to those (ahem) 'independent', non-'MSM' sites you follow. Or do you dispute the court's findings?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-28/asylum-seekers-jailed-after-villawood-riot/4788440

As well, you still have to explain why you are an apolosist for policies that have drowned hundreds and enabled criminal gangs of people smugglers to flourish.

otb,

"Where did you come from....?"

Mind yer own beeswax - suffice to say that my forebears have probably been here longer than yours (unless you can beat 1853)

Yep, no trouble Poirot, & I'll bet some of mine were guarding yours.

Not likely, Hasbeen...unassisted passage. He was manager of one of Sydney's premier Brickworks and building material suppliers - for 32 years.

On the issue of border protection, as with economics, Labor is a policy free zone.

The two latest suggestions from Krudd, are to continue 5 years or talks that have so far yielded nothing, and to possibly withdraw from the Refugee convention.

13 illegal immigrants dead this week from Labor's failure.

Poirot,
Your ignorance of post war detention camps is poor, I lived next door to hundreds housed in x military barracks with asbestos roofs and no running water to the housing. These people were willing workers not dependent on Govt handouts. They built Australia in the 50 - 60's the current flow are not of the same caliber.

Dear Josephus,

You can't really compare the two.

The first lot came as migrants under an Australian
Immigration Scheme to fill the Labor shortage created
by WW11 and the growing economy of the country.
Such migration continues to this day.

Unfortunately, the circumstances today for others are different
and therefore so are the results we are seeing
globally. Desperate people do desperate things to
try to survive. With the continuation of wars and
persecution,
this problem is not about to go away. A regional solution
and regional co-operation is the answer to this problem for
us.

Josephus,

Of course, it would never occur to you that the difference in attitude is that the post-war immigrants had a purpose in their lives. As you point out they were willing workers.

It's a far cry to being locked up with nothing purposeful to pass your time - and only hopelessness to pass the time of day.

Lexi,
Do you believe in open borders? Obviously you have weak principles if you do. If not should Australia and our allies go to war with the source of the conflict that displaces these people?

Poirot,
I suggest you go to PM Rudd and tell him how these people could be employed. How he could create projects to develop Australia, and they not be dependent on Australia's taxpayers. These boat people are MP Rudd's problem, help him please.

Obviously he hasn't a clue on how to employ our own Australian citizens in the manufacturing, service and food industries, or on National infrastructure as we have no money. We sell our jobs to overseas low paid workers and import goods, services, and food.

Lexi,

The common theme that runs consistently through your comments is your jaundiced view of Australia and its 'white' population. You are continually disrespecting both at every opportunity. You are willing to bend your storytelling to fit your prejudice and you constantly cherry-pick the most slanted and flakey opinion from what you call 'independent' sites. 'Independent' usually means far left.

Now I myself and others have dealt with you comments about post WW2 migration before in an endeavour to get you to dispassionately consider the facts and to ground events in the history in their time. Sadly your mind is teflon coated and it all bounces off. That is prejudice.

Here again you are into your old complaint that Australia somehow 'used' and 'abused' migrants immediately after WW2. You are convinced that your parents and other Lituanians got a sore deal, being somehow 'tricked' into coming to Australia where they unreasonably (according to you) lived for a time in the accommodation on bases built by the US and Australia during the war and where they were not offered work according to their pre-WW2 occupations and expectations in Europe.

No-one was 'hoodwinked' as you think. The Australian government offered sanctuary. It was blunt that the Australian industry had been totally converted to wartime production to suit Europe's war and little of its pre-war developing manufacturing industries remainded. As well, of course Australia didn't have the culture of Europe and there was no opera. Of course Australia was despetarely developing housing for the exodus from Europe. Of course its infrastructure was overstretched and anyhow it never had the communication, roads, rail and so on that Europe had taken centuries to develop.

Nissan huts and a job were not to shabby for your parents where many returned ex-Servicemen in country areas were unemployed, raised their families in tin sheds with bags for doors and dripping went on their children's bread.

Dear Josephus,

No. I don't believe in "open borders."
Throwing open the borders is no solution at all.
We do have a problem with asylum seekers - and
as I've stated previously a regional solution
with regional co-operation is something that
hopeful will help solve the complex issue that
has perplexed us for so long.

onthebeach,

You continue to try to misrepresent my views.
I am simply stating historical facts of conditions
that existed at the time.

Most post-war immigrants came to Australia as indentured
labour. That is, every migrant over the age of 18 had to
enter into a two year contract with the Australian
government which obliged the migrant to work wherever
directed. The contracts were strictly enforced, even if
it meant families were split up. The initial two-year
contracts were the migrants' first major contribution to
Australia.

One could try and argue that the indentured contract
scheme was equally beneficial to Australia and to the
migrants. One could say, for example, that Australia
benefited because the migrants solved its acute labour
shortage in key areas, while the migrants benefited, too,
by being assured of jobs and having an opportunity to
settle in a new country.

This argument is difficult to sustain. Australia was the
last country to enter the International Refugee Organisation's
re-settlement scheme and, political rhetoric aside,
"economic expedience was by far the stronger motivation."
(Panich, C. 1988. "Sanctuary? Remembering post-war immigration."
North Sydney: George Allen & Unwin Australia, p. 137).
The Australian government contributed only ten pounds towards
each migrant's fare. The rest of the passage was paid by
various non-Australian welfare agencies.

I've already written about the conditions that existed
at the time. These were simply the conditions of that time.
Not intended as any kind of slur.

For your information - my family members are all
Australian citizens.
All have shown a
great love and attachment to this country.
So, before ending I would like to simply blow you a great
big raspberry - which you have earned!

Nice try at buffing up your sledging of Australia. While still leaving in some 'outs' to sink the slipper into Australia again, but of course.

You have your own storytelling, but it would be very interesting if your parents share your jaundiced views. All I can tyhink of is that as a girl raised in a city suburb you must have had a comfortable insulated life, leading to high expectations of all around you. Many girls were raised as princesses by their doting parents. It was different in the country where I grew up.

You say you are a librarian, but where and for whom and for what purpose you don't say.

It is astonishing that you are so ill-informed about post WW2 Australia. Incredible that you persist in your belief that the Lituanians who came here post WW2 were somehow tricked into false expectations, and were treated badly and worse than the ordinary civil population.

You talk about family separations. How many and under what circumstances God only knows, it is your storytelling anyhow. But you should be aware that family separation was common at the time. My own family had many examples as men went to areas to get work, but not as many as the separations for life resulting from the death of loved ones in your stupid European wars.

Lexi,

I am just another poster you level that silliness at.

Do yourself a favour and try to take in the very honest and frank comments of chrisgaff1000. There are not so many times in life that we get opportunities like that to challenge our own views. Because experienced professionals like chrisgaff1000 have largely given up on getting people to understand.

On the off-chance that you believe you have the training and expertise to say better, why don't you cite those right now?

onthebeach,

Sorry, I stopped reading after your
"jaundice" reference.

"All seems infected that the infected spy.
As all looks yellow
to the jaundiced eye."
(Alexander Pope).

Lexi,

LOL You can't see the irony of that?

Talk with your parents and see if they really see any basis for you to be prejudiced against the country of choice that gave them refuge and a new start. Otherwise you could have been quoting a Russian poet instead.

Good on you, Lexi, and your family for forging their life in a new country.

Yes, post-war European immigrants made an enormous contribution to Australia's prosperity.

Never mind otb's jibes about European wars. Even at the outset of WWII we still imagined ourselves fighting for "King and Country"...their wars were our wars too...and obviously even more so as the war progressed.

I'm reminded of the sort of values that are worth fighting for - and I'm not seeing them displayed in great measure by the insular, cringing attitudes abounding on this forum.

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for your kind words.

Australia today is a gathering of many cultures,
and this is one of the most unique and rewarding aspects
of living in Australia. The nature of being Australian
is to be part of this rich diversity. The wide and varied
gathering of "identities" is in keeping with the sense
of potential and openness so many people enjoyed on
coming here. I feel privileged not only to have been
able to make a home here but also to have found my
own sense of belonging.

Now back to the topic. Australia has also become home to
thousands of asylum seekers, most of whom had no option
but to leave their countries of origin. The current
problem that the country is facing will hopefully be
resolved before long. And before many more die at sea.
It's time politics was put aside and all parties came
together with an acceptable and humane solution.

See you on another thread.

Well whodathunk diplomacy could trump chest-beating?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/indonesia-to-change-visa-requirements-for-iranians/4829434

@Poirot (and similar minded apologists)

<<Well whodathunk diplomacy could trump chest-beating?>>

Well what is the bet that Iranian economic migrants, stopping over in Indonesia, will hereafter will simply buy an other-country passport (an easy as pie, I'm told) and present as Pakistanis, Saudis or the like.

The patient needs an amputation--not a band-aide solution!

Any takers?

Poirot; Rudd is making an effort to bring what is a terrible humanitarian problem under control, through the proper diplomatic processes. Unfortunately our conservative opposition views asylum seekers as a expendable commodity to be exploited for political gain. The Abbott mantra of "I'll turn back the boats" is designed to divide society (voters) with an eye to winning the next election. Since when have conservative politicians and their supporters had any regard for people, not in my life time.

"will simply buy an other-country passport (an easy as pie, I'm told)" SPQR who told you that, ya Mum?

@Paul 1405,

<< our conservative opposition views asylum seekers as a expendable commodity to be exploited for political gain>>

Arn't you getting your conservatives and your Greens mixed-up?
It's the Greens who are using "asylum seeking" as a political commodity and ploy.

I'll seen you write before that you were in favour of curbing the boaties (and, nice guy that I am, I graciously let it pass without pulling you up)but it can't be right, can it?

I mean any genuine Greenie --one who has actually read/digested their platform -- could NOT possibly pretend to be in favour of curbing boaties!

Or, are you one of those many Greens who really has little idea about the implications of their Green party's platform?

<<will simply buy an other-country passport (an easy as pie, I'm told)" SPQR who told you that, ya Mum?>>

A myriad of sources --some of whom had availed of the services.

I darnt, have asked your mum --if you are a product of her home schooling --her knowledge base must be in a sorry state.

SPQR; It is not the policy of The Greens to encourage people to risk their lives in leaky boats to seek asylum. If you can find any reference in the following policy encouraging people to do so please let me know.
http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees

In part it reads;
Greatly enhanced regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific to provide safer pathways for asylum seekers, with long-term planning to accommodate people displaced by on-going conflicts and climate change.

A bit more of a detailed policy than Abbotts one liner policy of "I'll turn back the boats."
Abbott has used the issue for political advantage.

Paul

<< It is not the policy of The Greens to encourage people to risk their lives in leaky boats to seek asylum>>
Spot on, with the operative term being <<LEAKY boats>>.The Greens would have a flotilla of Oz naval vessels --on call-- off the Indonesian coast to ferry them to Sydney or Melbourne (no detention centres under hew Greens!)

<<to accommodate people displaced by on-going conflicts and climate change>>
Yes, the Greens are maneuvering to have the definition of refugee expanded to include those impacted by climate change.

Doesn't that ring any alarm bells with you?
(We've had this discussion before, but you're none the wiser!)

The numbers impacted by climate change has been estimated to be upwards of 200,000,00. And no doubt many hundred of millions more COULD & WOULD claim to be affected .

This is NOT stopping the boats,or the peoples smuggling business. It's giving them more excuses to come here--the *green light*!
It's opening the floodgates.(so when you say: "I want to stop the boats too" you're just saying it because you want to be liked--one of the boys, ay)

Thank God the Green looneys will never be in a position to implement their idiocy.

Paul1405, You stated, " Rudd is making an effort to bring what is a terrible humanitarian problem under control."
* He created the problem in the first place.
* How successful has he been?

Nauru was dead and buried long ago. It is no deterrent, You lot live for outdated policies, i suppose that is all you have, saying stop the boats is not a policy.
At least rudd is putting real meat on the bones, and working with Indonesia, instead of shooting from the hip and going over their head.
Abbott is out to cause bad blood, and get us nowhere.

Reading some of the recent comments I felt obliged
to come back with a final perspective on the
issue:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/abbott-indonesia-and-the-cop-it-sweet-doctrine/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Political commentators tell us that, "Scott Morrison's
media strategy is simple, but effective. Every time a boat
arrives, he issues a press release and makes himself available
for media comment. The line is always the same. "We'll tow
them back."

Examples:

5th July: "If elected, the Coalition will implement a full
suite of proven border protection policies including
turning boats around when it is safe to do so." (loophole).

9th July: "There is a clear choice for Australians at the
upcoming election. A Coalition which will act to stop the
boats won't give up or a Labor Party that started the
boats (sic) and has given in to people smugglers."

14th July: "Labor don't believe in stopping the boats
and have given up on our borders (nonsense).
The Coalition will not give up."

As political commentators point out "This is a fine example
of the superficiality of the Coalition's well-tuned
sound bites, particularly under close examination."

They confirm the fact that, "for years now, the Opposition
has escaped serious scrutiny on some of its more
outlandish policy positions. This is starting to change as
the campaign develops."

Rudd has found an impoverished third world country to off load asylum seekers,its called Papua New Guinea.
Any asylum seeker who arrives by boat without a visa will have no chance of being resettled in Australia as a refugee, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/kevin-rudd-to-send-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-to-papua-new-guinea-20130719-2q9fa.html

Should be a vote winner for Labor in conservative working class seats in locations like Western Sydney.

Rudd's toxic new policy has just slam-dunked Abbott's best slogan.

So now we're sub-contracting our obligations out to our impoverished neighbours.

How classy is that?

Do you reckon all the over-stayers will be sent to Manus too?

Fat chance.

Regarding the oft-stated comment that Rudd caused the flow of refugees, it should be understood that what he did was to right a wrong Australia was committing on the high seas, i.e. turning boats back by force to deny due process to asylum seekers under UN refugee convention.

Of course, this approach was circumvented by pulling the bung out of the boat to invoke the UN maritime convention on boats in distress.

doog's comment "Nauru was dead and buried long ago. It is no deterrent.." reminded me of this. Offshore detention is clearly no deterrent judging by rising numbers and TPV's simply change the blend and resulted in most gaining residency anyway.

Bishop's statement regarding withdrawal from the UN refugee convention shows how rabid the LNP is. Australians are better than that, IMO, and the best answer lies in more hard-nosed processing to sift economic refugees from asylum seekers.

The announcement over Iranians raises the question of what constitutes the need for asylum. The new arrangement with Indonesia is saying, to me, that we are looking towards limiting ourselves as a safe haven only to oppressed ethnic or religious minorities in their own countries, over any focus on those politically oppressed.

If this is our stance perhaps we are responsible for going into bat for the politically oppressed such as in Syria, together with other nations under the UN flag, with a view to instituting democracy wherever it does not exist. This is a hard road and takes us headlong into conflict with Islamic theocracy, particularly.

Kevin Rudd unveils a "hard-line" on asylum seekers.
These were the headlines of the MSM.

I've just come home from having dinner with my
relatives - and most of the younger members are
devastated by the PM's announcement of the deal
with PNG. The Coalition appears to have
welcomed this move. I guess we'll have to wait and
see what happens next. I found the following link
which helps explain a bit more on the issue:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration-in-bid-to-stop-boats/story-fnghm1gu-1226681830019

Well that was short lived.

A few weeks of political shenanigans.

And here am I again with no-one to vote for.

(They both stink)

I think KRudd has abandoned his "labor" principles and taken some appropriate action for a change, and this has some chance of stopping the boats that he started.

For all the bleeding hearts that were happy to see 1100-2000 people drown, this must be a dagger to the heart. However, I see it as a huge vote winner for KRudd.

The danger for KR is that there is some dangers, every policy implemented by KRudd so far has been a stuff up, and:

1 Is there a limit to those sent to PNG? While none was discussed the figure of 3000 was raised. This is one month of arrivals and could terminate the deterent almost before it starts.

2 Krudd says it is not inexpensive, which means there is a fat price tag. And does this continue indefinitely for those dumped on PNG?

I would also recommend turning the boats back and TPVs as well.

I advise voters to watch a unique truth about to again show as a weird Liberal team.
Having pulled a hare out of his hat, truly stopping the boats.
In the long run.
Followers of Tony Abbott, here for sure, will make claims it will not work.
Or that it is cruel.
We should understand, that will be clear evidence, *Liberals do not want the boats stopped*
Yes I want them stopped, yes I understand a degree of cruelty exists in stopping them.
But too I know the unfortunate truth.
Not party can be elected without trust it will stop the boats.
A question will arise if not now some near future/post Abbott date, near future for both events, did the Liberals farm rage to gain votes?
Did they put them selves in front of our Nation?

I have mixed feelings on Rudds new initiative:

1) Can he make it work?

2) And as individual pickup on --what impact on PNG will the arrival of thousands of ME Muslims have?

3) What are the hidden sweeteners:as compensation to the lefties, is he planning to lift the official "refugee" intake to 100,000--200,000 pa?

Still and all:

Poroit does not like it--that's one positive sign it might be OK
<<And here am I again with no-one to vote for.(They both stink)>>

And Luciferase, seems all at sea about it --bemoaning that he should have followed his initial inclination and joined the Greens --another sure sign it has merit.

SM is still insisting it's Indonesia's problem, even though they come from Malaysia to catch a boat.
Some are thicker than bricks, just can't get it. Tony is their master. What about Turnbull, the bloke that got harpooned by one vote, the polls say he can winn the election now.
A far more comprehensive man than Abbott will ever be

How is Abbott going to top this one? Short of promising to gouge out eyes and cut off limbs there not much Tony Boloney can promise.

"Do you reckon all the over-stayers will be sent to Manus too?" Good point Poirot. I can see Chuck the Septic Tank who has been here illegally for the past 2 years, being caught without a visa, shipped off to Manus Island for re-settlement in PNG.
Did PNG's Peter O'Neill snag a top deal. The best outcome for them is, it works and stops the boats permanently and PNG pockets the bikkies (billions of $$$) at no cost to them. If it don't work, well PNG with be in trouble in the long term with Port Moresby full of new (unemployed) settlers.

So we're still counting the votes on Rudds new PNG initiative.

Paul1405'S vote has just been lodged --aaaaaand itsss a nay-- which translates to ANOTHER VOTE THAT THE POLICY HAS MERIT!

With regard to Paul's other ramblings:

<<Do you reckon all the over-stayers will be sent to Manus too?" >>
NO. Because the visa overstayers when caught/pushed will invariably return to their home countries

The boaties have the same option. They can return to their countries of origin --or anywhere else ---rather than Manus Is

And guess what, when confronted with the prospect of going to Manus a number of Sri Lankans have *suddenly remembered* that they were not persecuted at all and returned home!

<<If it don't work, well PNG with be in trouble in the long term with Port Moresby full of new (unemployed) settlers..
Nah! much better to have them unemployed and causing e trouble in OZ

The recent riot --the last of many --should serve as a forewarning of what to expect if they come here and cant get their way on anything-RIOT,RIOT,RIOT!

There will be a pause while the hand-wringing Luvvies -the 'Useful Idiots' of the Marxists- await advice from those 'independent' socialist blogs on how to re-adjust their lock-step to suit.

Then there are those 'rights' lawyers who know how to gouge large wads of $$ from the trough of TAXPAYERS' money. They help to build the victim industries that serve them so well.

All decisions affecting immigration shouod be made by the Immigration Department where the minister is directly responsible to Parliament. There should be NO appeal against its decisions. There should not be any separate quango of unelected highly paid persons making decisions or second-guessing Immigration, and through its (the quango's) decisions and lobbying frustrating the normal democratic processes.

I reckon this forum has just about achieved peak toxicity.

Just like the political landscape......

Dear Poirot,

Perhaps we should just wait and see regarding this
decision that has been made?

In the current "election"
conditions the PM had no other choice to counter the
Coalition's "tow back the boats," mantra but to find
an internationally acceptable regional solution that
would discourage desperate people risking travel
by leaky boats to Australia. In compensation for that
decision the migrant intake has been increased by
approximately 7 - 8 thousand a year. There will always
be people who will want to
by-pass the numerous displayed people's camps. However,
this may deter them from trying and will pull the rug
out from people smugglers. Those with money will of course
find alternative means of getting here - as they currently
do by plane.

Yep, I with Poirot,

It's so much neater, nicer and less toxic on all those other forums where only pro-advocate comments on "refugee" issues is allowed.
How dare the riff-raff get a say on this -let alone influence policy:let them eat cake!

and while on the subject of cake.

I'm expecting Rudd to announce a sweetener for all the now disaffected lefties that as compensation for the PNG deal he will up our official intake to 100,000 or perhaps even, 1,000,000 pa.

Rudd was always one to want to eat his cake and ours too.

Yep, I with Poirot s/b Yep, I'm with Poirot

Dear SPQR,

Could you please repeat the point you're trying
to make?

<<Dear SPQR, Could you please repeat the point you're trying
to make?>>

Yep, I'm with Poirot,

It's so much neater, nicer and less toxic on all those other forums where only pro-advocate comments on "refugee" issues is allowed.
How dare the riff-raff get a say on this -let alone influence policy:let them eat cake!

and while on the subject of cake.

I'm expecting Rudd to announce a sweetener for all the now disaffected lefties that as compensation for the PNG deal he will up our official intake to 100,000 or perhaps even, 1,000,000 pa.

Rudd was always one to want to eat his cake and ours too.
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 20 July 2013 12:04:05 PM

[HOPE THAT HELPS LEXI!]

Comrade Beach Person, since our direct line to the Kremlin was disconnected by Gorby about 20 years ago ans since Fidels a bit under the weather in Havana, and since Uncle Joe and The Chairman have both passed on, us lefties are finding it a bit hard to get instructions on this one.
However I do believe your man Tony is at this very moment in deep discussion with the Head Penguin in Antarctica, something about I'll supply the fishy if you'll take the boaties. Plus Tony is also promising to supply the kit for the new arrivals, thongs and Hawaiian shirts, should see them through the winter.
"Perhaps we should just wait and see regarding this
decision that has been made?" Lexi Rudd and O'Neill will be banking on this stopping the boats rather than filling PNG with new citizens.

Dear SPQR,

Sorry I still don't get it.
I would have thought that you of all people
would have approved the PM's arrangement
with PNG?

Dear Paul,

Hopefully this will put a spanner in the works
of the people smugglers and stop the boats.
The Prime Minister had no choice but to do
something like this. And criticism of him,
I feel is quite unfair. First they criticise
him for not doing anything - and now that he
has they're still not happy. That's not logical.

Paul, Poirot,

At least you now know that many $bn of our aid budget will be redirected to helping PNG. It is not payment, but a generous gesture from a grateful PM, as well as building accommodation for those stateless persons.

Well done Ruddy for showing us your true labor values.

SM,

Congratulations! This is the first time you've
said something positive about Labor.
Well done.

Lexi, as a Greens member I don't blindly support our parliamentary leader on this and have said so. My biggest concern all along has been stopping the boats to save peoples lives. If Rudd is able to achieve that with this then I support it.
"I feel is quite unfair. First they criticise
him for not doing anything - and now that he
has they're still not happy. That's not logical."
Perfectly logical:
I never for a moment thought the conservative rednecks on this forum, or any where for that matter had any real concern for these peoples lives, it was all about power politics. Can anyone, point to an instant in time when conservatives considered peoples lives as being of importance? They live by the big lie, wars are fought for economic and political advantage but they cloak it in palatable term of being fought in the name of freedom and democracy.
I though, how appropriate to see John Howard sitting at Lords yesterday watch that gentleman's game of cricket, like Abbott, a real humanitarian.

Looks like the LNP's game is up. Boats do not equal votes.

The whole escalation of boat numbers and mounting deaths would have been avoided if the LNP had not sided with the Greens for a political advantage it has now lost anyway.

Turning back boats is unilateral and morally wrong and not in the spirit or to the letter of the UN refugee convention. Offshore detention, processing and settlement makes TPVs moot. Morrison has nothing left to talk about but the weather.

At my small village country school Abbott and his front bench, most not all, would get six of the best.
For acting silly in the play ground.
Maybe if Tiny Target Tony understood his histrionics have already cost him his job?
Doubt it!
The bloke is unable to change.
Question.
Do the Liberals pay the script writer? waste of both money and votes!

As the last obstacle to towing back the boats falls, the question is whether Kevin Rudd will honour his 2007 election promise to tow back the boats, or whether it will be left to the coalition.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 4:11:42 AM

Egg on face Shadow Minister, but don't feel too bad about it, the conservatives have a long history of getting things wrong. Was it not Great Grandpa Shadow Minister (aka Pig iron Bob Menzies) who in 1938 after spending several weeks in Nazi Germany said he was extremely impressed with the "New Germany" (such as the abolition of trades unions, suppression of the right collective bargaining, outlawing of the right to strike etc). 1938 was a golden year for Great Grandpa SM the founder of the Liberal Party. When his enemies ridiculed him as "Pig Iron Bob", the result of his industrial battle with waterside workers who refused to load scrap iron being sold to Imperial Japan. Great Grandpa SM claimed Japan was only using Australian iron for peaceful purposes, ie to manufacture toys not bombs.
See, you and Tony Boloney are only carrying on the noble conservative tradition of getting things wrong.

Lexi,

It is very seldom that labor has done anything worth praise.

I take it that Lexi and Dorothy support the PNG deal?

Note that it would not have been necessary if Krudd hadn't dismantled the Pacific solution. Krudd had 4 people in detention when he came to power in 2007.

Lexi in that post , from Shadow Minister the very heart of Liberalisms decent can be seen.
No! I am not taunting the man.
Give him his due, SM is the norm ,the standard issue Liberal minister of our time.
Riding the manufactured fire dragon of boat people till it died under them.
Then demanding we not see how the dragon died but how it came in to being.
Uncaring for this country yet they claim sainthood, for standing against any resolution of the problem.
We are about to see the childish negativity play a roll in reforming Liberalism.
How good is that?
Both party,s bought to reforms in just a month.
We too, will see squirming retractions post election, from those who thought negativity was the only plan they need.

Paul,

Failed English did you? Since It was a question I posed not a statement it is not possible to get it wrong.

Secondly, whenever you take a Labor politician at his word you will get it wrong, pretty much as Brown Eyed Bob did when they entered the alliance with Labor.

So how do you feel about the Greens being part of an alliance that deals with refugees far more harshly than the coalition ever did, or any signatory to the UNHCR charter?

SM, good to hear from you on this bright Sunday morning, although I would have thought you may have been in Church with the Mad Monk praying for some new policy inspiration. You can say I failed English but the conservatives have failed Australia with their one liner of "We'll turn back the boats". The only boat towing to be done now is Tony Boloney and his motley crew of half wits, we should tell them they are going to be towed to the edge of the Earth where they will all fall off, after all they are believers in flat Earth policies.
Rudd has gazumped Abbott in one play of the cards. The conservatives inhuman policy has been trumped, Abbott though he had Labor in a corner, but Kev's hit the Bully Boy right between the eyes with his new policy. There are some who see this as inhuman, who would like to be shipped off to PNG, not me. It is presented as a viable deterrent. What was the alternative continue to allow innocent people to drown at sea.

@Paul 1405

<< It is presented as a viable deterrent. What was the alternative continue to allow innocent people to drown at sea>>

I dare you --I double dare you Paul to stand-up at your next Green party meeting and make that declaration.

Bet you'll be cat called and frog marched out.

(pretty please, can I come along and watch-I'll sit on the side & just watch the kerfuffle, I promiiiise)

SPQR, you are confusing the democratic Greens who allow differing opinions to the big two who allow little in the way of debate within, who impose the party policy from above on the rank and file.
To late me olde salt: "It is presented as a viable deterrent. What was the alternative continue to allow innocent people to drown at sea"
I have put my view forward to 2 MP's and several party members, didn't get cat called or frog marched out. Will bring it up at a candidate launch I'm attending this morning as well.
Now on the other hand if I was a Liberal Party member and questioned the Mad Monk's "I'll turn back the boats" policy, no doubt I would have been sent off to the Inquisition as a blasphemer and burnt at the stake. I think I would prefer the cat calls and frog marching.

Paul,

I am an atheist, and it is good to see you support a tough policy on illegal immigrants and agree that Sarah Hanson Young and Christine Milne are wildly delusional.

Note that as the PNG solution so far applies only to single males, the coalition policies of tow back and TPVs are still necessary.

SM

<<Note that as the PNG solution so far applies only to single males>>

Wow! That I didn't know.

Then it is full of holes, it will leak like a sieve.

The boats will now be filled with woman and children and "family men", who will then in turn sponsor all the single men over from PNG.

I bet, even now, all the illegals waiting in Indonesia are hard at it making babies, so they can appear good family men and clear the entry bar!

"Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst. That is why the government's proposal to excise the Australian mainland from the entire Australian migration zone and to rely almost exclusively on the so-called Pacific Solution should be the cause of great ethical concern to all the Christian churches. We should never forget that the reason we have a UN convention on the protection of refugees is in large part because of the horror of the Holocaust, when the West (including Australia) turned its back on the Jewish people of Germany and the other occupied countries of Europe who sought asylum during the '30s."

The above is Kevin Rudd from 2006 in an article titled "Faith in Politics".

Hypocrisy much......

@Poirot,

Funny that should mention the good Samaritans. The Samaritans are now a isolated, persecuted, dwindling minority in their old homeland.

" the Samaritans suffered many hardships which included forced conversion to Christianity, forced conversion to Islam, harsh religious decrees, massacre and persecution.

While the majority of the Samaritan population in Damascus was killed or converted during the reign of the Ottoman Pasha Mardam Beq in the early 17th century"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

A lot of good their good neighborly approached proved ,ay?

Foolhardiness much...

SPQR,

It was Rudd's hypocrisy that I was alluding to.

Quite stunning I thought.

And all in order to destroy Abbott's arsenal......not resting on any ethical or moral imperative.

Poirot,

<< Rudd's hypocrisy ...[is]Quite stunning>>

But those on this side of the house already knew that!

What is even more stunning -- and portentous! --is how the good Samaritan folk ended up being shafted by all and sundry. I sincerely hope that in 200 years what remains of Oz is not confined to some desert camp surrounded by hostile intruders.

But let your little heart bleed not, if the new PNG arrangement only applies to *single males* --as Shadow Minister indicates --it will be less than useless, every male that lands hereafter will be a certified family man --I guarantee it!

Poirot,

Under the PNG arrangement asylum seekers will gain asylum and safe resettlement under Australia's purvey. It is designed to be a disincentive to boat arrivals. It stands to reason that the disincentive will be greatest for those seeking economic betterment who are not fleeing in mortal fear from their countries, while for true asylum seekers it would be seen as a satisfactory outcome, but not their ideal.

There would be no turning back of dangerously unseaworthy boats, only safe escort in, health and needs checks, interim accommodating then transfer to PNG. Australia is addressing the needs of asylum seekers, so what is your problem when compared with the status-quo, which is not deterring boats because Australian residency is the attainable goal?

How else do you propose we deter arrivals by boat with their accompanying deaths? Should we open up the alternative of flight arrivals of those who clearly have no business or tourism purpose for arriving here, so creating a massive influx of genuine and non-genuine asylum seekers we would not cope with processing or accommodating?

We can now accept a higher number of those seeking economic betterment under a raised immigration ceiling but Australia alone cannot save the world.

SPQR, "if the new PNG arrangement only applies to *single males* --as Shadow Minister indicates --it will be less than useless, every male that lands hereafter will be a certified family man --I guarantee it!"

As is always the case with Kevin Rudd he makes promises on the fly and doesn't stop to consider the unintended consequences.

Why women, children and married men shouldn't be sent to PNG escapes me.

Actually here is the real story concerning
women and children and families folks:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07/20/asylum-seeker-boat-intercepted-off-wa-coast/4832886

It appears that the only reason that single men are going first
is that there are no facilities to house women, children and
families. They may remain on Christmas Island until the
facilities on Manus Island are ready to house them.

And as Immigration Minister Tony Burke as stated - all this will
take acouple of weeks - beginning with single men but later
including women and children.

Lexi, you don't expect SM and his mob to report the facts do you?
from ABC news, a commie organisation.
"He (Rudd) says single men will be sent first, while children and families may remain on Christmas Island until facilities on Manus Island are ready to house them."
Please go easy on SM, all his "news" comes from Uncle Rupert's fish wrapper. Its his job to pass it on to the rest of the "knuckle draggers"
Oh! SM what will we do with all those terrifying women and children? I know hand them over to SPQR and Beach for resettlement in the east.
"I (SM) am an atheist" Well why do you believe the Mad Monk Tony Boloney is god, for heavens sake?

Dear Paul,

You continually make me smile.
Thank You.

I've still got the earlier image in my mind
of the big penguin in Antarctica. ;-)

Manus Island?

Yeah, we wouldn't want to send the more vulnerable refugees until we had "facilities" set up.

Like these, for instance....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/manus-island-tents/4632714

Australia would not want to be giving citizenship to criminals who cost taxpayers $60,000,000 in burning down their housing would we? Obviously they are not civilized humans.

Paul,

I support Abbott for his policies and ideas which are not influenced by his beliefs. If I were to follow your idiotic line of thought, I would claim that because Bob Brown is a raging queen, that all greens are fairies or dykes, and support gay marriage for personal reasons.

I support women's right to terminate pregnancy, gay marriage and many issues that many in even labor don't, and have done so in threads in which you have participated.

Secondly, as reported on the ABC, one the main reasons that women and children were removed was due to insect borne tropical diseases particularly dangerous for young children, not just the accommodation. Perhaps you could disseminate this to the dull witted greens and Laborites.

KRudd's PNG solution is yet another poorly planned labor policy on the run for mainly political reasons. That most of the advertising is to Australians, not potential illegal immigrants shows the target audience. Already the implementation of this is starting to unravel in a manner typical of all labor policies.

SM,

Yes, "implementation" is the key word here.

I expect this will turn into a "conditions" disaster not too far down the track.

(Not that that would bother most of the "get-them-outa-here" brigade)

If you're interested in primary sources, here's the "Agreement".

http://www.dfat.gov.au/issues/rra-png.pdf

@Paul 1405

Re: <<Please go easy on SM, all his "news" comes from Uncle Rupert's fish wrapper. Its his job to pass it on to the rest of the "knuckle draggers" ....waffle waffle waffle...>>

Paul, I can do no better that repeat what Houellebecq said on another thread: << Paul1405, you sound discombobulated>>

Do all Greens suffer from the same condition or is it something unique to you?

LOL

P,

Thanks for the link. Though I am staggered by the complete lack of detail, and am sure I could do better on the back of a cigarette box.

Clauses 7,8,9 gives PNG a blank cheque for an open ended period, and clause 4 abrogates Australia from any responsibility (except financial) for running the place and refugee assessment and assigns it to PNG.

I assume this is because of PNG's superior organisational ability compared to labor.

Poirot, "Yeah, we wouldn't want to send the more vulnerable refugees until we had 'facilities' set up"

They are doing way better than the luckless old in Australia's aged care facilities. Every time abuses are reported, instances being bed sores, starvation diets and being left in faeces all day, the media and government display short term memory loss for the regularity of similar reports before. Also, the government's own auditor, the Australian National Audit Office has previously reported to Parliament on all of that so many times over.

They are doing much better than the seniors who shop for catfood and are afraid to use power they cannot afford, and the homeless and the working poor.

The Greens Protest Party gets headlines out of activism and tears for illegal immigrants who choose to put themselves at danger to blackmail government into capitulating to their demands. The Greens don't shed tears for the aged. The Greens do propose euthanasia and death duties for them though. Soylent Greens.

otb,

What happened to BTT?

.............

Tony Burke just said that "everybody" on the latest boats will find themselves in PNG.....maybe months along for women and children.

Should be great for the kids in tents in a tropical zone, with tropical diseases. I'm wondering why tents are acceptable in a tropical environment, as opposed to tents in a drier middle-eastern environment.

Yes, I know this is supposed to stop the flow, but aside from that, I can see a health disaster primed to take place with Australia presiding over it.

Shame.

Food for thought from David Marr:

"Meanwhile let's hope PNG doesn’t twig to what’s really going on here: we are paying it some enormous bribe and flattering the country to its face, while selling it to the world as the sort of place no one in their right mind, not even someone fleeing a well-based fear of persecution, would want to live."

Vulture capitalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/vulture-capitalism-papua-new-guinea-australia

Labor going all out to win the election.

Here's their latest contribution on the Immigration webpage.

http://www.newsroom.immi.gov.au/photos/first-group-of-asylum-seekers-transferred-to-png-under-new-government-policy-4

(Fodder for potential Labor voters)

Wow.....no shame.

Just in the life of this thread Rudd has pulled a rabbit out of his hat, any one seen Tony.
The on going lies are clear to see.
The claim that PNG plan is different in saying it will not take those it rules out?
How dumb do they thing we are?
That is the rule in every country taking refugees, do they think we will not know that.
And the intention to blind us, claims PNG will take multi thousands but not stop them?
Who truly thinks at the cost of ten thousand dollars they will keep comeing and not stop?
Abbott paints himself in to a corner if he under mines this he may fall in to his own hole.

Poirot, the first photo in your last link apparently shows a person who is unhappy with failing to gain Australian residency. So be it.

Carrying on as if living in the tropics is beyond the limit of human endurance is silly. I did so for many years, and without air-conditioning. Australia will do what is necessary to ensure asylum seekers are settled safely and comfortably and the numbers coming by boat will dwindle to a trickle, as it would have under the Malaysian solution blocked by the Greens and LNP.

As I asked you earlier, how else do you propose we should deter arrivals by boat with their accompanying deaths? Should we open up the alternative of flight arrivals, so creating a massive influx of genuine and non-genuine asylum seekers we would not cope with processing or accommodating? Please don't hide behind the "relatively small numbers" defense if you do intend a response, as that is only true while irregular arrival is by the small boat fleet we are trying to avoid.

I find myself in agreement with you on many fronts but you are beginning to sound like your head is either in the sand or in the clouds when you reject pragmatic solutions and offer none.

Luciferase,

The bottom line is that this decision was taken for purely political ends.

Considering our refugee intake is less than 0.3%, and that we are a very wealthy country, we could up our intake from Indonesia or Malaysia. Perhaps , in that case, people would desist from taking the boats as they would know there is a more comprehensive flow to Australia.

(This is for Luciferase, so the rest of you needn't bother to start your xenophobic ranting)

http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-australian-asylum.html

"The bottom line is that this decision was taken for purely political ends." Yes, as politcally opposed to an opposition turning boats back out to the open sea should it win government.

"......we could up our intake from Indonesia or Malaysia." So if you can get yourself to Malaysia or Indonesia you improve your chance of Australian residency over those that can't?

I agree with upping our intake, but what refugees do you mean, both asylum seekers and economic migrants? If it is the latter should we not consider applicants of all races and creeds in economic distress around the world rather than those who simply present themselves at our front door? Perhaps a lottery system is in order.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the excellent link.

However, be prepared to be accused of citing from a
"blog," and not the MSM - by some of our "knowledgeable"
posters. The pots always gang up when it comes to
calling out the kettle. They don't seem to realise that
trolling for comments is as much a business of the MSM
as blogging.

Luciferase,

Carr and Rudd got in on the "economic migrant" mantra to soften the public up their PNG "solution".

It seems you've bought that line.

The facts:

http://www.factsfightback.org.au/are-asylum-seeker-claims-genuine-check-the-facts/

Lexi,

Yup, I know the lemmings find it difficult to make sense of anything that hasn't first passed through the MSM colon....

But I note you have much enjoyment in delivering an alternative viewpoint and broadening their rather narrow vistas.

Such fun!

"Carr and Rudd got in on the "economic migrant" mantra to soften the public up their PNG "solution". The LNP had already done that but Carr's announcement over Iranians while not simultaneously casting doubt about Hazaras raises the question of what constitutes the need for asylum.

The arrangement with Indonesia over Iranians suggests we are looking towards limiting ourselves as a safe haven to targeted and oppressed ethnic or religious minorities rather than focusing on the politically repressed.

Should Australia be accepting Shi'a Iranians seeking "asylum" not from being a targeted minority but from not enjoying the theocracy they have elected along with their countrymen to live under? They do not live in mortal fear as do the Hazaras in Afghanistan.

Should we accept as asylum seekers anyone unprepared to live under their democratically elected governments? Where there is no democracy let's not forget the success of "People Power" such as in the revolutions in Egypt. Nobody has the right to residence in another country rather than trying to bring about change in their own where they are not part of an oppressed minority and I do not believe the UN refugee charter gives them that right.