Dear Aidan,

<<Yuyutsu, you seem to believe having people here with no legal status is a good thing. Why?>>

I only suggested that under the circumstances, the alternative would be even worse, being to physically seize those who manage to arrive in Australia, arrest them, possibly for many years, then throw them forcibly somewhere else.

Seizing people physically, arresting them and throwing them out by force is violence, thus unacceptable. On the other hand, avoiding to give them something (i.e. legal status), while ungenerous, is not a crime.

<<Should't the protection of the law extend to everyone?>>

Well as I don't believe in the concept of law to begin with, I need to take the liberty of modifying your question slightly:

"Should't the protection of the state extend to everyone?"

The protection of the state is, or should be, by mutual agreement. I already stated elsewhere on OLO that individuals should not be forced to be protected by the state if they do not so wish, that at least we should be able to opt out. Also, there are many whom Australia already doesn't protect - I refer to those who do not live in Australia and aren't Australian citizens, as well as those who do live and were born in Australia, but are not humans.

It's very nice indeed to be able to protect everyone who arrives on our shores (and so wishes), but it is not morally obligatory. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to simultaneously avoid violence AND grant protection to every arriving person - if we tried, then we would be flooded by 10,000,000's refugees and even more than that economic-migrants, as a result of which our standard, quality and safety of living would drop to that of a 3rd-world country.

The government currently solves the problem by using violence, which I find unacceptable, so sadly, and I do mean sadly, remains only the next option of avoiding the gifting of protection.

Once again the Abbott Government has proved it totally lacks any kind of 'political savvy' when it comes to what Australians (voters) will or will not accept, budgets, knighthoods, housing, you name it, they are out of touch. No matter how the conservatives dolly it up, the facts remain, if true, cash payments by the Australian government have been made to criminals, end of story. Just like the Cocky Joe Hockey comments, that in itself will prove to be unacceptable to the average voter. It can only equate to votes lost.

Foxy "The Immigration Minister has denied it.
The Foreign Affairs Minister has also denied it."
There is a possibility they were lying. The conservatives have a long tradition, staring with Howard's 'children overboard' of lying on the issue of asylum seekers.

Jay, your sub contracting theory, I don't buy that one, at all.

As usual, charge on in before the facts are clear. We should at least wait until Abbott admits it; but no, as soon as someone makes an allegation against anything or anyone Australian, all the knee-jerkers jump the gun. This story comes from people smugglers themselves - I rate even Abbott above rubbish like that. But the good old Australia-knockers are not interested in a fair go for people they hate.

What if payments were made, though? In this alleged case, the cost was $25,000. Far cheaper than keeping the illegals here for the rest of their lives!

In the latest development the matter has been refereed to the Auditor-General for investigation. Has Australian tax dollars been paid illegally to criminals? If so should there be prosecutions?
Could we soon see government payments to organised crime to tackle the ice epidemic? the list of payment is endless. How much has Hockey budgeted for pay offs in 2015/16?

@ Paul1405, Monday, 15 June 2015 9:45:50 AM

LOL, you only need a microphone and one of those ill-fitting KMart suits from the wardrobe department to be chasing targets down the street, 60 Minutes style. There you go again, to win another Richard Carlton Award for making stories from out of the air,

Richard Carlton for the memory challenged, 'shock, horror, shame' addicted leftists,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raBCfPVFzHU

Paul1405, you Fox and ors need to take a cold glass of water and have a good sit down in the shade. You have been hyperventilating since even before Abbott was elected.

Oops, don't mention Abbott (or Israel, the US, Brits or any of the multitude of trigger words) to a headline-hunting Green.

Heh, heh, remember to breathe.

Paul, don't be so gullible.
The children were thrown overboard, I saw the video of them in the water.
What you either did not know or didn't want to know, was that they
were thrown overboard because the vessel had been scuttled.

Either way would you want people who would scuttle a boat under passengers
children included ?

Back to the present, if Jay's suggestion is correct that it is a very
valid action to pay the companies fee.
The other possibility is if this was the boat on its way to New Zealand
then Australia would be in a different position stopping the boat at sea.
Alternatively, they may only say they are going to New Zealand with
intention of ducking into Darwin of Cape York.
Hasn't anybody else thought of that ?
They could offer the money to return to Indonesia, they may have
convinced the passengers and/or crew that such a voyage was impossible.
It may have not had suffient fuel capacity to reach New Zealand.

Am I the only one that thinks that sort of trickery would be going on ?
Surely you are not all as gullible as Paul ?