Apparently

"Under a 2004 agreement between Australia and Indonesia, the nation that receives the first distress call is responsible for a rescue."

This is absolutely crazy no wonder some boats call Australia as soon as they get out to sea, it also explains why Indonesia has no naval vessels in the South.

This one needs to be changed because nearly all the waters between Christmas Island and Indonesia are in Indonesia's maritime rescue zone.

Even though it is Howards stupidity we have this, Rudd and his bureaucrats should have been able to see how detrimental this agreement is to Australia especially since it only started to be a problem since Rudd undid what was stopping most of the boats in the first place.

We, all of us are letting this, the fear of too many boat arrivals drive us to hasty words.
Once a boat is sinking, come surely we all can agree?
Who cares is first at the scene.
The law of the sea, just plain human concerns, should see every one try to help if they can.
Think please, before a shared dislike of the criminal smugglers and a wish to end the trade, brings out the words I dread may come from such a thread.
In this matter rescue at sea the world is watching.
I however remain solidly for ending the boat arrivals.

....Who cares is first at the scene.

Belly, first at the scene is not the problem, it's where the passengers are taken once rescued that's the problem.

I say take them back to where they came from and send the bill to Indonesia (out of the aid budget).

I note the PNG deal sees the ILLEGALS flown to PNG on a jet plane, they then get taken to camp in a nice new air conditioned bus, all at our expense.

Apart from the fact that the locals must be filthy with envy, one of the real victims here are our own soldiers, as their return trips to their families for the likes of Christmas have been canned.

Can't afford it apparently.

Utter disgrace!

rehctub,

I note you're always trying to present yourself here as an example of a fine upstanding member of the community.

Yet, you appear to see these desperate people as less than human....not surprising of course as the aim of the pollies and the media has been to target people with your mindset, by demonising and dehumanising the tragedy.

Tell me, how would you suggest we transport these people to Manus? Obviously the prospect of them being incarcerated in an ill-drained, malarial gulag in tents doesn't quite do it for you - it appears we now have to move them there in something equally as sinister as their living arrangements.

Perhaps if we jammed 'em all down in holds below the water-line and fed them gruel, that would please you.

I take it you're complaining about the Manus "solution", not because it's an unethical debacle cooked up to win an election, but because you see the soldiers as the real "victims" coz their white-bread families don't get freeby return trips to the "Australian" island of detention.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't think you're real - I suspect you're a character from a Dicken's novel come back to demonstrate the how it was done back then.

Here's a question for you, rehctub.

Covering the years 2011-2012, 7036 applications were made for asylum in Australia from people who originally came "by air" - almost exclusively attributable to lodgements from international students.

In the same time frame 7379 people who arrived "by sea" were screened into refugee status determination.

Would you prescribe the same macabre treatment for those who arrive by air as you do for those who arrive by sea?

Should they be shunted off to a hell-hole the minute they request asylum?

Here's the source document for the figures in my last post:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf