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

Philip S
The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low so Australia could easily offer assistance at sea. It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent. Get you biased facts straightened.

The trickle was always going to change as world conditions changed, and still is. Just like Abbott some live for the past, he worships Howard the man that gave you work-choices. The system that gave you take it or leave it arrangements. The choices were two fold.
An opposition that has yet to contribute to society in a positive way has virtually gone underground.
All the talk is about Rudd our savior.

doog,

"The trickle was always going to change as world conditions changed..."

I agree.

However, I can't discern any difference between the grotesque refugee policies of the two parties.

Rudd has plumbed the depths in a race to the bottom with his.

Both sides are whipping up hysteria for their electoral prospects.

You might respect one side over the other on this issue.

I find them barely distinguishable.

I find them barely distinguishable.
Poirot,
You're not very good at distinguishing then are you ?

@ Poirot

<<in a race to the bottom>>
The only *race to the bottom* is between the Greens and a assortment of freelance open-boarder types who will stop at nothing to sell-out their country's interests and vilify their countrys' citizens.

<< what about those flyins?>>

This hoary old chestnut has been debunked and burried so many times that one has to seriously consider two unpleasant possibilities about those who still try and resuscitate it, either

1)They have absolutely no power of retention-- that is, despite having seen the << what about the flyins>> argment debunked about 10,000 times they cannot remember it ,or

2)They are not really human, but some sort of interent bot programmed to spread misinformation with no ability to comprehend what they are doing.

Pretty sad either way...

individual - To repost your comment Quote.

"The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low so Australia could easily offer assistance at sea. It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent. Get you biased facts straightened."

Here are some facts for you
year 2002 - 1 Boat - 1 person on boat
year 2003 - 1 boat - 53 people
year 2004 - 1 boat - 15 people

Bearing those FACTS in mind please explain this part of your statement "The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low"

This part please translate into English "It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent."

Quote "Get you biased facts straightened." Please enlighten everyone as to what facts are false and how it is biased.

You have really sunk to a new low point with your post here.

As stated above please enlighten people as to what you believe to be the truth, regrettably for you my facts are verifiable.

SPQR,

What have you debunked about this information from 2011-2012?

"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."

Are you disputing the official numbers above?

Then you'd better provide some "hard evidence".

Cough up.....

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

Yah, sorry about that, individual.

One party has an idea to unload them all on Manus and chuck a few tents their way.

The other has a three-star general in charge of shooing them away - and if that fails, they have a great back up plan to unload them all on Nauru and chuck a few tents their way.

Big difference!

Poirot - You fail to listen, in this case read.

If only 10 to 15% were checked properly how could you arrive at a REAL proportion IE 90%? It means 85 to 90% WERE NOT checked properly.

Also a year or so ago some of the people who do the assessment were saying that they were pressured to assess them quickly and some affirmatively. Remember Cap't Emad.

Philip S,

Who says only 10 to 15 per cent are checked properly...and what do you mean by "checked properly"?

I seem to recall SPQR mentioning ASIO (correct me if I'm wrong)...ASIO is not the usual processor and I imagine would only be involved in this issue intermittently.

Give me some "hard evidence" that only 10 to 15 percent of asylum seekers are processed "properly".

Because I don't believe that statement....(even though you keep repeating it, it doesn't mean it's true)

Poirot - Before I waste my time with you can you answer the following question.

Please tell us which one you are?

1) Gullible
or
2) A Hypocrite

I ask this because of your statement Quote "I take official statements on process as evidence."

Here you say you totally believe (as evidence) "official statements" which is gullible - Example please show me where the WMD's were in Iraq after all official statements used that to go to war there are hundreds of more examples that official statements were totally FALSE.

Now it could be hypocritical in you only take as evidence "official statements" on processes only all other official statements are false

Philip S,

The "official statement" by the UN weapon's inspectors was that there were "no" WMD's Iraq.

I believed that.

Poirot - But the "official statement" put out by USA, England etc was they did, so please advise how you determine which "official statement" is the correct one?

Philip S,

Easy.

The weapons inspectors were actually inspecting Iraq for WMDs. They concluded that there were none.

Mr Bush (the younger and the more stupid) and his cronies, on the other hand, were a load of cretinous, war-mongers, who decided to ignore the findings of UN so they could invade Iraq and gain influence over its precious resources.

(That's how I determined who was telling the truth)

Poirot - Gillard or Rudd made an Official statement No carbon tax under this Government, did you believe that Official statement?

There are hundreds more examples worldwide.

Poirot - Here is another "official statement" for you.

The International Organisation for Migration has backed the Australian Immigration Minister's view that some of the Sri Lankan's arriving in Australia by boat are economic migrants, not refugees.

Because that is an "official statement" you must believe it as evidence that it is TRUE.

Belly>> We, all of us are letting this, the fear of too many boat arrivals drive us to hasty words.<<

Is that right china. If we were getting boat people from a first world nation there would be no fear. But we are getting dark ages muslim mind sets, it aint just the numbers Belly.

I posted a thread about the sexual assault of a blind girl at a railway station....If it gets approved it should appear tomorrow. Defend your "we are all brothers and sisters mindset there sport.

sonofgloin - Read that story, they have arrested and charged a 25-year-old from Bangladesh who arrived in Australia by boat earlier this year and his immigration status is now under investigation.

Add that to the "Official Statement" by the Government there were only 4 or 5 crimes committed by refugees.

Nice try Poirot, but you will have to try a lot harder to get a rise out of me.

In answer to your question, No Poirot, because those who arrived by air assumably came via the appropriate channels and, I doubt they destroyed their papers etc.

As for how we transport the illegals, what's wrong with the army/navy helicopters, your know, the ones used to transport our own folk in disaster zones, because after all , WE OWN THEM and, we are not up for what I suspect are HUGE charter costs.

Another company reaping the benefits of these people's misery.

BTW, I do not see these people as less than human, they simply need to go via the appropriate channels, rather than Que. jumping as they are.

Furthermore, I certainly value our soldiers highly and I am disgusted to think they miss out because labor has wasted our money and decided the illegals are more worthy than our own soldiers.

Poirot,
are you being paid by Kevin Rudd & the ALP to make him/them appear smarter ?

individual - On page 2 you made sarcastic comments but when asked to clarify you failed to do so, I will re post it here for you.

To Quote you.

"The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low so Australia could easily offer assistance at sea. It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent. Get you biased facts straightened."

Here are some facts for you
year 2002 - 1 Boat - 1 person on boat
year 2003 - 1 boat - 53 people
year 2004 - 1 boat - 15 people

Bearing those FACTS in mind please explain this part of your statement "The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low"

This part please translate into English "It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent."

Quote "Get you biased facts straightened." Please enlighten everyone as to what facts are false and how it is biased.

You have really sunk to a new low point with your post here.

As stated above please enlighten people as to what you believe to be the truth, regrettably for you my facts are verifiable.

To the readers of our words now and in the future.
Yes Australians have harsh views, count me one of them,about boat people.
It was our politicians who both smelled our feelings and moved us to the right, both party,s.
But no party not agreeing to that move can be elected here
Too we came in later in compassion with some country,s, current troubles with some, not all migrant enclaves is driving us.
Do not be too unkind, we are unlikely to take to the streets.
But even more unlikely, to ever take unending numbers of economic migrates who *gate crash our country*
Minority,s,and the kind at heart, want to change us from within.
The opposite few want to lauch boats and? well best not go their.
Forgive our harsh words but understand our sea borders in our view, should not be miss used that, yes that as is the case with any country, we would welcome migration, but oppose SOME who want to change us not as past migrations that saw us become todays great country, both blend in and have pride in both their new country and their old ones.
Depending on who is reporting you can see we are not forever going to be told by the United Nations our country is just an experiment in fact, trying to call our concerns at the loss of our culture xenophobia.
While SOME of those we welcomed try to bring us their culture while demanding we give ours up.

Philip s At the time of these low boat arrivals, what was the figures of persons wanting to depart Indonesia or anywhere else to come to AU. Or was there temporary peace going on, and no business to be done. Your figures start from the wrong end of the supply chain. Without knowing this your figures don't add up.

when asked to clarify you failed to do so,
Philip S,
i'm at a loss what you want me to explain ?

individual - Are you pleading ignorance here?

I have explained it in very simple English for you.

YOU STATED ""The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low so Australia could easily offer assistance at sea."

Here are some facts for you
year 2002 - 1 Boat - 1 person on boat
year 2003 - 1 boat - 53 people
year 2004 - 1 boat - 15 people

Bearing those FACTS in mind please explain this part of your statement "The only idiotic thing here is your insinuation. In 2004 the stream of boat people was low" Pleas explain as 1 boat is low except in your opinion.

To quote you further "It was your God who turned who turned a trickle of boats into a raging torrent." WHAT do you mean?

To Quote you again "Get you biased facts straightened." Please enlighten everyone as to what facts are false and how it is biased.

As stated above please enlighten people as to what you believe to be the truth.

Doog - Your comment just defies logic in relation to what I wrote, the amount of people wanting to come is inconsequential because they were not coming due to Howard's Pacific solution.

Philip S,
I owe you a huge apology, I just realised that I totally misread your last few words in that particular post of yours.
Again, sincere apologies.

individual - Okay, I have made mistakes like that before.

We're trying to stop irregular boat arrivals. A visa from an Australian embassies is necessary to arrive by air.

Should we stop study visas?

" ....the same macabre treatment for those who arrive by air as you do for those who arrive by sea"

Just to counter the usual hyperbole from Poirot, "macabre" = "disturbing because concerned with or causing a fear of death" http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/macabre?q=macabre So, boats will stop because of a fear of death? Death by what? Drownings haven't deterred them.

Boats will stop because settlement in PNG will cause a fear of not gaining Australian residency.

Anyway, just sayin', not entering into an argument of substance with a poster that ducks, dives, weaves and plays dead when on the losing end of one.

Luciferase,

"Boats will stop because settlement in PNG will cause a fear of not gaining Australian residency."

Well they haven't stopped yet...

And it seems the government isn't expecting them to stop -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/government-sets-aside-money-for-singleton-asylum-detention-cent/4862824

"The Federal Government has set aside tens of millions of dollars for a new immigration detention centre in the Hunter region of New South Wales.

The Government used yesterday's budget update to allocate $43 million for a new detention centre at Singleton."

It says the plan is to potentially house more than 1,000 asylum seekers at the Defence Force base there.

It has also allocated almost $90 million to eventually accommodate up to 1,000 people at Blaydin Point near Darwin."

Explain that?

Use your own brain for obvious answers. I'm done with trying to help you out.

Um...let me see....?

Why is the government earmarking funding for more mainland detention centres in Australia - if (according to you and the government) the Manus solution is supposedly going to "stop the boats"?

Nup...can't work that out at all.

Unless the Manus solution is merely an election gimmick - designed to steal the LNP's thunder on a hardline on asylum seekers.

Why would you earmark funding for detentions centres for refugees if the present "solution" is designed to "stop the boats".....and if you had faith that Manus could handle its mission?

Poirot - Until a reasonable number are sent to PNG, the Economic Invaders will not believe it and will still come.

Most will stop when they see PNG solution is serious and they will never get to the land of the golden handshake.

They kept coming because up to 2 days ago no one was sent there, but now they will contact the relatives etc and say where they are.

We cannot trust Rudd to follow through or succeed going on his track record. Seeing Labour is planning new detention centres on the mainland is very suspicious. Hopefully Rudd and Labour will be history in six weeks.

I fully agree that we won't see an immediate cessation of the boats until 'the word' is fully out there and understood. Let's see if the numbers begin to decline over the next couple months and then judge the effectiveness.

Now Rudd's got in on Abbott's Nauru solution.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-03/rudd-announces-asylum-policy/4863226

Loads of room for our cast offs on this tropical paradise.

http://www.worldfortravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Nauru.jpg

sbr108,
<<We cannot trust Rudd to follow through>>
Agreed. I can well envisage Rudd having a sudden change of mind --after the election of course! He loves to play to the international conference set. Remember his grand entrance to the Bali Climate Change Conference in 2007.

Philip S,
<<Until a reasonable number are sent to PNG, the Economic Invaders will not believe it and will still come>>
It may take a bit longer since we have record of backing down.
And, they will be well aware that the legal vultures are circling looking for a way to challenge it.

Poriot,
<<Now Rudd's got in on Abbott's Nauru solution>>
Look Poriot, it's no good you singing Kevin's praises, we're not going to change our vote!