Dear Banjo,

I am amazed that you and others on this forum would
not find it at all disturbing that the Prime
Minister by refusing to deny that his government
paid people smugglers to take intercepted asylum
seekers back to Indonesia.

Michael Gordon in his article in The Age, Saturday, June
13, 2015, says that "the explanation for neither
confirming nor denying reports in the Fairfax Media is
that he doesn't want to give information "to our enemies,"
by commenting on operational matters."

But as Gordon points out "this answer gives those very
enemies reason to believe they may profit, courtesy of
the Abbott government, if their enterprises are
intercepted on the high seas."

"Rather than close down the people smugglers' business model,
it suggests another source of profit.
And as Gordon says - that is the practical consequence.
However, just as disturbing are the leagal, moral, and
diplomatic questions that are raised by the implicit
confirmation that the government has taken its
end-justifies-the-means border protection policy to an,
until now, unimagined extreme."

None of this seems to bother some people.
Well that's their choice.

However, it bothers me a great deal.

And the moral justification that Mr Abbott has stopped
the deaths at sea, been able to close mainland detention
centres and save taxpayers' money. Are all solid out-comes
as Michael Gordon confirms. But the question needs to be
asked - at what human cost?

We're told that - "one thousand men remain in limbo on
Papua New Guinea's Manus Island in conditions that those
able to witness say are in breach of international
treaties. Many carry the scars of the violence that ended
the life of Reza Barati".

Gordon says that "about the same number including over 100
children, remain in detention in tented accommodation on
Nauru, where a dozen security guards have been sacked over
allegations of sexual assault and child-abuse."

"The unrepudiated assertion that the government has paid crew
to return asylum seekers, highlights the lack of transparency
and accountability that pervades this area of policy."

cont'd ...

So lets take a look at some other questions
that Michael Gordon raises:

1) He tells us that
the legal question is simple enough.And asks -
"If the government has paid crew employed by
people smugglers to take asylum seekers to
somewhere they don't want to go, does this
not amount to trafficking? If not, why not?"

2) Gordon then says -
"The moral question is equally clear: if it
is wrong for desperate people to pay people
smugglers to take them to safety; how can it
be right to pay those working for these
smugglers to take the very same people back to
an uncertain limbo?"

3) Gordon points out that the diplomatic question
should be answered soon enough. "Having made its
objections to turn-backs abundantly clear on
multiple levels and on multiple occasions, how will
Indonesia react? Not very well," he suspects.

Another vital point in all of this is that
"At a time when countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia
and Thailand are recognising the need for a regional
agreement to deal with people movements, as opposed
to the deterrence framework championed by Australia,"
under the Abbott-led Coalition, "it also reveals
Australia to be out of step and alone."

And if criticising this deterrence framework
some people find objectionable.
Then they need to look at themselves in the mirror
and explain why they don't find it objectionable.
Because it is a disgrace - and shameful!

NO one from the regressives have ever been able to give an answer as to how morally wrong it is to leave thousands in refugee camps who have no money to pay smugglers while those who throw away papers, pay smugglers get to come here (at least under Labour/Greens)at the genuine refugees expense.

Very very selective outrage as usual by the regressives.

While you are still arguing among yourselves 5 DAYS AFTER the thread kicked off, you might  have missed the fact that Abbott has nothing more to say on the subject and has moved on.

I reckon I've exhausted everything I'd like to add to this debate ?

To recapitulate my assertions concerning many (not all) of these boat people. Together with my strong objections to their unfettered access to this country and the generous benefits we offer, are these:-

Many are Muslims. Anywhere there's a large assemblage of Muslims, there's often armed dissent !

Some are criminals, using the semblance of distressed refugees to gain entry to this country.

Some are purely (economic) acolytes in pursuit of a Nation renowned for providing it's citizens, with generous Social Security benefits.

Those who're left, are most likely bona fide refugees ? Who're unfortunately grouped amongst those others (described herein), who've got quite a different agenda altogether ? Making it just that much more difficult, to obtain the protection and succour they so desperately need.

All because of the chicanery and deception practised by (some) of these fraudsters arriving here by boat, having destroyed every single document of identification in the process ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Do a bit more research into the myths that
surround asylum seekers. Especially what
percentage of them are in fact either muslims
or criminals.

It's interesting that when being assessed in the
past most of them turned out to be genuine
refugees.