Border policy strays into uncharted waters
Updated
Australia has a legal right to defend its shores, but the Abbott government's border protection policy has begun to drift into some legal grey areas, writes Donald Rothwell.
Images of bright red lifeboats appearing unannounced along the Indonesian coast and Australian diplomats being summoned in Jakarta to receive formal protests over the conduct of Operation Sovereign Borders are the latest chapter in the saga of the Abbott government's border protection policy.
An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the violation by the Australian Navy of Indonesian sovereignty had also recently been completed with a public version of that report about to be released.
Meanwhile, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Marty Natalegawa, continues to voice his concerns over Operation Sovereign Borders, indicating that the use of lifeboats has escalated the diplomatic rift and that he will be raising Australia's conduct this week in talks with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry.
While the Abbott government refuses to discuss any "on water" matters associated with Operation Sovereign Borders, it would seem reasonable to conclude that lifeboats are being used to return asylum seekers to Indonesia.
The recent purchase of lifeboats by the Australian government has been confirmed. Video images of a lifeboat being towed by an Australian government vessel have not been disputed. At least two lifeboats have washed ashore in Indonesia, baffling local authorities as to their origin and ownership.
Australia has a considerable capacity to protect its sea borders with the Convention on the Law of the Sea providing the legal framework.
Both Australia and Indonesia are parties to the convention, which alongside provisions of the 2000 People Smuggling Protocol to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime give to Australia a wide array of powers to stop, search and exercise control over vessels carrying asylum seekers that enter Australia's maritime zones. Those powers extend to taking control of those vessels, many of which are not flying the Indonesian flag and appear to be stateless, and removing them from Australian waters.
However, towing or escorting those vessels back into the adjoining Indonesian exclusive economic zone without Indonesia's consent is legally dubious.
In particular, Indonesia could assert that any Australian tow back operation within the Indonesian exclusive economic zone is inconsistent with the freedom of navigation.
Official descriptions of Operation Sovereign Borders as a "military-led, border security operation" in which Australia asserts sovereignty over its borders, necessarily leads to the conclusion that Australia is asserting an aspect of its sovereignty during a tow back or escort operation. Evidence in the public domain appears to support the view that Australian Navy and Customs ships have towed vessels, which may include lifeboats, into Indonesian waters and at some point that activity is discontinued with the expectation that the towed vessel make its way towards the Indonesian coast and eventual landfall.
Such an activity cannot be characterised as Australia exercising the freedom of navigation but rather bringing another vessel into Indonesian waters without consent.
While Australia is protesting the unauthorised entry of asylum seeker vessels into its waters, Indonesia also has equivalent rights and obligations to Australia within its maritime zones.
In that respect it needs to be made clear that the mere presence of an Australian Navy ship within the Indonesian 12 nautical mile (22km) territorial sea is not a violation of international law. Australian Navy ships enjoy a right of innocent passage within the Indonesian territorial sea and associated navigation rights throughout the greater Indonesian archipelago.
These navigational rights are critical to Australian trading interests in South-East Asia and are also a component of Australia's maritime security.
However, the entry into Indonesia's territorial sea by an Australian Navy or Customs vessel that has control over an asylum seeker boat by way of a tow line, with the intention of returning that boat to Indonesia, would not be consistent with the right of innocent passage.
In that instance, Indonesia could, under the law of the sea, take steps to prevent such passage, including interdiction by its Navy. Reports that Indonesia has increased maritime patrols of its southern borders suggests that Australia will need to exercise great care to ensure a maritime clash is avoided.
The use of lifeboats into which asylum seekers are transferred and returned to Indonesia raise additional legal issues. These extend to Australia's responsibility under international law for the control that it has exercised over the asylum seekers including the refusal to consider their asylum claims, providing them with a lifeboat by which they are directed to return to Indonesia, and the safety and security of that lifeboat.
Legal issues would arise if the lifeboat is not adequately provisioned with fuel, food and water and has appropriate navigational equipment. It also raises questions as to whether the persons placed in control of the lifeboat have the seamanship skills to be able to successfully navigate their way back to the Indonesian coast.
Variables would also need to be taken into account to ensure the safe return of the lifeboat to shore such as the prevailing sea conditions and the weather, both at the time of release of the tow line but also in the coming hours and days. If a maritime disaster was to strike a lifeboat resulting in loss of life then Australia's responsibility under international law could be considerable.
Donald R Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University. View his full profile here.
Topics: government-and-politics, unrest-conflict-and-war, international-law
First posted
Comments (521)
Add your comment
Ravensclaw:
17 Feb 2014 7:42:56am
Well thank Rudd and Gillard for their incompetence in dismantling the Pacific Solution, and then being completely and utterly useless on the issue forever after as it escalated out of control.
1200+ deaths and billions wasted on border protection thanks to Rudd and Gillard. "You go, girlfriends!!!"
Thank god the adults are in charge. An apology to the Coalition is owed!
Cheers
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 8:28:38am
Now that we have a border protection policy which works I was wondering how long before an article appeared criticizing it. No boat arrivals for two months that about says it all!
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 8:45:35am
John,
While I am ecstatic with the success of Sovereign borders I actually though the article was even handed and neutral. Not the usual ALP handwringing fanboy musings.
I wonder what the mechanism for testing the legality of the events mentioned in the article?
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 10:05:31am
The framing of the government's tactics in terms of international law is not neutral because international law always side with asylum seekers and barbarians. Never known an international law expert who wasn't trying to impose the Left project by legal stealth. It is precisely the sort of 'complexity' that was central to Labor's whole approach to asylum seekers. It rendered them impotent and confused and open to ideological follies. Of course legal considerations do matter, but they shouldn't replace dealing with the world as it actually is, or trump democracy or sovereignty.
Reply Alert moderator
Chris L:
17 Feb 2014 11:09:22am
"Conan! What is best in life?"
"To cross the borders, seek asylum after being driven from homelands... and hear the lamentation of the xenophobes!"
Reply Alert moderator
the plainsman:
17 Feb 2014 11:42:50am
Asylum seekers seek refuge at the nearest border, they have my support and sympathy. Illegal immigrants who "island hop" to pay a huge fare to a criminal people smuggler to illegally enter our waters are just economic migrants who by thumbing their nose at our immigration laws show a propensity not to respect law. I don't want them, and fortunately for Australians (the only people I have an obligation ) we have a government who puts Australia first, and one wonders how far the people smuggler network reaches....in Australia ? In Indonesia ? In the UN ? We'll never know.
Reply Alert moderator
Cliff B:
17 Feb 2014 12:16:37pm
Your logic would hold true if the government hadn't cut the number of refugees they do allow in on a quota system while falsely claiming that we are "second to none" in our intake.
If there is a "legitimate" way for asylum seekers to come here, why halve the number while increasing the number of migrants with money (genuine economic migrants are actually welcome!)?
Is it not also rather selfish and complacent to accept that impoverished neighbouring countries to crisis points, with, in some cases, millions of refugees should just grin and bear it, while we luxuriate in our wealth denying refugees entry?
There is nothing in the UN Refugee Convention and Protocols which Australia has agreed to uphold, but is failing to do so, that says asylum seekers must remain in a borer country. your claim they are "illegal" is false.
Reply Alert moderator
harry:
17 Feb 2014 12:40:41pm
They were able to cut the overall numbers because they have reduced the illegal entrants to a trickle. The net result is more refugees from border camps.
Labor's increase to 30,000 places was overwhelmed by the >35,000 a year entering illegally, they reserved 12,000 places for refugee resettlement.
The Coalition has a target of 13,500 refugees, which will now be mostly from border camps.
So the only difference will be ~35,000 less economic migrants and around $3B a year of costs under the Coalition's management of our borders.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 12:46:14pm
Whilst I am ecstatic with the success if Sovereign borders I am annoyed that Abbott has cut the number of Refugee places to 13k. I believe he should have raised them.
To be anti boat person does not have to mean anti refugee.
Reply Alert moderator
the plainsman:
17 Feb 2014 1:35:07pm
If a so -called protocol is not only against our national interest and also is a catalyst for crime (such as people smuggling), then it is morally indefensible to support it. The UN has a duty to revisit , abut would that cut the income of so many grubby hands or contra deals.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 12:32:14pm
I regard all asylum seekers as people smugglers, and I think this aspect of the subversion of our borders is neglected. After getting here their first thought is about how they can get the rest of their extended family here as fast as possible and I doubt many will wait to go through official processes. How is it that people seeking our protection are all related to each other? All those phone calls from places like Auburn to search authorities claiming boats are sinking. They arrange people smuggling, borrow and pay for it from crooks here and abroad, end up in bonded work to pay off debts, lie for each other. It's the norm. Whatever it takes.
Reply Alert moderator
azalon:
17 Feb 2014 1:00:42pm
my god.
ravensclaw, coochey, schuey & APM
i would have thought an effective border control policy was one that efficiently and humanely intercepted, processed, and settled all genuine refugees within australia in line with our international obligations?
what we have is one which undermines the sovereign integrity of a key regional partner, diminishes public accountability and confidence, and subjects desperate people to intolerable living conditions for indefinite terms
oh but thats okay. so long as the boats stop, right?
Reply Alert moderator
mick:
17 Feb 2014 1:21:14pm
"our international obligations"
I'm always amused by claims we have such obligations, which are signed up to by unelected political busybodies on committees at the UN.
If there truly were "obligations", then they would be enforceable, but they are not enforceable so they are not obligations, merely the ephemera of little tete a tetes at the home of villains and vagabonds, the UN.
Feel free thought to huff and puff and demand we all pay attention to vacuous claptrap from meetings we will never know about where the population of Australia is signed up to ridiculous nonsense.
If any politician or their party promotes ending our membership of the buffet of greed and entitlement that is the UN, they would have my support.
There will always be desperate people willing to try their luck at a better place then their own disastrous mess of a country home, and personally I would prefer them to stay there and fix it, then to come here a'beggin.
Reply Alert moderator
azalon:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:37pm
mick
our elected officials made the decision to sign up to the UN Refugee Convention, just as they may choose to remove us from it.
We signed it. We are obliged to comply with the legal obligations. Whats to be amused about?
Reply Alert moderator
mick:
17 Feb 2014 2:21:08pm
"We are obliged to comply with the legal obligations"
More a guideline really, that you can ignore.
It is senseless to harp on about a "legal obligation" that is nothing of the sort, it is an illusion .. hence why so many of are amused.
It is not signed up to by our leaders, it is signed up to by staff of various appointees.
Seriously, when was the last time any leader of Australia even went along to a UN HR meeting, let alone a vote .. it is done my minions and underlings which is why it has no weight at all.
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 3:51:07pm
"More a guideline really, that you can ignore"!
That comment about sums up Liberal thinking.
Not only on this issue but others as well.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 2:36:49pm
Azalon. These people arrive by boat without identities because they believe it will increase their chances of success and prevent them from being deported back to Indonesia. They are trying to abuse the system.
The refugee convention needs to be read in proper context. The convention is not supposed to help economic migration, nor is it designed to undermine borders by allowing large groups of civilians to invade other countries.
If Indonesia is not willing to accept boat people back if they fail their refugee applications, we must prevent Indonesia from sending the boat people to us in the first place.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 4:59:53pm
Speaking of economic migration. Here is news from this website. 'Tensions at the Manus Island detention centre erupted into a violent breakout last night, after asylum seekers were told their only option for resettlement was to live in Papua New Guinea.'
So it's not about protection. This gives the game away.
Reply Alert moderator
blax5:
17 Feb 2014 5:00:06pm
The word 'obligations' has long been an irritant to me. Obligations that have no rights attached are not acceptable to me.
The Refugee Convention will fall in a heap, I am confident. It is firstly too one-sided and secondly developments are on the way which will definitely make it unworkable. Just today we read of a recent population explosion (not my term) in Egypt which is predicted to create a rather unstable country. But like always, people do not react to developments when they could do so in a measured way. They wait until it erupts, to avoid that American plebeian term.
Reply Alert moderator
Rod Olsen:
17 Feb 2014 5:19:44pm
The United Nations Organisation is vital. Before the UN started we had two world wars in 30 years, killing tens of millions. Since the UN started there have been no world wars. The UN is not perfect, after all it is made up of competing nations, fighting regional wars. Nevertheless it works. If we went back to naked self-interest, racial intolerance and war mongering (i.e. Adolph Hitler), then regional wars would quickly become a global war - one flash and we are all ash. I vividly remember the panic I shared with millions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We survived just - because the UN provided the public forum for the issues to be debated. Also the leaders of the USA and USSR had seen global war up close, blood-soaked and personal. Kennedy commanded a plywood motor torpedo boat in the Pacific. Khrushchev was in Stalingrad while the Nazis tried to conquer it. Neither wanted another global war. So they communicated with each other privately while their representatives debated in the UN. History provides us the lessons for surviving the future, provided we are wise enough to learn them. The UN is a vital lesson to be learned, remembered and valued.
Reply Alert moderator
ruthie:
17 Feb 2014 1:47:13pm
In the meanwhile, the Indonesian PM makes it very clear that one his key neighbours lacks moral capacity to a horrifying degree. As one of my daughters said recently, "Australia has an enormous land mass, and we're so wealthy... we don't need to do this."
Why do Australians think/feel there's a need to treat people like this? Because they are racist. Simple. Sad, but simply true. And how will we stand before God, with these attitudes? We'll fall.
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 2:09:24pm
Well if even Ruthie's daughter thinks ... it must be true. How lucky Ruthie is, that her daughter has a mind of her own and doesn't just think what Ruthie tells her to think.
However Ruthie, since we're on the subject of axiomatic truths, "would-be-illegal-immigrant" isn't a race. Try to think of some other term if you want to insult people, it will make you look so much more intelligent than shouting slogans and declaring "truth" does.
Reply Alert moderator
ruthie:
17 Feb 2014 2:56:14pm
I'm very lucky. None of my four children spout their mothers' opinions.
My point was not that if my daughter thinks a thing, what she thinks must be correct. My point was that the atittude toward asylum seekers adopted by many Australians, is recognised with horror, by even the young. I'm proud to see that my children/students, are not merrily adopting racism, which is common amongst many Australians. They are thinking about race themselves, and making their own decisions about responding to desperate need among some peoples.
Again, this nation will answer to God for it's self protecting abuses of needy people. This is a 'truth' that should frighten us, not fill us with insulting bravado. I say this without a desire to 'look so much more intelligent', but with a shrinking fear of the consequences we will face in light of our foolish rejection of mercy, love and truth.
Reply Alert moderator
not impressed:
17 Feb 2014 2:16:54pm
"the Indonesian PM makes it very clear that one his key neighbours lacks moral capacity to a horrifying degree"
There is nothing stopping the Indonesian government signing up to the UN HR obligations is there?
I'm not sure you quite get the irony of using the President of a state (Indonesia) who is not a signatory to the morally binding (if not legally) UNHR charter as an example of morality.
Indonesia could accept them all in a heartbeat, but choose not to.
So much for THEIR moral capacity.
We, many Australians, choose not to accept people who turn up uninvited, but prefer to bring in those who have been in refugee camps for years. We have ethical principles, unlike some of those to chide us for our lack of morals.
Reply Alert moderator
ruthie:
17 Feb 2014 3:35:42pm
Not impressed: "I'm not sure you quite get the irony of using the President of a state (Indonesia) who is not a signatory to the morally binding (if not legally) UNHR charter as an example of morality."
I'm not quite sure you understand that being a signatory to any kind of charter (including those of the UN) does not demonstrate a person to be 'moral'. This is why that very capable political leader, not the president of Indonesia but the foreign minister Marty Natalagawa (my mistake there) had every right to express his concern about the Australian actions against asylum seekers.
Reply Alert moderator
ruthie:
17 Feb 2014 3:38:37pm
Not impressed:
And yes, we prefer to bring them in from the camps they've been in for years ... to put them in prisons and prison camps for years instead. So much better ... not.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:28:24pm
At least get your facts right. People who are in overseas refugee camps and are granted asylum in Australia NEVER get put in "prison or in prison camps". They are released into the general population. Unless of course they break the law once they are here.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:23:15pm
I applaud your daughter for her sympathetic values. Unfortunately, as an adult, I understand the shortcomings to her solution, ie. "We don't need to do this". I may be wrong but I would assume she thinks they should just be able to come here at will and in whatever numbers. Reality steps in when, again as an adult, I realise that an open door policy is unsustainable. The trickle would eventually become a flood. As we all know, controlling a trickle is feasible. Controlling a flood is impossible. Far easier to accept this and remain in control. By all means, increase the refugee intake but do it in a way that keeps us in control. Highly desirable fringe benefits include; people will not be exploited by criminals and deaths at sea will decline.
Reply Alert moderator
GraemeF:
17 Feb 2014 1:52:52pm
azalon, haters gotta hate. It make them feel superior and righteous smiting their 'enemies'. If it wasn't asylum seekers they would create another enemy to distract people from their economic policies that will lower the standard of living for the vast majority of Australians and make their already wealthy backers even more wealthy.
Divide and conquer, smoke and mirrors. They shout, 'look over there, a nasty person' and while you are distracted they empty your wallet.
Reply Alert moderator
mick:
17 Feb 2014 2:31:14pm
Nice strawman you have created there .. so anyone who disagrees with you on asylum seekers is a "hater"..? You don't know me or my reasons yet you fabricate reasons to allow you to dislike me because you don't like my opinion.
Asylum seekers are not an "enemy".
"They shout, 'look over there, a nasty person' and while you are distracted they empty your wallet."
I think you have a bigger problem than most if you have to demonise people who are different like this. Empty your wallet? Where did that come from?
"Divide and conquer, smoke and mirrors."
Seriously, get some help. People who have a different opinion are not always trying to rob you or confuse you or anything else you seem to attribute just because their opinion is not the same as yours.
Reply Alert moderator
schuey:
17 Feb 2014 3:49:08pm
"I would have thought an effective border control policy was one that efficiently and humanely intercepted, processed, and settled all genuine refugees within australia in line with our international obligations?"
We tried that and it failed miserably. The economic refugees destroyed their passports and rendered the process ineffective.
The new process while not perfect is far far more effective.
Reply Alert moderator
Tom1:
17 Feb 2014 2:49:08pm
APM: I am not in favour of unlimited refugees coming to Australia from countries with a foreign culture and religion to ours. In fact I am not in favour of people coming here with any dogmatic religion at all. Culture will slowly change, but religion rarely so, and we have enough problems with ours.
However I do resent the fact that the Coalition from Howard onwards has used this human misery as a political tool, and increased the use of xenophobia to do so.
We are now suffering a liberal government, because the prime minister, a man of one religion has no difficulty in making harsh decisions concerning people of different religions, and he has convinced the population that were are suffering a sovereign border crisis.
Imagine if all of the boat people were Catholics from Ireland. We would have no boat people problem.
I would be the last to suggest that we open our borders, and take unlimited refugees, but this is one issure that political parties should at least work together on.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 8:57:18am
Ravensclaw, John, do you notice that some people still think that we shouldn't be protecting our borders?
The fact that our maritime border touches on someone else's is of no concern, especially not when the boats leave that country to try to get to Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 10:07:03am
Protecting them from what, exactly? People who need help? Nice.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:27:24am
Well if they need help they can go to the UNHCR that is what they are there for not try and buy their way into Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Cliff B:
17 Feb 2014 12:19:57pm
Just that easy is it!
And if they find themselves in a country which isn't signatory to the UN Convention and Protocols (like Australia is) and they are hunted down, and chased out, what then? Just pick up a phone and ring the UNHCR? And if there isn't a UNHCR there?
Don't comment from a basis of ignorance, mate!
Get some facts first. Jones, Bolt, Morrison won't give you any.
Reply Alert moderator
harry:
17 Feb 2014 12:41:48pm
Has Indonesia hunted them down and chased them out?
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 5:12:18pm
Asylum seekers hunt our boats, after confecting a story about their vessel sinking, unless it is actually sinking because they caused it to do so. These are hostile and deceptive acts. A navy that doesn't protect our borders from scoundrels and in fact brings them back to punish us further with more lies and demands is not worth having.
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 12:54:28pm
Even,
"Well if they need help they can go to the UNHCR that is what they are there for not try and buy their way into Australia."
You have it backwards. The people who "buy their way" into Australia do not arrive on leaky boats. The deal direct with the immigration department, which bends over backwards to accommodate them, despite there being no question of them "fleeing persecution" or having any other valid reason for leaving their homeland. They are called "Business Migrants".
The people you attempt to malign have paid for their passage, exactly as I paid for my passage when I last flew to Europe. I did not "buy my way" into Europe - I paid Qantas for transport. The people you attempt to malign are honest people who have a perfect legal right to approach Australia (and to enter its sovereign territory) in order to request asylum. As a signatory of the UN convention on refugees, Australia has a LEGAL OBLIGATION on to offer them assistance, care for their needs and process their claim for asylum.
You can slag off at the UN convention on refugees if you like, but you should remember that, in doing so you will be castigating Sir Robert Menzies, because it was he who signed it (with massive public support). Menzies had massive public support because people could still remember the shame and horror that resulted from the US "turn back the boats" policy (on which much of Abbott's policy is modelled), and how many of the Jewish refugees who were turned back ended up as rotting corpses by the time the Russian and Allied troops "liberated" them from Auschwitz and Belsen.
Sorry to be graphic, but ignorant bigots like yourself need to know the potential cost to others of your blinkered and cowardly views.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 3:08:35pm
"The people you attempt to malign have paid for their passage"
No they have paid someone to attempt to break another countries laws.
Well keep up the name calling seems there are many like me and if this mornings effort is any indication there are more every day
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:06:35pm
People smuggling is illegal under International law, v, in the form of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which states in Article 3 that "Illegal entry shall mean crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State". It is also illegal under Australian law under Section 233A of the Migration Act 1958. The Act also states in Section 228B (Circumstances in which a non-citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia) that those coming to Australia without permission in the form of a valid visa do not have any legal right to come to Australia. Section 228B, subsection 2 specifically states that those coming with the intention of seeking asylum do not have a legal right to come to Australia if they don't have the legally required visas. Those "honest people" contravene both Australian law and International law by hiring criminals to bring them here.
Reply Alert moderator
OverIt:
17 Feb 2014 3:46:31pm
Protecting us from people who claim they need protection, but actually only need money.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 10:08:16am
If you provide someone without identification papers a boat and send them to another country you are a people smuggler.
Good Old Tony has managed to turn the Navy into one of those despicable criminal organisations - a people smuggling ring.
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 10:47:06am
Lazarus- by your logic the Navy were already people smugglers because they used to pick these people up at sea and bring them to Australia.
The best solution is probably to leave them to drown- then no-one can malign the Navy.
Reply Alert moderator
Cliff B:
17 Feb 2014 12:23:22pm
Do you realize what you are saying? You actually condone leaving people at sea and letting them die. You don't think that is utterly murderous, callous and inhumane, let alone criminal? Have you really considered what you are saying?
Hard to believe you have.
A life or many lives for the navy's reputation.
A devilish bargain.
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 1:23:12pm
Cliff, stop being so precious, gnome was merely pointing out the stupidity of lazaruses comment.
Reply Alert moderator
SVJ:
17 Feb 2014 1:34:46pm
"ASHLEY HALL: The Customs and Border Protection Service has intercepted another suspected asylum seeker boat carrying 30 people off Christmas Island. It follows the decision to call off the search for survivors of another boat that sunk off the island at the weekend. Customs also decided not to try to recover bodies from that boat, to allow it to respond to others that may need help. One expert on the law of the sea says there is no obligation under international law to recover the dead from the water."
You mean like the previous government when they were luring thousands to their death. Boats are stopping now so the risk is significantly less.
Reply Alert moderator
Glamorpig:
17 Feb 2014 1:14:13pm
"then no-one can malign the Navy."
Except for Tony Abbott, who claims that they are confused by wind and tides.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 2:05:21pm
They previously bought them from international waters (sometimes Indonesian) to Australia, they didn't send them to another country. Doh! Engage brain before typing.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:29:50am
It is not people smuggling to return an illegal vessil back into its home waters.Australia has the right to refuse entry to any vessil that it suspects of illegal activity.
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 1:08:42pm
Even,
"It is not people smuggling to return an illegal vessil back into its home waters."
There is no such thing as an "illegal vessel". And, as I explained in an earlier post, what you describe may not be "people smuggling" (there is no such crime on anyone's statutes, by the way), it IS piracy and, if passengers are interfered with in ANY way, it is also assoult AND, if passengers are removed from their vessel against their will, it is kidnapping as well.
But Tony Abbott probably thinks that he is relatively safe from prosecution. Unfortunately, the young, inexperienced bbut dedicated sailors being ordered against their better judgement to carry out these barbaric crimes may not be so lucky. Many of the asylum seekers attacked by our navy have video and sound recording devices of various sorts and they are gathering evidence. Abbott will not be able to keep the lid on this for too much longer. It will get very, very ugly.
Reply Alert moderator
uglyducling:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:55pm
V,
You seem to think that the "young, inexpereienced but dedicated sailors being ordered against their better judgement to carry out these barbaric crimes"... REALLY?
Please explain how you would know this? Or is that just a though bubble to make your argument sound more plausible?
As an ex sailor with quite a few years doing exactly what these sailors are doing right now I think I can say with a degree of expertise that they are in favor of the current actions being taken. The role of the Navy (in case you are unsure) is to protect Australia and carry out whatever is required of them by the Government of the day. The Navy has extensive training and expertise in this area and does an outstanding job. I also know that many Naval servicemen/women (judging from my own personal contacts that are still serving) are extremely insulted and angry with this asylum burnt hands rubbish story and the way it was portrayed. It make you wonder which side the Media is on.
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 3:18:13pm
uglyduck,
'"You seem to think that the "young, inexpereienced but dedicated sailors being ordered against their better judgement to carry out these barbaric crimes"... REALLY?'
That's right..REALLY. According to the sailors with whom I have spoken in my role as a service provider, they and their colleagues greatly resent being used for political purposes in a manner that exposes them personally to the threat of prosecution for breaches of the Law of the Sea and/or cromes against humanity.
By the way, they are also rather angry about the diversion of resources in Northern Australia away from intelligence collection and the sharp deterioration in relations with Indonesia, which is making inter-operability with their Indonesian colleagues almost impossible.
"Operation Border Security" is NOT a legitimate use of our armed forces. There is no military threat to Australia's metropolitan territory, nor to our sovereignty, nor even to our strategic interests being posed by the small number of refugees who attempt to reach Australia. It is nothing more than a cynical political exercise from a populist Prime Minister who used fear campaigns to win power and is sticking doggedly to the formula in government.
When you work with members of the ADF, you cannot help but be impressed by their dedication and professionalism. You learn to respect them. And, when they are being abused by a bad government simply because as a diversion from the fact that the PM is not up to the job, it does tend to get up your nose.
But what gets up my nose even more are cowards like yourself who try to hide behind these brave and dedicated individuals in a vain attempt to defend the government that is abusing them.
Reply Alert moderator
Uglyduckling:
17 Feb 2014 3:56:09pm
As a service provider I'm very sure you would have carried our bording party operations and know the the general feeling of the servicemen involved... NOT. Your a Civvie who "thinks" they know, but you have never stepped in their shoes and done this yourself... as I said in my previous post... your making stuff up to suit your argument.
Did you actually read the bit in my post about my being involved directly in boarding operations previously and having a number of friends that still carry out these tasks? I think not. As a civvy service provider you cannot know whats it's like, no matter how many books you read.
The RAN has many duties both in wartime and in peaceful times, one of which is protect the borders. What part of that statement do you not understand.
And as for calling me a coward, you don't know me. I have served my country proudly in the ADF for 6 years, what have you done?
Reply Alert moderator
Veganpuncher:
17 Feb 2014 5:26:22pm
The official role of the ADF is 'To defend Australia and its national interests'. The democratically-elected government of the day has decided that stopping smugglers, whether they be of people, drugs or other goods, from entering Australian waters is a national interest. Ergo, the ADF is being legitimately employed.
I think you are being disingenuous about your relationship with the RAN personnel on OP SOVEREIGN BORDERS (getting the name wrong does tend to undermine your credibility Mr Mitty)
Also, your categorisation of said cargo as 'refugees' is incorrect. These people stop being refugees once they are out of immediate danger. These are economic migrants paying criminals to help them to avoid Australia's laws. Hardly the kind of migrants I want.
Let me ask you a few questions which anyone may feel free to answer: Theoretically, when would we stop? Give me a number. How many illegal immigrants should we take per year? What happens once we reach this quota? Where shall they live? Who shall pay for them?
Assuaging white, middle-class guilt, like everything, comes with a cost. Australia complies with its international obligations, one of which is not allowing criminals to thumb their noses at our laws. What I do not want to see is my taxes being used to house, feed, clothe people who have started their lives in Australia by deliberately flouting our laws - it sets a poor precedent and I do not consider it my job to assuage the kneejerk 'save the world' guilt of people who are happy to accept illegal migrants as long as someone else does the actual work and they don't have to live anywhere near them.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:11:11pm
v, read the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime which makes people smuggling a crime under International law as well as Section 233A (Offence of people smuggling) of the Migration Act 1958 which makes people smuggling a crime under Australian law.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 2:20:00pm
When you are putting them in an orange lifeboats to send them back you are people smuggling. You have taken them from their previous vessel in international waters and by doing so should offer them asylum if they request it.
The orange lifeboat is Australian Government property so it is supplying the means of transport to facilitate undocumented people being sent to a sovereign nation against the wishes of that nation and the people on board the boat. You might have an argument if you just sent back the crew in the lifeboat.
That is what you are complaining about regarding people smugglers when they arrive in Australian waters.
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 1:03:29pm
lazarus,
"If you provide someone without identification papers a boat and send them to another country you are a people smuggler. "
Not according to the Law of the Sea. According to the Law of the Sea, if you take control of a vessel on the high seas by force, you are a pirate. If you subesquently forcibly remove people from that vessel, you are a kidnapper. And, of course, if anyone in your custody suffers an injury in any way or for any reason, you are automatically responible for the injury and, if anyone dies while under your custody, you are guilty of either manslaughter or murder.
The sad thing is that, if any prosecutions are launched (and any of the refugees currently being attacked by our navy could launch a prosecution) it will be individual sailors (most of whom vehemently oppose Abbott's policy) who will end up fronting up to The Hague to face court. They are good people trying to do a good job. Abbott should not be putting them at such terrible risk for purely political purposes. Our navy is there to defend Australia, not to be used as a political tool.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 1:28:47pm
The Law of Sea says no such thing. Naval vessels cannot be pirates nor kidnappers if they are acting under the orders of their government.
Reply Alert moderator
the plainsman:
17 Feb 2014 1:45:08pm
Correct, but to be a legal pedant they must also fly their national flag.
Reply Alert moderator
Redfish:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:23pm
Refugees being attacked by our Navy fairly emotive language old mate, you of course of have evidence of our Navy firing on these vessels or attacking them?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:16:37pm
You really should at least try to learn the law before you post, v. Making it up as you go along doesn't work, especially as many people posting here actually have formal legal training of one sort or another. If you had learned the law then you would, for example, know that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over any of the actions undertaken by the RAN in Operation Sovereign Borders as none of them are contained within the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:35:17pm
What a load of poppycock. "Responsible for any injury under any circumstances". "Guilty of manslaughter or murder".
Reply Alert moderator
Sotopanna:
17 Feb 2014 12:17:04pm
John: "our maritime border touches on someone else's is of no concern,"
There is an element of arrogance or aloofness in this approach which appears to be irritating Indonesia. Such insolence can cause an intensification leading to events at sea which might fan even more enduring tensions. Material upon which Australia might become an issue in Indonesian elections, further exacerbating the situation.
The presence of China's navy indicting that they will back Indonesia should their waters be continually entered is concerning.
The costs associated with this will not abate in the foreseeable future. The people smugglers are canny and patient. Until, if ever, the costs are known, the practicality of having our navy on station appear considerable.
Unfortunately our Navy's navigators have been illustrated as incompetent or silenced victims of a more militarised state headed by a general on a war (on unfortunates) footing.
By minding the interests of one's neighbours one can exists in peace, insolence will yield the contrary.
What would it cost to patrol not for refugees but for Indonesian naval vessels intent upon flexing a new found Chinese supported political stance?
Reply Alert moderator
Redfish:
17 Feb 2014 2:00:05pm
The presence of the Chinese Navy indicates not such thing, perhaps if Indonesias Navy was actually doing its job instead of taking kick backs from people smugglers this would not be such a bone of contention between our two countries.
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 3:40:21pm
sotopanna,
"The presence of China's navy indicting that they will back Indonesia should their waters be continually entered is concerning."
China is absolutely loving what is going on at the moment.
Over the past twenty years, the US and Australian governments have spent BILLIONS on countering the growing Chinese influence in Asia and the Pacific, and much of the effort has focused on the strategically vital Indonesian islands. Meanwhile, China has been spending billions in aid, to build relationships with Indonesia and her neighbours in an attempt to expand its "sphere of influence" and constrain the "sphere of influence" of the US.
It is interesting to note that, within a few hours of the revelation that Australian spies had been acting inappropriately in Indonesia, the Chinese government had issued a strongly worded statement condemning Australia's actions and offering support to Indonesia.
It is likely that the actions of the Abbott government since September have scuttled or at least seriously set back the efforts of US and Australian diplomats and given the Chinese a huge free-kick in their quest for greater influence and power in our region. Every time Bishop, Abbott or Morrison opens their mouth, Indonesia gets a little closer to China.
Reply Alert moderator
Ben:
17 Feb 2014 4:09:58pm
China doesn't care a jot about us or our policy. They are courting Indonesia, much the same as the US is doing. That's it, don't read something into it that isn't there.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:36:58pm
Tell me, how many refugees China has accepted?
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 9:35:58am
Too right, John. How about the ABC focussing for a change on the lives saved by the Coalition's successful policy. No arrivals for 8 weeks means no deaths for 8 weeks. Rudd's calculation was once expressed as an average of 2 deaths a day. That's, over 100 lives saved. At Bowen's calculation, when immigration minister, that 4% of boat people died attempting the voyage, the 50,000+ that made it under Labor reflected over 2000 dead. When did we, even once, hear criticism from any ABC journalist of this consequence? On Insiders this Sunday, did Barry Cassidy once concede the positive consequences of the success of the current government? The ABC is obsessed with doing everything it can to hinder the government on this issue. The question is, why.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 10:06:02am
100 lives saved? How do you know that? You don't. You just made it up.
You advocate turning around legitimate refugees then have no idea what happens to them.
Which amply demonstrates that you couldn't care less whether they live or die.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 10:30:41am
Its called maths David. Roger used it successfully using number stated by and that occurred over the ALP's time in government.
Over 100 lives have been saved. Or the other way of looking at it is that the ALP caused about 2,000 deaths a year.
It would be nice for once to have a positive article on the ABC regarding the lives saved and sovereignty gained by a very successful program. Unfortunately I do not see it happening due to ABC bias.
Reply Alert moderator
Ruttegar:
17 Feb 2014 1:14:26pm
Your reasoning on lives saved only makes sense if refugees did not make the journey at all. Note that all Coalition spin talks about successful landings, not about boats turned around or life boats used. How many don't get that far????
There are no lives saved here.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 4:28:32pm
I'm afraid you're mistakenly assuming that the argument is based upon reasoning. It's not. It's about trying to justify xenophobia.
You can thank John Howard, the man who made racism respectable again to conservatives.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 4:14:50pm
Or maybe it's because they're not so pig ignorant as to spout statistics that someone just made up.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 10:49:51am
Figures based on numbers used by Rudd and Bowen at various times, they stated based on figures calculated by the government department. So, no, not made up. As for "legitimate refugees", read the numerous comments on this page demonstrating these are clearly people NOT directly fleeing persecution. You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating a policy that has demonstrably, as admitted by all sides of the debate, led to thousands of deaths. Which, to use your own words, amply demonstrates that you couldn't care less whether they live or die.
Reply Alert moderator
donkeyvoter:
17 Feb 2014 6:18:33pm
But let's not forget that easily the strongest pillar of the Coalition's asylum seeker policy, the PNG solution, was gifted to them by Kevin Rudd. The Morrison initiatives since the election seem to be a great deal less intelligent in design.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 6:18:55pm
Not even close.
You might want to sit down while you read this. I'd try to live up to our obligations under the refugee convention. Oh, and also under the rules of basic human decency. Even if it cost money! Weird, huh?
I remind the Christians here that the famous parable is called "The Good Samaritan", not the "The Uneducated Racist Bogan."
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:34:20am
"You advocate turning around legitimate refugees then have no idea what happens to them."
No we are just refusing to let a vessil carrying out illegal activities from entering our territorial waters where they go after that is none of Australias concern.Well done to our boys and girls of the RAN and Customs.Keep up the good work Australia salutes you
Reply Alert moderator
v:
17 Feb 2014 1:55:32pm
EVAN,
"No we are just refusing to let a vessil carrying out illegal activities from entering our territorial waters"
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried - and you are propably trying very hard.
In sailing toward Australia, the VESSELS in question (there is no such thing as a "vessil") are exercising their RIGHT under the Law of the Sea to freedom of navigation. On entering Australian territorial waters, anyone on the vessel who identifies themselves as a refugee immediately becomes the responsibility of the Australian government and must, according to international law, be assisted in their passage TO THEIR DESTINATION, and have their claims properly and lawfully assessed in a timely manner.
If an Australian navy vessel intercepts a vessel, that is lawfully exercising it's right to freedom of navigation in international waters, and attempts to hinder its passage or forcibly board it, the captain of the RAN vessel would be guilty of an act of piracy under the law of the sea. If any passengers or crew are deprived of their liberty, held against their will, taken from the vessel against their will or physically molested in any way, the navy could expose itself to charges of kidnapping and people-trafficing (people-trafficing IS a crime under international law, which makes it a very different thing to "people smuggling", which is not a crime under international law because the "smuggler" is transporting passengers of their own free will.
So, if there are any crimes being committed, they are being committed by "our boys and girls in the RAN". The really sick thing about this is that they don't have a choice. They have to follow orders - even when they vehemently disagree with them and, in doing so, expose themselves personally to the risk of prosecution under international law.
If you cared two hoots about "our boys and girls" (most are adults), you would be out there doing everything you can to oppose Abbott's illegal policies in order to protect them from prosecution for "just following orders". Your hypocrisy is truly vomit-making.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 3:16:52pm
" exercising their RIGHT under the Law of the Sea to freedom of navigation."
Don't think they have the right to illegal activity.So tell me the difference between people smuggling and drug smuggling or arms smuggling.I presume you think drug and arms smuggling is an illegal activity.
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 4:36:05pm
Abbot and Morrison have fooled the ignorant and gullible into believing that refuges are acting illegally. They are well aware it's untrue - just look at the carefully manipulated language they use.
But never mind. You just go on believing what you're told to believe.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:22:05pm
The right to freedom of navigation is limited only to navigation for legal purposes, v. That's a basic tenet of customary International law. People smuggling is illegal under International law so any vessel involved in it doesn't have a right to freedom of navigation. Intercepting people smuggler vessels isn't piracy under International law regardless of the vessel's location. It is permitted under Article 7 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
Reply Alert moderator
SVJ:
17 Feb 2014 1:42:07pm
David,
The previous administration left bodies in the sea because the sheer numbered outweighed the resources we have. Check ABC transcripts (Ashley Hall to Jason Glare, June 2013, I think). I'm assuming your significantly more outraged by that fact!
Reply Alert moderator
David Kay:
17 Feb 2014 4:22:04pm
Actually, I'm most outraged by hypocrites who pretend to care about the vulnerable people they are persecuting.
It doesn't matter whether they die, just as long as they don't die on our shores and spoil our well-earned Christmas holidays.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 10:10:45am
The deaths were averaging a lot higer than 2 under Abbott at one stage as well, that's the problem with averages.
Reply Alert moderator
Chris L:
17 Feb 2014 11:14:16am
It's fair enough to mention a statement made by someone during one term and apply it to another.
Like how Abbott and Morrison stated that news releases about boat arrivals assists people smugglers, which logically means during the previous government Abbott was loudly and directly assisting people smugglers.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:23:16pm
The news releases by the LNP when in Opposition did not detail the nature of every boat arrival. They detailed the nature of an incompetent and uncaring government.
A government that had previously trumpeted "Another boat, another policy failure." when in Opposition themselves but then set about weakening our laws and encouraging people to head to sea in totally unsafe vessels.
Pointing out the incompetence of a government has nothing to do with operational matters. Labor could try the same tactics now except they can't identify any incompetence to highlight.
"No boats for more than eight weeks" never happened under Labor. They just can't get their heads around that fact.
Reply Alert moderator
OverIt:
17 Feb 2014 1:32:56pm
"...which logically means during the previous government Abbott was loudly and directly assisting people smugglers."
Er no. Each arrival had already been announced by the previous government BEFORE Abbott drew attention to it. The people smugglers had already been well and truly informed.
Reply Alert moderator
Pegaso:
17 Feb 2014 12:14:55pm
Roger, did Scott Morrison just once answer any question Barry Cassidy put to him?What you perceive as the ABC hindering the Govt on this issue is an attempt to get the facts of the Govt's policy and its outcomes for the benefit of the electorate.If you are happy to be a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed b..l s..t then that was your choice at the ballot box.Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones programs are tailored just for you.
Reply Alert moderator
Reason:
17 Feb 2014 1:04:00pm
Roger: just to clarify there are currently 3 deaths owed to the Coalition's policy.
The three people who died hiking through the forest to reach a populated area after the boat the Australian government provided them washed ashore with insufficient fuel or food to get them somewhere safe.
Secondary note: If you look at the numbers of boat arrivals over the past 6 months you will see that the numbers were dwindling before The Liberal government even took over. The existing Labor policy was working. And they didn't resort to lies and internationally harmful practices to do it.
Reply Alert moderator
Bean Counter:
17 Feb 2014 2:22:16pm
Reason (1.04pm). OK, so the Rudd solution was already working when the LNP won the September election.
At that point, with the first ever ALP success in the entire six years of disaster, the ALP then hounded Kevin from the PMship...and eventually out of Parliament altogether. Several current ALP MPs are on record expressing their delight that Rudd is gone.
How does this attack by the ALP on the single thing you reckon THEY GOT RIGHT, make anyone more likely to vote for the idiots ever again?
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 4:00:02pm
Ahh..... the polls suggest the people would vote for them again.
But we dont want to talk about polls do we>
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 3:34:39pm
Three people hiking through a forest died and you attribute that to the Australian government?
At that rate when these people die of old age Abbott will also be blamed! After all, if he hadn't prevented them from dying at sea they never would have reached old age.
Exactly how many decisions were made by these people between the time they were out of sight of the Australian Navy and when they died? How many opportunities did they have to take a different path, choose an alternative course of action, produce a different outcome?
The cult of victimhood is a scourge worshipping at the altar of irresponsibility and this takes it further than ever before!
Reply Alert moderator
RayS:
17 Feb 2014 9:53:36am
The boats are still coming, it's only the massive naval cordon off the coast of Indonesia towing them back and that will continue to be necessary because legitimate refugees have little choice. They would rather be locked up than go back to where they fled from. This issue will remain an open sore, shaming us.
Abbott wins the "war on refugees". How brave.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 10:05:27am
Sorry, Ray S, you are in denial. There is plenty of evidence that, not only are far fewer boats leaving Indonesia, but increasing numbers of people are returning from Indonesia to places like Malaysia. Much to your clear displeasure, the boats are stopping and the government's policy is working. The question is, why do you so desperately not want it to work?
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 1:27:24pm
Roger, It isn't so much that Ray S doesn't want it to work, he just doesn't want it to work for the LNP, if it was labor who stopped the boats he would be crowing it from the rooftops.
Reply Alert moderator
Observer:
17 Feb 2014 10:06:44am
Another 'bleeding heart' comment. You should at least state that Abbott and Rudd's New Guinea Solution wins the war on refugees.
Can you please state, then, exactly how many of these unauthorised entries Australia should accept as refugees? Exact figures, please, with costings (eg the welfare required to support them). And, once we have reached this quota, and more unauthorised entries arrive, what should be done with them (and there will be more, given the open-door policy you appear to advocate)? Please explain.
It's really easy to offer sanctimonious commentary, but that doesn't solve anything.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy:
17 Feb 2014 11:17:50am
It's a myth that refugees cost the community , we are a country of refugees ... Are we all on welfare ? No .
An appropriate figure would be 100,000 thousand , this would boost the economy at a critical time , especially for drought afected areas
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 11:30:01am
Jimmy, the problem with drought effected areas is lack of rain, not lack of people. That is why it is called a drought. They are not claiming "skills shortage", depopulation or something similar. Each extra person will also require water, thus making the situation more difficult.
More people will only benefit the Australian economy if they have valuable skills that Australians to not currently have. There is a benefit in diversity due to different perspectives. Yet as more and more people come from any cultural background, the value of their diversity (whatever that may be) is diminished as it has already been added.
Business would be calling for refugees and giving them 457 visa positions if they truly believed they would be of value. All you need for a 457 visa is a company willing to hire you that can write down the words 'skills shortage" and is willing to offer you a lesser wage.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 12:11:29pm
It is not a myth, Jimmy, it is a fact. Read this:
A survey, commissioned in 2010 by the Immigration Department of 8,500 people accepted under our humanitarian program found that after a period of five years in Australia:
9% of Afghan adult refugees are in paid employment and 81% are continuing to receive benefits;
12% of Iraqi adult refugees work and 78% receive benefits.
The report found that Afghan and Iraqi refugees rarely spoke English, but that the higher competency in English language skills amongst Sri Lankans enabled them to find employment.
The report also found that because of lack of English language skills, Afghans and Iraqis tended to congregate in ethnic groups, usually of a religious nature. This caused a lack of association with other Australians and a disincentive to learn English. Because of this lack of language skill, children rarely went to mainstream schools and were usually educated by a religious organisation. It found that less than 30% of the children aged under14, including those born in Australia, spoke any English. The report also found that:
? ? the trend indicates that most of the people who do not speak English at all at the end of five years will probably stay that way for some time?.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship:
Policy Innovation, Research and Evaluation Unit:
April 2011.
Reply Alert moderator
Bush Dweller:
17 Feb 2014 12:15:54pm
Jimmy :
So, It has recently been reported by our ABC and that "mongrel Murdoch", that Greater than 80% of economic migrants (Bob Carr`s words) who gain "protection" in Australia remain on centrelink "benefits" after 5 years residency in the country. To use your appropriate figure of accepting 100 grand, thats an additional 80 Grand from day 1 that will remain sucking on our "collective teat" for greater than 5 years. What will than be your "solution when 100,001 manage to get here. Why do you think that "it will boost the economy (not working, draining our centrelink budget)" especially for drought affected areas. No jobs out here cobber, unless they can shoot thirsty, starving stock.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 2:50:02pm
Sorry bush dweller your statements don't reflect reality.
A Significant Contribution:
The Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of
First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants
Summary of Findings
Table 3: Regional resettlement locations
Location Group
Bendigo: Iraqis
Mount Gambier: Burmese
Bordertown: Sudanese
Murray Bridge: Afghans, Uzbeks, Sudanese
Cobram Barooga: Iraqis, Afghans
Shepparton: Iraqis, Congolese
Colac Sudanese Swan Hill Sudanese
Gippsland: Bosnians, Nepalese, Sudanese
Warrnambool: Sudanese
Mildura: Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans
Young: Afghans
Reply Alert moderator
Redfish:
17 Feb 2014 2:03:08pm
Its a myth, no I am pretty sure it is not a myth. There is a cost.
Reply Alert moderator
Jimmy:
17 Feb 2014 1:26:38pm
It's a myth that refugees cost the community , we are a country of refugees ... Are we all on welfare ? No .
An appropriate figure would be 100,000 thousand , this would boost the economy at a critical time , especially for drought afected areas
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 10:07:22am
You are equating what we are told we have to refer to as "asylum seekers" with refugees. International conventions require those claiming refugee status to do so in or from the country of first safe haven. That pantomime "Go back where you came from feature a Somali who had gone to Romania then Germany and when Germany started to crack down he came to Australia with false papers which he had bought. For the purpose of the program he went back to Somalia to visit relatives including his one hundred year old granny. No fear of persecution there.
Reply Alert moderator
Concerned:
17 Feb 2014 12:10:59pm
And don't forget the ones who have returned to Syria to join in the fighting once they get their Aussie citizenship. And then have the cheek to expect the Aussie government to bail them out when they get into strife. I would like to see our laws changed so that if you willingly go into a conflict zone as an Aussie citizen, unless you are a member of the media, the armed forces, or a government sanctioned NGO or official delegation, you enter at your own risk and you will NOT be rescued by the Aussie government.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 2:04:50pm
I take your point but I must counterpoint that with a letter which appeared in the Canberra Times a while ago. It commented on asylum seekers who were complaining about their accommodation. The write recounted the one and a half years he had spent in a camp in France with poorer conditions but at least he was fed and had a roof over his head. The next time he was there he did not because he was sleeping by his tank as he helped to liberate France. It took me a while to work out he would have been a loyalist Republican expelled by Franco who volunteered and would have been under Free French Command under Le Clerc. It is not commonly known that the first unit to liberate Paris spoke Spanish. To fight against the force that made you a refugee is something I would normally admire. Don't see no Somalis doing it.
Reply Alert moderator
CM:
17 Feb 2014 1:02:24pm
I didn't much like either of the "Go back" programs but I must respond to your comment about the Somali's 100-year old grandmother still in Somalia, which I've noticed before. I don't know anything about this particular case, but very generally, it is/was young men and women who were/are most threatened on a "convention" ground in Somalia - young men by being forced to fight (against other clans usually) and young women by being forced to marry, with attendant abuses, so to this extent it isn't so surprising that a lady who would already have been 60+ when the Somalian conflict broke out may have been spared being targeted. It still sounds very unusual though - most people don't live nearly so long in countries like Somalia, although there are obviously exceptions. But her longevity alone doesn't mean her grandson couldn't be a true refugee.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 1:54:11pm
The issue remains that we assume SBS used their best case but he had no problems returning it also shows that there could not have been massive civil strife because the aged and inferm are most at risk. No one was concealing their identity or refusing to be filmed nor did they claim any persecution or hardship. Other than of course living in a poor country.
Reply Alert moderator
Alfie:
17 Feb 2014 11:15:06am
"This issue will remain an open sore, shaming us."
But nothing like the shame of allowing hundreds of people to drown at sea through sheer political incompetence.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 12:15:49pm
Yeah Alfie. It has been at least 1100 drowned. There were no boat people not long ago. Then some moron opened the borders. I cannot fathom the thinking that leads so many otherwise intelligent people to essentially advertise that if you do something really dangerous the government of Australia should reward you with citizenship and relative wealth. It's quite mad to make desperation to come here a test for the legitimacy of your persecution claim, when surely more people are killed by getting on a boat than would happen without this lure of riches, and simply said no to everyone. In a world full of hardship, why would you choose to practice 'compassion' this way? By killing people? People who think like this are deranged. This sort of 'Compassion' is in fact the 'race to the bottom'.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 1:17:51pm
Perhaps Rudd's Manus Island plan had a small hand in the reduction of boat people?
Perhaps his statement that no boat people would be settled in Australia, played a hand?
Perhaps that is why Abbott almost fell over himself to incorporate those ideas into his own refugee policy?
Perhaps the majority of Australians dont share the Liberal manic obsession with stopping the boats as some sort of panacea to running the country?
Reply Alert moderator
Bean Counter:
17 Feb 2014 2:31:21pm
Trent Toogood (1.17pm) is yet another ALP booster unable to connect the shot-in-foot, with his earlier comments.
OK. Rudd was a genius. However, Labor chased him out once in 2010, and then hounded him out again in 2013.
Can YOU understand why this might not look too clever to any sane person?
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 4:11:56pm
There is more to being a good leader than stopping boats, as your hero John Howard found out.
Can you understand this?
The first PM to be chucked out on his butt by sane people in umpteen years, wasnt it?
The fact remains, Abbott couldnt wait to incorporate Labors idea.
Reply Alert moderator
Cliff B:
17 Feb 2014 12:30:30pm
Your concern for people drowning at sea is commendable. But why does it stop there?
Why doesn't it extend to allowing refugees to come here and have a better life? You were just dead lucky to be born here, not in Syria. You didn't choose.
We could fly refugees in from Indonesia and there'd be no risk at all of anyone drowning at sea.. There could be quotas applied if need be. After all 50,000 is a small number when you understand 230,000 people migrated to Australia in the last year!
Our population will decline if we don't allow migration. Who'll provide the revenue for your pension then?
And people who come with nothing surely stimulate the economy.
Reply Alert moderator
Alfie:
17 Feb 2014 1:39:14pm
"Who'll provide the revenue for your pension then?"
It might be hard for you to grasp, but some of us are not 'entitled' to handouts and will survive without being a burden taxpayers.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 3:01:06pm
I'm sure you are using PBS subsidised medication, maybe lucky enough to go to a bulk billing doctor, driving on the roads, get an untaxed or partly taxed super pension maybe.
You are still being subsidised anyway, get over yourself.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:38:05am
Oh dear RayS Tony said he would stop the boats and he has looks like at least two terms for can do Tony and Scott.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 1:25:33pm
Dont mention the polls, eh evan?
It seems the majority of Australians do not share your obsession with stopping the boats.
It seems the majority of Australians think that Tone is doing a dog of a job at running the country.
But we dont want to talk about that do we?
Reply Alert moderator
Glamorpig:
17 Feb 2014 1:10:44pm
"No boat arrivals for two months that about says it all!"
And you know this how?
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 3:03:18pm
The have been at least 2, we have seen the orange boats. Just because they are not in immigration detention doesn't mean they didn't arrive. Although that is the fiction Abbott and Morrison want you to believe.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 3:36:24pm
Yeah, the government is hiding them out the back of Woomera in an old tin shed with "Area 51" or some such painted on the side.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
17 Feb 2014 1:16:51pm
I am happy with grey. What in the hell should we do with them once we took control? Take them to Christmas Island like Gillard and Rudd did? What nonsense. Send them back from where the came is the obvious answer as they are controlled by Indonesian nationals and the boats originate from there so that there is no doubt about the country of origin.
The left are kicking and screaming now that there are no boats but maybe it s time to concentrate on getting rid of the useless carbon tax as this will be the next left agenda to fail.
Reply Alert moderator
Robert:
17 Feb 2014 1:51:12pm
That would be the same policy introduced by labor back in July.
You could at least say thank you!
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 4:49:23pm
Thanks
Reply Alert moderator
Theos:
17 Feb 2014 8:58:23am
The issue of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia is a very difficult one, and one that continues to generate considerable debate. The article by Professor Rothwell is interesting and contributes significantly to the debate by informing those interested in some of the legal issues involved. However, I don't believe that your comments contribute anything positive to the debate. To be frank, your comment seems quite childish.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
17 Feb 2014 9:22:40am
That is not a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Would Theos care to address the substantive points rather than engaging in personal attacks?
What of the disastrous abandonment of the Pacific Solution, and the more than 1200 deaths that followed in consequance?
Reply Alert moderator
Theos:
17 Feb 2014 10:45:24am
I consider statements like "You go, girlfriends!!!" (especially when it was directed to a male) and "Thank god the adults are in charge" as quite childish. It is my view that these statements were made in an attempt to demean - behaviour I would expect in the schoolyard, but not in a discussion between mature adults on such an important issue.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:26:22pm
Theos, a former PM dragged political comment down with statements such as "Game On!" screamed across the chamber. Compared to that you can hardly call "Thank God the adults are in charge" a childish comment.
Reply Alert moderator
sns:
17 Feb 2014 2:06:26pm
" ...a former PM dragged political comment down with statements such as "Game On!" screamed across the chamber."
Really? It was the former PM who dragged political comment down?
Screaming across the chamber?
I watched that session in Parliament and the former PM had to tell the House what she had said to the then Leader of the Opposition sotto voce on her way to the Dispatch Box. Screaming? I think you may be very confused to mistake the screamers like Pyne to be like the former PM you wish to malign.
But never let the facts get in the way of any point you want to make, eh?
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 10:57:50am
The abandonment of the Pacific Solution was a 2007 election committment affirmed by the election of Labor at the 2007 election. The subsequent knee knocking by Labor does not undermine the mandate they received at the 2007 election to dismantle the Pacific solution.
There were deaths under Howard - SIEV X was the prime example and under this current regime. Operation Shonky Orders must be a failure because of the deaths that have occurred under the Abbott Prime Ministership.
Can you please explain why Abbott has forced the Navy to become people smugglers and what is their liability if one of the orange lifeboats sinks or doesn't make it to Indonesia and the refugees starve to death?
Reply Alert moderator
Observer:
17 Feb 2014 11:32:10am
The implementation of the New Guinea solution was clearly a Rudd policy, not unlike the Pacific Solution (though arguably harsher). The election of the Abbott Government has effectively given Abbott a mandate to pursue his stated policy of turning back the boats.
Selectively quoting SIEV-X without mentioning the plethora of deaths under Labor is simply cherrypicking. Similarly, your assertion that the Navy is now engaging in people smuggling is yet another example of your own idiotic ramblings. When the Navy was picking up boat people in Indonesian waters and ferrying them to Christmas Island, would you similarly argue they were engaged in people smuggling?
Your argument (for want of a better word) that Operation "Shonky Orders" (ha! ha! ha! what humor! what incisive sarcasm!) has failed because of deaths under Abbott is equally selective and borders on the naive.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 3:05:18pm
Stupid is the new black obviously, if you bring someone to Christmas Island you aren't sending them to Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:42:51am
"Can you please explain why Abbott has forced the Navy to become people smugglers"
He has not forced the RAN to be people smugglers.They are doing what they should be doing and refusing entry of illegal boats into Australian waters.
Reply Alert moderator
Bush Dweller:
17 Feb 2014 12:25:22pm
lazarus :
You must have forgotten that prior to the 2007 election Rudd was "with" Howard re the refugee issue as well as the economy. Even I voted for him. Of course, he was lying on both points. Re the orange lifeboats, that`s why we tow em close to Indonesia, and they are unsinkable, unless of course they knock a hole in the bottom of them, hope the kids don`t have to be thrown overboard (oh OK, deliberately scuttling the boats), causing the kids to go for swim, as they were doing during Howard`s time at the helm
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 12:27:18pm
Lazarus, you must stop this gross dishonesty about the SIEV-X.
It is an extraordinary and malicious claim and one that is completely unsupported by the available evidence. The inability of the RAN and other Australian authorities to detect SievX before it was too late was not a conspiracy or a political decision but a mixture of bad luck and poor communication. Siev X had already sunk - and most lives were already lost - by the time Australian authorities even realised it could be at risk.
Australian Federal Police agent Kylie Pratt called Coastwatch at 9.30am on October 20 to alert it of intelligence pointing to Siev X's suspected departure from Indonesia. She did not know Siev X had sunk the previous night.
Nobody knew that it had sunk the previous night, in international water many hundreds of kilometres from Australia.
Yes, Howard was in office in October 2001. So was Megawati Sukarnoputri, in Indonesia. Do you blame her too? So was Boris Yeltsin. And Tony Blair. Was it their fault?
Reply Alert moderator
mack:
17 Feb 2014 11:04:47am
The substantive elements of this debate are, and always have been:
. how many refugees Australia chooses to resettle each year
. how we select them
. and what we do with the first boat load that exceeds the quota.
Everything else, including the obsolete Refugee Convention, is simply noise.
Reply Alert moderator
Bean Counter:
17 Feb 2014 2:44:18pm
mack (11.04am) Very succinct.
If the Luvvies reckon we could take 100,000 a year; what about the next one?
If a million; what about one million and one?
If fifty million; what about the next guy?
No Luvvy has so far been willing to name the number...and to tell us how THEY would stop the flow at that number, which means that no-one with a brain ever takes any Luvvy seriously.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 9:39:50am
Under Howard, we ended up with 4 people in detention and an effective halt to the boats. Theoretical debate on legal technicalities became irrelevant. To point that out is not childish but a simple statement of the facts - but an inconvenient truth for the many Labor and Greens supporters on this site.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 10:45:13am
As long as you are prepared to break the law you can do anything you like. At the moment the RAN are effectively people smugglers supplying undocumented people with a boat, fuel, food and water and sending them to another country in defiance of their wishes.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:44:21am
All they are doing is sending people back to where they came from no people smuggling there.
Reply Alert moderator
Bush Dweller:
17 Feb 2014 12:30:45pm
How generous of us to ensure their safety in their return from whence they came. Where did their documents go. They must have had them to get into Indonesia, plus $10 grand US. Since when has it been Australia`s responsibility to grant them "their wishes". Your first sentence sums up their attitude to a tee.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 3:17:28pm
It's Australia's responsibility to check whether they are refugees when we take them off their boat as part of the UN Refugee Convention.
Get Abbott to get remove Australia from the Convention if you don't like it.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:33:51pm
No it's not, lazarus. The terms of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee kick in once a person has entered a country's territory and has claimed asylum. Under the Convention signatory nations have no obligations to any persons outside of their territory.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:51:09pm
And that is exactly the problem; "against their wishes".
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:30:08pm
Lazarus, the article above says there are 'grey areas'. You manage to transform that into
"as you are prepared to break the law you can do anything you like".
Just a little distortion don't you think?
Besides you are the person that claims coming to Australia without a valid visa and authentic identification is not against the law.
Seems you are prepared to extend those legal 'grey areas' as much as you like as long as it suits your cause but shrink them to black and white if it helps you to beat the government over the head.
Reply Alert moderator
get real:
17 Feb 2014 9:05:34am
Ravensclaw,
Agree entirely-I would also propose a total news black out on any reporting on the boat people and leave the matter entirely to defence-after all the whole ugly business is an invasion from the north-history in say 50 years time will show I am correct and not paranoid!!
Get Real
Reply Alert moderator
Rob The Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 9:55:56am
Yep, I agree. Do it the way they did in Germany and pretend it just isn't happening. If you pretend, ignore and coverup, surely surly it isn't real, right? Get real!
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 10:36:13am
So desperate to attack the asylum seeker program that works that you bring up Germany. Shame on you
Not only is it an insult to modern day Germans, it is an insult to the many who tried to flee Germany and where killed by the German government.
As Rodger pointed out, our government has saved lives and the people are trying to go to Australia. It is not our responsibility to take every unfortunate soul on this world and the capability to travel across multiple countries and pay criminals in order to avoid a process does not make a person more desperate. It makes them more capable. In the mean time people will die due to lack of food, medicine and water around the world, but they can not be classified as refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
17 Feb 2014 2:24:56pm
"So desperate to attack the asylum seeker program that works that you bring up Germany. Shame on you"
Oh spare us your self-martyrdom and manufactured outrage. "Get Real" advocates censorship of the issue and Rob rightly compares it to the methods used by historically authoritarian regimes (be they Germany or Stalinist Russia or any number of small, tinpot dictatorships across the world).
In response you have a hissy fit because he mentioned the Germans (sarcastically I might add, due to the stupid and absurd notion "get real" puts up).
If s/he (get real et. al) is serious that this info should be thrown down the memory hole - I hope not but I've seen how mindless the reactionaries can be - then a) the comparison is apt and b) it's advocates themselves should be roundly ignored.
Of course had a "leftie" advocated this idea I've no doubt the grubs would complain about censorship and claim they're being silenced themselves. That's selective ethics for you.
Reply Alert moderator
bobtonnor:
17 Feb 2014 2:35:56pm
I think that Rob the lawyer was being sarcastic, i think what he was saying was, an out there comparison between the Nazi's and the current govt, basically if we dont know about it, its as good as not happening. Personally i find the whole thing repugnant, these are people, human beings trying to make a better life for themselves, whether that is because their lives are at risk or they just want a better life and are prepared to put their lives at risk to make it a reality. I think you have to answer the basic question, how bad would your life have to be before youd risk it for an improvement? I dont think there are probably many, if any, who post here who have had to make a real life, life or death decision in their whole lives. But im sure as can be that there are many on here and in the community as a whole who are eager to judge those who do, try to walk a mile or a yard in their shoes before you do, if you have the bottle.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:32:27pm
So now we are equating turning boats back to Indonesia with arresting people, throwing them in camps and then starving and slaughtering them by the millions?
Is that a desperate line of attack or do you really see the world in that way?
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 10:24:04am
Uncharted and unethical?
Selfish, self centered and inhumane!
No matter that Australia has engaged in war with people from these countries,
that people languish in refugee camps around the world as a direct result of our selfishness and now
we talk here about withdrawing from the International Convention on Refugees.
I remain deeply shamed by our national responce.
Reply Alert moderator
Acronyms:
17 Feb 2014 11:26:53am
I beleive that those of you who are so ashamed of Australia's humanitarian program should consider leaving this peaceful generous country and going to live in any of those countries used by "refugees" to come to Australia.
As I see it these "refugees" are looking for settlement, not refuge. Pakistan, India, Malasia, Singapore, Indonesia can provide refuge, and they do. They do not provide resettlement. That is their choice, as it is and should be ours.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 11:42:55am
Thats a classic responce Acronym_ self ish " if you dont agree with me then leave this country"
no matter that this is invaded land and no treaty ever reached.
"As you see it"...classic again...its all about how YOU see it.No matter that refuge is refuge....if I leave my neighbours poor house to go to my neighbours rich house then I have that right.
The rich neighbour needs to make a fair assessment about how powerful my need is and what his/her capability is.
Selfish, churlish and inhumane.
I expect my country to do what it can ( and we have been generous in past years and we should continue to do so) and to be a good neighbour.
If I go to war with my distant neighbours then I am directly causing the misery the innocents flee from.
Reply Alert moderator
acronyms:
17 Feb 2014 12:19:09pm
I presume the distant neighbours you are concered with are Afganistan where our troops certainly allowed an exodus. The Taliban's prefered method of dealing with "heretics" was to just kill them, not even let them emigrate or seek refuge. I am so glad that you are ashamed of Australian's puting their life on the line to protect these victims of terrorism, violence, and bigoted ideology.
A solution is not that simple. There are 40 million or so people
in refugee camps awaiting resettlement. Do you really suggest that we should take everyone, or are you more inclined to take those in greatest need, or those who are richer, or just women, or just young men or maybe the ones you can see.
It is so much easier to be ashamed of a country with a generous resettlement program. One of the few that exist in the world, because it discourages criminal migration scams that tweek the heart strings of naive do-gooders.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:33:54pm
You obviously feel the need to be ashamed. That's ok, go ahead. The rest of us will get along just fine without allowing you to heap your guilt ridden insecurities on us.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 1:32:57pm
I do own my own guilt and shame.
I do not expect you to feel shame for your strongly held positions.
I do suggest that you look closely at what you believe is a moral position that simply cares for self at the exclusion of others.
We do have the financial capacity to care for many more people and refugees are a priority. It may be us one day.
Many people believe we have no moral responsability here.
Towing a refugee boat back is immoral.
Without a fair assessment of a persons refugee status it is wrong and unjustified.
We have responded to the shock jocks, the self serving negative media, the ney sayers, the profit makers and the selfish scared. All undersatndable but simply wrong.
Own your own feelings and own your own shame.
If the cap fits, wear it. Look closely at the cap...it may not be yours originaly but its there to accept or reject.
If you were in dire need...what might you do?
Reply Alert moderator
Steve:
17 Feb 2014 12:36:26pm
If somewhere else is better or so great that we are bad in comparison - Go there.
If nowhere is better - then might be time to sit back and be happy instead of complaining until people tell you 'If you dont like it - leave'
Why create the exact situation you dont like?
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 1:38:36pm
We have the wealth to make those choices.
We are responsible for our actions.
Make your own judgements as you will.
I do not see an overwhelmed australia.
I see a selfish group of people closing the door on neighbours in need and saying " visit by invitation only"
Your choice to say "go away"..... not mine.
I believe your choice is wrong on so many selfish counts.
Reply Alert moderator
schuey:
17 Feb 2014 3:28:19pm
"I see a selfish group of people closing the door on neighbours in need and saying " visit by invitation only"
Hi Muzz,
It Is a romantic sentiment, not having to turn people away, but lets try and nail down the general shape of what you propose.
Are there any limits, any controls?. I would really like you to add a bit of colour to what you are proposing. Just quick bullet points will do.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 3:42:42pm
Hi Schuey.
I see that if anyone asks for refuge as a refugee then it is fair and moral to assess that claim.
If a persons claim is upheld then its is fair for us to share the burden with other rich nations to attempt to house them as best we can.
Turning people back indiscriminately or locking them up with a poor neighbour is not helpful.
I see our current position as immoral.
What you describe as romantic appears to me to be reasonable.
Of course there are limits. Saying no without assessment is churlish and wrong on so many fronts. And we continue to pay for this negative policy.
Lets at least share the burden, engage with others and act humanely.
This debate has been driven by the power hungry with the shock jocks as mouth pieces. Both the libs and the labs have failed us.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 5:10:19pm
Hi Muzz,
Fair play for answering my question.
"Of course there are limits. Saying no without assessment is churlish and wrong on so many fronts. "
Referring specifically to the limit of overall numbers. I have a scenario for you:
It's Aug 2010, Gillard has just been elected. Caving in to shock jocks she places a limit of 3000 boat borne refugees to be accepted in following 12 mth period. The quota has been exhausted at christmas time a few months later as word of the limit spreads through the region.
As the qouta has been exhausted, what policies should Gillard enact to deal with the boat people who missed the cutoff?
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 5:59:36pm
Gillard got caught up in the same selfish spin...stampeded into holding onto power at any cost.
She and the labor people lost the plot because she had lost her moral compass. The libs are just as bad.
There were lone voices across all the parties to say this policy was cruel
How was the number 3,000 arrived at? or 30,000?
It does get back to resources and how much you chose to spend. It is an active choice we are making here.
We do hold a special responsability as;
Combatants against the War on Terror, we entered all those areas of concern. We added to the displacement of people.
Signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees.
Highly wealthy individuals and States
I have a scenario for you;
Its tomorrow night
Your twenty neighbours get chased from their homes. They ask for your help.
You have one spare room.
You offer the room but do you allow them to sleep in your yard, in your shed or in the front garden?
At some point they will move on but it will stretch your resources and patience to be generous.
What do you do ? This is an ethical dilema
Locking them up at your poor neighbours place, 200 kms east of Alice Springs will get them away from you.
Forcing them back to where they came from (the middle of the street) is ok because there are police out there patrolling?
We all have our limits, true.
Do we all have the humanitarian ethics to do right things by our neighbours?
Reply Alert moderator
jennbrad:
17 Feb 2014 1:35:31pm
So "refuge" is all right but re-settlement isn't? I don't see it. If you are an asylum seeker, fleeing a difficult/dangerous/even deadly situation (and that applies more to sow groups from some countries than others) then how useful is "refuge" if you can't ever settle, start a new life, work, contribute, bring up a family? Stay in a refuge limbo for your entire life? Why wouldn't they seek re-settlement n the long term? What would you do? I doubt the world can really afford large numbers of individuals who haven't a hope in hell of ever leading a productive life.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:48:11am
"I remain deeply shamed by our national responce."
Well it would appear that the majority of Australians are not and think our Navy and Customs are doing a great job.We are open for business and closed to people smuggling.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 12:01:33pm
Majority rules eh?
That responce is only about power...so sad really as that is what despots and totalitarian rulers use to justify their unethical.
Reduced this to a slogan and the morality goes away?
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:35:56pm
That response is actually about democracy! Uncomfortable for you maybe but democracy none the less.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 1:48:12pm
The majority of us would probably agree with some really terrible things. The majaority is not right in a moral sense just because it is the majority. The whole of western potical thought has be exercised by the tyranny that can ensue when the majority is wrong or just crushes the minority by weight of numbers.
However, having said all that, I think that in this case the majority is morally correct.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 2:06:58pm
Uncomforatble indeed.
Democratic yes.
Fair, moral, right, humane, justifyable, equitable, sensible, long term visioned, neighbourly ? No way
This immoral position is all driven by fear and greed
If we were overwhelmed, poor, under attack or any other fair cause then I too will protect self and family.
"Democratic" seems like a furfy, a red herring or an irrelevant argument. The rule of law in pre war germany was "democratic" too.
This cruel responce is all political, self serving and simply wrong.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:39:16pm
The rule of law in pre-war germany was not democratic, muzz, evidenced by the fact that once the Nazis gained power they cancelled all national, district and local elections.
Reply Alert moderator
muzz:
17 Feb 2014 6:07:08pm
Goebbels described Nazism as an "authoritarian democracy" on 31 May 1933. They all used the term to describe their morally corrupt practices
Like minister morrison not providing solid information on the grounds that this is "food for the enemy"
Like detaining asylum seekers in poor communities where many will never see the light of refuge
Its a slow slide really.
No moral high ground because its all about ME
ME in this case are the "poor ozzies" who are locked into this brainless argument about helping their neighbours or not.
Big shame australia, big shame
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 2:32:17pm
That's three times now you have used "responce". It was funny the first time, a little annoying the second, but now it needs correction.
Look it up if you don't believe me (and Realist)- it's correctly, "response".
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 1:32:05pm
Of course you can supply evidence to back up your sweeping unsubstantiated claim?
The polls perhaps?
Reply Alert moderator
Observer:
17 Feb 2014 2:30:01pm
Trent: Don't mention the polls, eh?
Are you referring to the latest Fairfax-Nielsen opinion poll, published today, which suggests that the LNP is ahead of the ALP, and that the ALP's primary vote has fallen to 33% (about what it was just before the election)?
Or are you referring to a poll reported in January, that suggested that 60% of Australians want the Abbott government to "increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers", and 59% oppose refugees receiving government welfare?
Or can you cite some other evidence?
Cheers
Reply Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:
17 Feb 2014 1:16:40pm
Lets not pretend why this border protection is happening. It's not for any concern for human life: conservatives have never given a stuff about human lives. It's all about xenophobia, Australia has a very harsh xenophobic streak.
Its like saying the opposition to gay marriage is for "kids" and banning pornography from the web is for "kids". It's all done for selfish reasons.
If conservatives cared about the lives of refugees they would be doing more to help them make the trip alot safer instead of throwing them on lifeboats and sending them to Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
Observer:
17 Feb 2014 2:55:49pm
"It's all about xenophobia,".
Yet another simplistic slogan masquerading as an argument. A person can support the current asylum-seeker policy for a number of reasons, only one of which is xenophobia. Unless you can support your rash generalisation with solid research, it remains just that: a simplistic generalisation.
"conservatives have never given a stuff about human lives" -- by that reasoning, arguably the ALP is in the same category, since it was clearly Rudd's later policy to 'stop the boats'.
Unfortunately, simple-minded people like you resort to name calling in sanctimonious piety - anyone who is a supporter of an orderly refugee policy not determined by people smugglers is a 'xenophobe'; similarly anyone opposed to same-sex marriage is either a religious bigot or a homophobe.
But don't let that stop you revelling in your own piety by posting unsubstantiated generalisations here and elsewhere.
Reply Alert moderator
GrumpyOldMan:
17 Feb 2014 1:39:03pm
Ravensclaw, how many recommendations of the Houston committee set up by Gillard were accepted by the LNP? Was it one out of 30-odd? And weren't the rest simply rejected out of hand by Abbott for purely ideological reasons?
What happened to the Houston recommendations about setting up better regional processing centres that would allow refugees to have their cases heard BEFORE they got desperate enough to buy a birth on a people smuggler's boat? That would have meant that genuine refugees could travel to Australia on a plane rather than a leaky boat! Think what effect that would have had on both costs and live lost at sea?
And how many innocent people got killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct or indirect result of Howard's decision to swallow Bush's lies about WMD, (not to mention wars in Sri Lanka and Somalia)? Many of those who escaped being killed during those wars are now holed up in Indonesia and Malaysia with nowhere to go, except to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers.
And you think 'stopping the boats' is a solution to that enormously tragic story? If so, you are both deluded and completely lacking in human compassion. As usual, your comments are so far wide of the mark that your contribution to this issue is worse than useless.
Reply Alert moderator
GraemeF:
17 Feb 2014 1:46:58pm
When the Malaysian solution was announced there was an immediate stop to the boats. This was a considerate and cooperative plan.
When it was shut down by the High Court the Coalition refused to agree to legislative changes because they had too much political capital invested in demonising Labor and asylum seekers. If they had wanted to 'stop the boats' they had there chance then but the blocked it because they didn't want to admit that Labor's plan was working.
They went around the country shouting from the back of trucks and from mountain tops about every desperate soul who made it to our shores and now claim that any mention of these same asylum seekers is now forbidden due to national security. That means they intentionally operated in a seditious manner prior to the election for pure political malice. It is akin to Justice Rares findings in the Ashby case that members of the Coaliton/LNP corrupted the legal system for political gain. They are now attempting to corrupt accepted international law to do the same thing.
Pure political bastardry.
Reply Alert moderator
Tom1:
17 Feb 2014 2:36:09pm
Ravensclaw: Your short term memory only goes back to Gillard and Rudd. That may be convenient for you when you want to make a derogatory comment on The Drum. However some can remember back to Howard to when he and Reith made the deliberate decision to use boat people at a political toy.
When he accused refugees of throwing their children into the water,then making his infamous speech, followed up by Reith's so called photographic proof he knew that he would not get a bipartisan position from Labor. The same would have applied in reverse, if Labor had used such despicable tactics and you know it, but that is where your poor memory comes in.
OK so he won an election, but stop trying to say that it was all Rudd's and Gillard's fault.
To suggest that an apology is owed to the Coalition is the height of hypocrisy. There would be no boat problem if Howard in his eagerness to retain government had not used human hardship as a political wedge.
The people of Australia are actually owed an apology by Howard and his Government for creating a problem that has cost billions. Eventually losing his seat was only slight punishment.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
17 Feb 2014 7:43:28am
Legal considerations might be valid concerns for the short term.
But in the longer term, if the turn-back policy continues to work, then such considerations will no longer be an issue - since there would be no more boats to return.
That said, some further legal action could be desirable - such as rescinding our membership of the Refugee Convention and changing Australian laws to close loopholes that encourage boat people.
Reply Alert moderator
mik:
17 Feb 2014 8:06:37am
Or perhaps indonesia closing routes for our international trade.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 8:30:27am
Actually t hey cannot stop peaceful passage of international maritime routes. Any such action would immediately involve the major powers such as the US forcing passage of for example the Lombok straghts.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 9:46:46am
..Or maybe the US will enforce a bit of commonsence by enforcing trade sanctions against Australia for breaching the various conventions.
As I have said before, Howard and Abbott have turned this into a political issue. No one bothered before, and when you consider how many so called "illegal immigrants" fly in, it is all a nonsense to me. Sure we don't want people drowning, but ultimately it is the people smugglers who wear the blame.
I am sickened by the inhumanity shown by those who support this toxic attitude.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 9:54:59am
US impose sanctions on Australia for preventing illegal immigration? The US has been turning back boats from Cuba for decades under its wet feat dry feat policy.
Reply Alert moderator
mack:
17 Feb 2014 11:08:16am
...not to mention building a whopping great wall along its southern border, policed by armed guardes
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:27:20am
As you keep repeating this bit of nonsense, I am compelled to keep pointing out to you what a load of garbage it is.
No "illegal immigrants" fly in. If an aircraft passenger is not in possession of full documentation, including an appropriate visa or other authority, he/she is promptly flown out again by the same airline at that airline's cost. It has happened many times. That's why the immigration people at international airports all around the world study very carefully your passport and documentation before allowing you to board your flight to Australia.
The fact that people who fly in on student visas or tourist visas or similar and then subsequently fail to leave does not make them illegal entrants. They remain legal and legitimate entrants who have broken Australian laws AFTER entering legally.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 11:09:02am
A couple of points. There is a racket where people are given false identities on genuine blank passports (from memory Dubai is one source) they are then admitted on the plane disembark and destroy the false documents. The other thing is the interpretation of "illegal overstay figures" as many of these are a few days or even hours when a flight is delayed or cancelled.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 5:12:27pm
Yes, John Coochey, I do not doubt that such a thing is not only possible but may even be probable.
However, Customs and Immigration officials are pretty astute, and modern technology is very effective at detecting even the slightest flaw in passports or documentation. A couple of years ago I was in Shanghai when a passenger attempting to board my flight was retained at the Immigration desk because her passport had got wet and one of the pages did not respond to a computer scan. She was delayed to the later flight while Australian authorities checked and cabled approval for her to leave.
I'm pretty sure that forgeries would have to be of such a very high standard that most illegal travellers would have neither the funds nor the access to a supplier.
Much more likely would be what the Israelis did to us - steal the passports of genuine Australians, fake them with false photos and then travel with them to commit an assassination.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 6:18:57pm
I wish what you say is universally true but once again the Somali in "Go back where you came from" managed to not only fly to Australia but disembark on forged papers. He was granted refugee status in the end so why did he need forged documents?
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 10:38:21am
Or Australia could stop giving aid to Indonesia. Its obvious Indonesia is either incapable or does not desire a halt in people trading through its country. It might have something to do with the lucrative business it was involved in.
Reply Alert moderator
mik:
17 Feb 2014 9:54:45am
So you say its illegal to stop peaceful passage of international maritime routes. So stopping unarmed vessels crossing these international routes is illegal? So stopping the boats is illegal?
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 10:42:25am
It is not the movement of boats through our territorial waters that is the issue it is the intent to land in Australia which is illegal. I refer you to none other than the ABC's fact checker "Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country." It is not of course illegal to ask for refugee entry but neither is it illegal to ask for the crown jewels, but you have little chance of getting them.
Reply Alert moderator
MIK:
17 Feb 2014 11:30:14am
So if the people on the boats simply say to the navy. "Not stopping just passing through" then the navy have no leagal right to stop them.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:05:06pm
No, Mik.
But we have the right to escort them safely through our waters to their intended destination - or at least until they have passed out of our territorial waters..
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:52:18am
"So stopping the boats is illegal?
NO stopping boats that are trying to carry out illegal activities(people smuggling)is.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 8:38:01am
Indonesia cannot close international trade routes.
First, it is contrary to international maritime law, and would bring great pressure to bear on Indonesia from all trading nations around the world - and would put an immediate stop to the billions of dollars of Australian aid that Indonesia collects every year.
Second, Indonesia does not have the maritime capability to enforce such a demand, even if it were made.
Third, such an action would be tantamount to a declaration of war, and in such a case Australia would be justified in sending armed RAN vessels to accompany it's merchant vessels, and to take all required protective steps deemed appropriate.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 11:09:19am
Australia can't do what it's doing under international law. Why is it OK for Australia to act illegally but not Indonesia?
Oz had better watch out if it sent armed Naval vessels into Indonesian waters, there airforce has bettter planes than Australia possesses unless we have some F111s we can get out of mothballs.
Reply Alert moderator
Joe:
17 Feb 2014 12:00:47pm
@Lazarus which Indonesian planes are you talking about? Perhaps the 16 Sukhois they have against our 100+ Hornets and Super Hornets? It is also worth noting that only 11 of the Suhkois are SU-30MK2 variants that are able to carry anti-ship missles.
Or perhaps you meant the 34 Indonesian F-16s which are only armed with short range missiles because the US doesn't trust the Indonesians enough to supply them with beyond-visual-range or advanced weaponary like AMRAAMs for their aircraft? Even the 32 ESSM air-defence missiles on the Anzac friagtes have a greater range than anything the F-16s are armed with.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 12:38:54pm
Completely wrong again, Lazarus.
Australia can do what it is doing, according to international maritime law. Australia is not acting illegally.
As far as Indonesia is concerned, perhaps we should give the Indonesians the benefit of the doubt and accept that this illegal human trafficking takes place without official sanction or knowledge. That does not make the slightest difference to the legality of returning people who have committed a crime to the point of departure.
However, there isn't much room for doubt that assistance to illegal migrants is given by Indonesian police, Customs Officers and others, very possibly in exchange for bribes. You only have to read about that notorious event where a plane full of people travelling business class arrived from Dubai, were met at the airport by Customs officials, taken through the airport terminal without going through immigration or customs inspections, out through a back door, loaded on to a line of waiting coaches and driven to the location where the smuggler's boat was waiting to take them on board. A plane load of people travelling business class clearly had access to funds.
You don't know very much about the Indonesian military capabilities, do you?
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 1:48:13pm
lazarus, don't concern your self, in the event of an armed conflict with Indonesia, their ramshackle navy would quickly be sunk and their 3rd rate airforce reduced to piles of scrap metal. They have a much larger army than we do but unless they can get it to Australia they are just so many mouths to feed.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:42:50pm
Lazarus you claim all sorts of actions are 'illegal' on these pages. Do you have any basis for such claims?
Get over the fact that Abbott has proved he could do what Labor could not, he is stopping the boats!
Unless you recognise he has much greater competence than either of the preceding PMs you are going to find yourself in this position again and again.
By the way, a "sorry I was wrong" would be an appropriate way for you to admit failure and move on.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 12:38:38pm
Our live exports to Indonesia are doing very well thank you. Certainly much better than they were doing under Labor when the relationship was truly trashed and all exports stopped.
Furthermore Indonesia has demonstrated considerable 'goodwill' by paroling Schapelle Corby.
They aren't about to get upset and close trade routes. They are actually benefiting from Abbott's stopping the boats.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 3:42:02pm
They can keep Australian drug smugglers as well as people who wish to arrive in Australia without Australia's permission.
Reply Alert moderator
Grumpy181155:
17 Feb 2014 12:59:31pm
Of course they could also prevent the arrival of these illegal immigrants to their own shores, just as Australia is now doing instead of allowing them in, knowing they are only 'passing through'.
Reply Alert moderator
Joe:
17 Feb 2014 1:49:15pm
Or perhaps John Kerry could discuss with Indonesia how he could help with getting Indonesia to sign up to the UN refugee convention.
And then John Kerry can talk about how Indonesia can help with the international refugee crisis by the resettling of Refugees in Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:46:02pm
I hardly think that the matter of who's a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees will be on the table, Joe, given that the US isn't a signatory either.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 8:47:02am
Hi EP,
I'd definitely be happy for Australia to withdraw from the UN refugee convention.
Reply Alert moderator
mack:
17 Feb 2014 11:10:09am
Me too, if that would free up some space on The Drum.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 8:58:14am
No. Even Indonesia knows, better than the author of the article above, that Australia has every right to protect its borders.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 9:55:26am
John, Australia is not being invaded by a foreign army. This is not an issue of "protection" of our borders. This is a humanitarian and legal issue that must be tackled according to the international obligations that we have signed. Why is Abbott such a political coward that he can't take Australia out of the Refugee Convention? If he doesn't like refugees, get out of the Convention!
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 10:40:25am
Indonesian boats leaving Indonesia, often with an Indonesian crew with no valid permit to enter Australia are being returned to Indonesia.
If Indonesia cared about the people in its own country, it would have long ago halted the people trading business. The media can find "asylum seekers" without issue. How strange that the Indonesian government can not.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 11:05:23am
"Indonesian boats leaving Indonesia, often with an Indonesian crew with no valid permit to enter Australia are being returned to Indonesia."... NO! The new boats are Australian boats! Not only that, as soon as a boat coming from Indonesia is boarded and pleas for asylum are expressed, such people should be taken and their case processed. Here we have people asking for asylum who are simply towed back to Indonesia by a military ship, in contravention to the Convention for Refugees and also breaching the sovereignty of Indonesia. This disgraceful Government is labelling these people "illegals" without first hearing their case for asylum. Abandon the Convention then, and tell the international community that we don't care about anybody.... The People of Australia will express their opinion about that at the next Federal Election...
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 11:30:53am
How big of you Alpo to care so passionately about Indonesia's sovereignty. They aren't being towed back to danger; they already escaped alleged persecution when they reached Indonesia. So why come here then? Financial gain Alpo. If Indonesia signed the Convention tomorrow the refugees would still pass straight through without claim. The real international community as opposed to the Leftist international community feels the same way as Australians. Lack of sovereignty over borders is a major reason why most British want to leave the EU. The Swiss have just rejected their EU imposed open border. Sensible people know that in the West there is a pattern of uncritical 'compassion' leading to disastrous outcomes.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 12:31:58pm
"Financial gain"... Long-term security, APM, it's long-term security. What we and other countries offer is above all stability, democracy, rule of law, safety from social turmoil and persecution that we can't even imagine. If you don't want this country to become attractive to refugees, then transform it into a nightmare similar to Afghanistan.... that could be the Coalition main slogan at the next Federal election, what do you think?
But don't forget, those who don't have a case to apply for refugee status are always returned to their country of origin; it happened under Howard, it happened under Rudd/Gillard. But if you tow their boat back into Indonesian waters, you are rejecting BOTH true refugees and also those who just pretend. Is your conscience okay with that?
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 4:12:17pm
Alpo, "If you don't want this country to become attractive to refugees then transform it into a nightmare similar to Afghanistan" One of the main reasons we are sending them away is to prevent that very thing from happening.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 11:34:41am
Alpo, Australia has safely returned people that left for a country departing to ours without permission.
If Indonesia is upset at the boat, we can give them the same offer under which their boats arrived in Australia. From memory, it was nothing but silence. Still, it could be beneficial for Australia to accept the boats return to send even more illegal departures from Indonesia. This is why I doubt Indonesia will mention it. People smuggling results in their profit.
And if you do not like the term illegals, bring it up with the UN as that is their own language. There can be illegal arrivals under the UN refugee convention.
Reply Alert moderator
Grumpy181155:
17 Feb 2014 1:11:13pm
These same people have the option to apply for asylum in Australia from the first country they come to, which is where they stop being a refugee. Instead they decide to pay their way to Indonesia and then pay again to be illegally transported to Australia. They have clearly demonstrated their desire to break the law to gain access to the country of their choice. Sorry but I agree with Abbott on this.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 2:06:51pm
"They have clearly demonstrated their desire to break the law to gain access to the country of their choice"... Seeking asylum is not illegal. Facilitate their processing in Indonesia or wherever they are, and they will gladly save their money and for some their life, and stop coming by boat. You can't pretend that there are no refugees, slow down the normal process to an unbelievable pace, and then complain if desperate people take desperate measures. Most of those who have come by boat have been eventually granted refugee status (even under Howard). What this Government is doing is to simply not even consider their case. The message they are sending is simple: We don't care, go back to your country or to a refugee camp and wait.... and wait.... and wait.... and wait.... For the Australian politicians who think like that, the boats are a reality check!
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:48:51pm
Unless the claim for asylum is made while the claimant is inside the signatory nation's territory then under the terms of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees the signatory nation is under no obligation to process the claim, Alpo.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 11:11:00am
The mass breaking into our country with violence and deception is not far short of an invasion. The Convention is a Cold War relic that never considered mass third world relocation to nurture the cultures that cause persecution and dysfunction in the first place. Its a motherhood symbol. It's hard to get out of because it looks like we are killing Bambi. 'International obligations' do not have much legitimacy with Joe average who was never explicitly asked for permission to give away his sovereignty. Apart from stopping the boats we could screen out everyone with no hard evidence of persecution, liars, and people without documents. There would of course be almost no one left but it would satisfy the Convention. Abbott's approach is bold, a man of action, not cowardly, and will earn him great authority that should guarantee his next term.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 12:36:35pm
"The mass breaking into our country with violence and deception is not far short of an invasion."... Sorry, APM, I think that you just need a break. That kind of scaremongering language is not only increasing odium against those who would apply for refugee status in Australia, but also towards those who have already been granted refugee status and are living with us. Just stop that discriminatory and violent language, because if you don't you will become co-responsible for the verbal and physical aggression many refugees are subject to in this country by a mentally unstable minority of our population.
Reply Alert moderator
lindsay:
17 Feb 2014 11:12:40am
The evidence shows that we do, in fact, like refugees. Australia's refugee resettlement program is third only to the US and Canada, and polls show consistently high support from the electorate.
We don't like people smugglers and queue jumpers - but that is an entirely different issue
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 12:43:23pm
lindsay, proportionally we have the ability to take many more refugees than we actually take.
People smugglers are out of business as soon as they run out of clients. Speedily process the refugees in Indonesia and the people smugglers go bankrupt. Drag the process endlessly and the People smugglers will flourish. Applicants rejected by the due process are taken photographs, fingerprints etc. and told not to try again, because his/her cause is lost.... pretty simple really.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
17 Feb 2014 2:13:48pm
"proportionally we have the ability to take many more refugees than we actually take"
Exactly what is the basis for this comment? We have a large debt, poor infrastructure, a housing shortage, rising unemployment with very few unskilled jobs, and (I can assure you) one of the highest costs of living in the world. We do however, have a lot of free space, though it's mostly desert.
Exactly why do you think speedy processing in Indonesia is going to stop people-smuggling. Obviously, it would increase the influx into Indonesia, and simply exacerbate the present problem. Blind Freddy could see the consequences of some of these idiotic Labor policies.
Reply Alert moderator
lindsay:
17 Feb 2014 2:39:22pm
I agree that we should resettle more refugees, but we get back to the same old questions that refugee advocates will not answer.
How many refugees should Australia resettle each year, how will they be selected, and what will we do with the first boat load that exceeds the quota?
The UNHCR recommends refugees for resettlement on the basis of most in need. I agree with this. You seem to prefer to outsource the allocation of scarce resettlement places to people smugglers.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:56:15am
"This is not an issue of "protection" of our borders. "
So Alpo if the boats were carrying guns or drugs you would be ok with letting them enter Australia and discharging their cargo.I think not.The cargo is illegal be it people or drugs or any other illegal cargo.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 12:45:59pm
"if the boats were carrying guns or drugs".... EVAN, the boats are not carrying guns or drugs, they are sent back to Indonesia because they carry asylum seekers. This is not an issue of protection of our borders, the country is not being threatened, it's just the political future of the Coalition that is under serious threat.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 1:41:38pm
....if the boats were carrying guns or drugs...!!!
Your argument is getting weaker and weaker!
It's like the old " if my auntie had testicles.." argument.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 5:52:45pm
Actually, in the legal sense EVAN's right, Trent. The smuggling of weapons, drugs and people are all illegal under International law and are all contained within the same Convention- the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 11:10:38am
It does not have the right to send undocumented people into Indonesian waters in lifeboats supplied by the Navy.
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 1:37:22pm
Indonesian officials get paid to send such people here. Bribes and corruption. Indonesia is being hypocritical in it being upset we are sending people back.
First their where calls to take the sugar of the table. That has been done and nothing occurred. There where calls to work with Indonesia as well, yet when we worked closest with them, we had record number of arrivals. What is Indonesia's incentive in closing its borders? It has none.
Australia is in this alone, so we may as well remove ourselves from the UN Refugee Convention and take refugees on the basis that we wish, not as Indonesia wishes.
Indonesia's concern over their lack of business is what got their Navy moving south. Hopefully they can stop a boat for once and not just because one criminal refused to pay a bribe.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 1:36:47pm
Australia's relationship with Indonesia is under strain, as news reports indicate.
Nothing Abbott is doing is aimed at getting that back on track.
It is just a matter of time before it blows up in his face.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 3:38:34pm
Indonesia has spent the last decade sending boats into our waters to dump unwanted migrants on our shores.
The only reason the relationship lasted this long is because Australia is willing to put up with things that Indonesia would *never* tolerate from us. That time has ended.
Reply Alert moderator
NoGoodNamesLeft:
17 Feb 2014 9:04:50am
Not at all. We still need to take in refugees and we still do take in refugees. The refugees we do bring in to Australia do not come in by boat by smugglers though.
People confuse "Boat People" with refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers.
This is nothing to do with stopping people receiving asylum to Australia, this is to do with loss of life at sea.
I would prefer the RAN intercepting boats 12 miles off the coast of Indonesia and sending them back by lifeboat then the alternative of pulling thousands of bodies from the Timor Sea and bringing them to Australia for burial.
The answer for this is not to rescind from the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. The answer to this problem is to put pressure on Indonesia to "become" signatories.
Reply Alert moderator
Zathras:
17 Feb 2014 9:23:31am
It's never been about saving lives lost at sea.
The policy began with the Tampa incident which did not involve any loss of life, as has the majority of arrivals ever since.
Even the SIEV-X sinking was brushed over at the time.
It's just the political the spin put onto it to make it seem humane and palatable to the public, although some extremist commentators would probably be happy to see them all drown.
In the same way the refugees themselves were demonised as "undesirables" by Howard but Rudd later shifted the blame onto the people smugglers for the same reasons.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 9:42:27am
So you don't mind that, on Bowen's figures of 4%, over 2000 people have died because of Labor's failed policies?
Reply Alert moderator
NoGoodNamesLeft:
17 Feb 2014 11:32:26am
The policy was first "implemented" with the Tampa. It began prior to that due to loss of life at sea.
A single loss of life due to people smuggling is too much.
The political spin put on this issue is to make people believe that without resorting to people smuggling there are no other options.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
17 Feb 2014 10:08:01am
We can still take in all the refugees we want, without the Convention. Our ability to take immigrants of any kind is not created by the Refugee Convention; it's our sovereign right.
Reply Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:
17 Feb 2014 7:49:19am
We need to be honest and withdraw from the Refugee Convention. That is our biggest shame - that we want to pretend something we are not.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 8:33:17am
Probably a good idea as the Convention has outlived its usefulness but any obligations, even to genuine refugees, only applies to those fleeing directly from a place of persecution. It doe snot apply to those who are asylum shopping or have become resident elsewhere, for example a Jew who fled Nazi Germany and has spent the intervening years living in the UK.
Reply Alert moderator
Dr Who:
17 Feb 2014 10:26:38am
Given Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UNHCR, the argument could be put forward that they ARE fleeing to the first safe haven. To use your Jew/Nazi analogy, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany bypassed the "independent" states of Vichy France to get to the UK, and many of them by-passed the UK (itself under threat of invasion) to go to the US. If I remember, many of those who fled to Switzerland were also turned back without being processed.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 11:13:57am
Not actually true, being a signatory to UN Conventions is an irrelevance as is shown by the fact that Afghanistan and Somalia are both signatories, therefore they could swap refugees and all is solved? One emotive case sometimes used to advocate open borders is that of "The Ship of the Damned" with Jewish passengers who were refused immediate entry to the US and Canada so many returned to Europe. What many ignore is that they were offered entry into the Dominican Republic but that was not good enough for them.
Reply Alert moderator
Dr Who:
17 Feb 2014 12:39:10pm
You've put forward arguments as to why we shouldn't inherently trust UNHCR signatories to fulfil their obligations, but no reason why Indonesia is a safe haven, or why we shouldn't consider granting refugee status. Anyhow, you seem to be assuming that these asylum seekers are fleeing from further afield. If we turn the boats back without processing them, how do you know that they are not, say, minority groups from Indonesia fleeing persecution?
Incidentally, the Dominican Republic is further away from Germany than the US or Canada, so perhaps the "ship of the damned" WAS trying to flee directly to the first safe haven. Look at an Atlas. A bit of history (ie. Dominican Republic history during the second world war) wouldn't go astray either.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 2:42:42pm
Well the vessel concerned seemed to have no difficulty sailing back across the Atlantic so presumably could have reached the Dominican Republic with or without refuelling, Regarding Indonesian refugees how many have we had under preceding policies? Four that I can think of came from Irian Jaya.
Reply Alert moderator
mack:
17 Feb 2014 11:18:30am
Indonesia the first safe haven for middle eastern boat people?
Surely you jest.
Google a list of refugee convention signatory countries for goodness sake.
Reply Alert moderator
Concerned:
17 Feb 2014 12:57:07pm
One of the interesting things one also notices when googling this list and bringing up a map is that most of the Islamic nations are NOT signatories to the refugee convention. Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for so much of the arming, supplying and sending combatants over to almost every stoush currently happening in the Islamic world obviously does not want to take responsibility for their own actions. The millions now displaced in Syria. The Saudis appearing to be openly supporting the Al Queda linked factions. They effectively wash their hands of any responsibility to their own people, despite all their oil wealth. Despite Mecca being the heartland of this religion.
One seriously has to question WHY these rich Gulf states will not offer sanctuary for their fellow moslems. No, they like to see all their fellow Moslems come to western countries like Australia in the hope possibly that by such means this country will one day become predominantly moslem!
Reply Alert moderator
get real:
17 Feb 2014 8:34:28am
Jay,
Only an idiot/moron would sign an agreement that is clearly to the detriment of the Australian people.
Any such agreement should have to be passed by formal referendum (good luck!!) before they can be legal signed and then enforced. After it is the tax payer -not the goodie politicians who are required to pay for the cost of these idiotic agreements that are of no benefit to the ordinary Australian.
Get real
Reply Alert moderator
Mr Zeitgeist:
17 Feb 2014 9:16:18am
Except for the aboriginals, we are a nation of migrants. And these "boat people" are people fleeing from war and oppression, or don't you read news outside your little Aussie comfort zone?
Reply Alert moderator
aGuy:
17 Feb 2014 10:44:27am
I read about other areas. Such as the poorer people who can not afford to flee, people in UN refugee camps where a tent is luxury and wait for decades for possible settlement. These groups do not get the chance to apply.
Then I also read about people starving to death, dying from preventable disease and dying of dehydration. None of which entitles them to be considered a refugee.
Our intake is elitist, sexist and does not even try to gauge whom is most likely to die and who could live peacefully. By contrast a homosexual person in Pakistan could live their peacefully so long as they do not try and establish or promote gay rights. Some have an option for a peaceful life elsewhere, some do not. We take the former.
Reply Alert moderator
RandyPansy:
17 Feb 2014 10:48:58am
Exactly where in Indonesia is this war and oppression occurring?
Reply Alert moderator
sidlaw:
17 Feb 2014 11:26:36am
Mr Z,
You have one eyed tunnel vision. Even Labor admits the vast majority of these 'boat people' are economic migrants.
Reply Alert moderator
barsnax:
17 Feb 2014 1:02:09pm
I think the vast majority of Australians have tuned out on this subject because the government has all but stopped the boats and delivered on one of their main election promises.
Like it or lump it, Australians dislike people who try to come through the backdoor, regardless of their circumstances.
Reply Alert moderator
Dugong:
17 Feb 2014 5:40:04pm
Pretty sure the aboriginals migrated here, too, just a long time ago.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 9:39:50am
Like the the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Australian-United States Free Trade agreement, both which included clauses to implement Copyright restrictions which only benefit American media holdings?
Both our major parties enjoy signing Australian consumers up for this rubbish.
Reply Alert moderator
Rob The Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 9:57:32am
The Australian people, according to me, or the Australian people according to you. Big difference my friend.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 9:01:45am
The UN recognised refugees as only those who have left their unsafe country and arrive in the nearest safe country (eg. Syrians now in Lebanon).
I think you'll find that Australia is happy with this definition and is a willing member of the Convention. What Australia is not happy about is when peoples who travel past or through several safe countries still want to call themselves refugees and claim the support that goes with that, even worse is when the people are in no credible danger in their home countries.
Reply Alert moderator
terence:
17 Feb 2014 9:46:30am
So can i expect you guys to have a different attitude if indigenous west papuan asylum seekers start arriving by boats on our shores?
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:08:11am
Terence, I am not the "John" who posted above, but I will answer you anyway.
The UNHCR Convention states explicitly that asylum is granted in the first country an asylum seeker enters after leaving his birth country provided that a policy of refoulement does not exist in that first country.
We have had an example of West Papuans coming to Australia by boat and claiming asylum - which, if I recall correctly was granted and which caused some considerable anger in Jakarta. Australia, in that instance, was the first country entered by the asylum seekers after leaving their country of birth and therefore the Convention requirements applied. If that influx is repeated, then yes, the same principle should apply.
The illegal entrants coming via Indonesia do not qualify as asylum seekers as Australia is often the fourth or fifth country entered, and those illegal entrants have already benefitted from asylum elsewhere. That is the big difference.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 2:06:33pm
If people came from West Papua in boats we'd tow them to PNG!
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:16:58pm
John
Can you show where the UNHCR Convention "states explicitly that asylum is granted in the first country as asylum seeker enters after leaving his birth country provided that a policy of refoulment does not exist in that first country"?
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 2:47:38pm
You could start with the Dublin Convention which was brought in in Europe to prevent professional refugees making multiple application or you could simply read the convention, to wit
"refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened" There is no convention that allows someone who once lived in a war zone to swan around the world looking for the best deal.
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 4:31:44pm
Do go on John.
As far as I know, Australia has nothing to do with the Dublin Convention.
And your statement from the UNHCR Convention does not say,..... to be a refugee, you must come directly from a country where your life or freedom was threatened.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 5:20:15pm
Yes, I can.
The 1961 UNHCR Convention states:
"These agreements are ? based on the notion of safe, or first, country of asylum, providing for the return of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where they have had or could have sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, either within that country or by an act of refoulement".
And that, incidentally, also gives us the right to return an Afghani, for example, to Pakistan, or Iran or wherever he "had or could have sought asylum", let alone return him to his birth country.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 3:33:12pm
Tell that to the UNHCR who are making determinations regarding asylum in Indonesia. I'm sure they will be happy to have your legal expertise on their side.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 9:51:57am
Australia needs to join the World. Some of the nearest safe countries are being overwhelmed with refugees. UK has huge problems with illegal residents, for example and Italy, in common with other countries, is receiving boatloads while it struggles with the outcome of the GFC. "I'm all right Jack" is reaching concerning proportions in Australia. We used to be known as a friendly and hospitable country.
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
17 Feb 2014 11:15:56am
Which is why we have, and always have had, a large refugee intake program from camps in frontline states that are dealing with refugee intakes. Our intake is one of the highest per capita of non-frontline states. I would be happier to see it higher again, but then I'm pro-immigration. You'd need to take this up with the racists and the oh-dear-we-have-too-many-people crowd.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 12:05:23pm
" We used to be known as a friendly and hospitable country."
That was right up until the time that people started taking advantage of that hospitality.Australians hate que jumpers.Try doing it at a concert or sports event and see how hospitable your fellow Australians are.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 2:55:00pm
"Australia needs to join the World. Some of the nearest safe countries are being overwhelmed with refugees. UK has huge problems with illegal residents"
You need to join reality Oaktree. I can assure you the UK would be doing exactly as we do if they werent hamstrung by the other benefits if EU membership. Citing the UK does not help your argument.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 3:49:35pm
Hi Shuey, I am just saying we should be doing our share. This political football is very tiring, and that is all this issue is. A cynical political red herring.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 11:28:32am
You are wrong, the UN processes and recognises refugees wherever they arrive. You only show your ignorance and stupidity by regurgitating this drivel.
Reply Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:
17 Feb 2014 1:14:44pm
"Australia is happy with this definition and is a willing member of the Convention."
Yeah, that's why, to bottle up the refugees, we got into bed with a country that the UN wants to investigate for war crimes.
Just to be picky, I believe that those who have come from Indonesia are still legally refugees. But, they aren't protected from Australian Immigration law and thus become ineligible for the Convention's protections.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 9:02:29am
No our biggest shame is Rudd's dismantling of laws the caused the problem in the first place.
Reply Alert moderator
Chris L:
17 Feb 2014 11:51:04am
Asylum seekers weren't a problem under Fraser. We had regional facilities and successful applicants were transported here safely.
Mandatory detention under Keating, Off-shoring under Howard, dithering under Rudd/Gillard and military involvement plus secrecy under Abbott demonstrates a gradually escalating attitude of xenophobia and ruthlessness.
Reply Alert moderator
gbe:
17 Feb 2014 7:49:23am
Donald yet another opinion on the Governments boarder protection policy and like the labor opposition a criticism with no alternative offered.
What do the constant complainers and knockers want is it open boarders and all who wish to come here can come at will.
And how long will it take for our struggling customs people to be joined by struggling heath and welfare systems and Australia in time mirrors the countries these people came from.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 9:15:07am
Compared to our aging population the amount of pressure that "illegal Immigrants" or "refugees" place on our welfare system in negligible.
The "constant complainers" and "knockers" may just want to make sure our government is acting humanely and within out international obligations. We could stop people smuggling very quickly if the Navy just shot all the boat people on arrival however only the worst of Australians would advocate that as a solution.
Some people don't believe the that the ends justify the means. They believe that protecting what we want Australia as a country to stand for shouldn't be forgotten when protecting our borders. The media has a role in making sure the government is accountable to the people it's supposed to represent. This is especially true when the government will not tell the Australian people what it is actually doing (justifiably or not).
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
17 Feb 2014 9:50:42am
In 2007, Labor went to the people promising to protect our borders. That they lied is no surprise, but that was their position. So 90% of the electorate voted for parties that said they would stop people smugglers. Same in 2010. Remember the East Timor solution? Again, Labor lied but, again, 90% of the electorate voted to stop the boats. Same in 2013, with Rudd's desperate lunge to the Manus Island solution. So, since 2001, the electorate has been quite clear on what it wants. But a tiny, but vocal, minority, ably assisted by the ABC, continues to refuse to accept the democratic decisions of the people. Isn't it about time that the ABC, at least, did?
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 10:24:35am
90% of the electorate voted for either of the two major parties in Australia? Colour me shocked. That doesn't mean that 90% of the electorate agrees with every single shared policy that both parties have.
Regardless of whether or not 100% of people agree that our borders should be protected from unlawful arrivals, that doesn't exclude 100%, 50% or 30% of people wanting to make sure that the government do it in a legal or humane manner. Again the Navy could protect our borders by shooting every boat person out at sea. 90% of the electorate would not agree to that.
Reply Alert moderator
jennbrad:
17 Feb 2014 1:47:06pm
Are you sure? Judging by comments above, it wouldn't surprise me if large numbers supported shooting boat people.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 11:39:30am
In 2007 Labor went to the people promising to dismantle the Pacific Solution which Howard was busily doing to try to stay in power for another 3 years.
90% of Australians did not vote Labor/Lib in 2010 and 2013 so your argument fails at the first hurdle. It fails its second hurdle because a lot of Labor supporters voted Labor so we would not have a loony like Abbott running the country, nothing to do with boat people.
Give up while you are behind.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 6:02:31pm
lazarus, Roger didn't state that 90% of Australians voted for Labor or the Liberals in 2010 and 2013. He stated that, to use his exact words, "90% of the electorate voted for parties that said they would stop people smugglers." The fact is that he's not far off. Over 85% of Australian voters gave their primary vote to a party or candidate who/that had a hard line on asylum seeking as their policy.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:26:39pm
It's called scrutiny Rog.
I know scrutiny is not something the Liberal party and it's cheerleaders are used to.
Going by the polls, it would appear the majority of voters dont share your fanaticism with stopping the boats.
It would appear they think there are more important things a government should be doing, like running the country, keeping it's promises and not lying on a daily basis.
Reply Alert moderator
gbe:
17 Feb 2014 12:09:56pm
No that?s what your saying is not correct at all you must know there is already immigration happening in controlled numbers yet you advocate uncontrolled numbers don't you understand what uncontrolled means.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 12:34:15pm
I don't know anyone advocating for uncontrolled numbers of immigration. I certainly don't.
It just goes to show how bad partisan politics is in Australia. If I advocate for transparency so a constituency can hold the government to account in the way it acts, it suddenly means I want uncontrolled numbers of immigrants (illegal or otherwise) to be able to enter this country. I would love to somehow be able to follow that logic.
I'd actually like to be able to follow your sentence at all.
Reply Alert moderator
mortan:
17 Feb 2014 2:19:09pm
NewSpeaker: The government has a boarder policy what motives you to think you have to keep the government to account.
You say you do not advocate uncontrolled immigration yet any attempt the government makes at control brings criticism would it be fair to say your anti LNP anything.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 5:10:28pm
It is the responsibility of every citizen who lives in a democratic nation like Australia to hold the government to account. Australians should hold the governments actions to account. This is a basic part of democracy.
I haven't even said if I like or dislike the rest of the current government border policies. I have mentioned I disagree with one specific policy which hide the current actions of the government.
You have no idea what my current views on anything are, yet you assume because I'm criticising one government policy, I must be a rabid ALP supporter or Anti-LNP. Please learn to think critically.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 4:21:34pm
" If I advocate for transparency so a constituency can hold the government to account in the way it acts,"
What is it you think your government is not telling you.Do you want ASIO to make a weekly report on their current activities.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 5:28:28pm
How am I supposed to know what the government isn't telling me? There is a power imbalance between citizens and the government. That's the whole point of democracies checks and balances. That's the whole point of having an elected representative. That's why the media is important.
And yes, ASIO should have to report on their current activities. When the government doesn't have to accountable to the people it is called tyranny. ASIO need appropriate checks an balances the same as any other government entity.
For example, if ASIO is found to be spying on Australian citizens without cause, and without going through an independent court, or having an ally do it for them to skip judicial oversight then Australians should know. You may be comfortable to give the government a blank check to snoop into everything you do with no recourse, however I do not think it would be good for Australia's democracy.
Reply Alert moderator
someone:
17 Feb 2014 10:39:41am
This issue is certainly a complex one and I do agree that we can not continually accept people into our country with open borders, however I do believe that the difference between asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants needs to be clarified
Asylum seekers arrive by many methods and even with visas they are seeking asylum in Australia as their own government does not want to protect their safety. A refugee is an asylum seeker who has been found by Australia to be in need of our protection. The number of asylum seekers and refugees arriving in our country is minimal compared to the number of economic migrants arriving each day with visas to live work and retire within a few years and joining our aging population.
Reply Alert moderator
NewSpeaker:
17 Feb 2014 11:10:58am
You raise an excellent point. My own language could be much more precise.
Reply Alert moderator
lazarus:
17 Feb 2014 11:33:45am
We have 190000 economic refugees arrive on our shores annually, why else would people be coming to Australia?
You could increase the refugee intake to around 90000 per year and clear most of the camps in South East Asia in a couple of years. You then may then achieve the system of orderly migration you seem to crave.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 2:59:38pm
"You could increase the refugee intake to around 90000 per year and clear most of the camps in South East Asia in a couple of years. You then may then achieve the system of orderly migration you seem to crave."
Or we could implement operation sovereign borders and take as few or as many refugees as we choose.
Lazarus the solution has arrived. It's here, it's working!! Why are you looking for other ones??
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
17 Feb 2014 3:42:57pm
There is no benefit in making Australia the dumping ground for global refugees.
The majority of Australia are opposed to the idea of open borders. And if it came to a choice between opening the borders and hanging those who want open borders, our nation would soon have a rope shortage.
Reply Alert moderator
NoGoodNamesLeft:
17 Feb 2014 7:51:21am
I would say that Indonesia's refusal to become a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees has created a bigger diplomatic rift between our two countries.
That and the killing of Australian journalists in East Timor, the sponsorship of Indonesian militias killing Timorese women and children prior to UN intervention and the constant suppression of the rights of indigenous civilians living within Indonesian territory (West Papua and Sumatra as examples).
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 7:51:56am
Much of this report is self-contradictoty, Mr Verrender.
In one breath you say:
"Those powers extend to taking control of those vessels, many of which are not flying the Indonesian flag and appear to be stateless, and removing them from Australian waters".
That is patently true. However, you go on to say the following, which is patently untrue:
"However, towing or escorting those vessels back into the adjoining Indonesian exclusive economic zone without Indonesia's consent is legally dubious".
In making that error you ignore several pertinent points.
First, many of those vessels are not in Indonesian waters, in what you describe as the "Indonesian exclusive economic zone" at all. They quite regularly send out distress calls to the Australian authorities while still in Indonesian waters, sometimes less than 10km from the Indonesian coastline. There is every justification and legal right embodied in Australia's action in returning people rescued from a sinking vessel to the nearest landfall - that is, to Indonesia.
Second, you have little justification for the claim that the vessels are not Indonesian. They are Indonesian vessels, sourced in Indonesia, crewed by Indonesians, carrying passengers from Indonesia and the fact that they do not fly the Indonesian flag is irrelevant. Please, whatever you do, don't try to suggest that these vessels do not originate from Indonesia. There have been far too many reports, both from within Indonesia and from crew members interrogated on Christmas Island and elsewhere for that claim to have any merit at all. Vessels from other countries, such as Vietnam and Sri Lanka have also been identified without difficulty.
Third, you make the rather strange claim that Australia has powers to remove vessels, even those carrying no flag, from its waters but at the same time you claim that they cannot be removed to "somewhere else". If Australia cannot return them to point of origin, where can they be "removed" to?
Reply Alert moderator
mik:
17 Feb 2014 8:09:50am
Think i'll go with the Professor of international law on this one.
Reply Alert moderator
Herb:
17 Feb 2014 8:48:29am
Wrong Mik even the professor says Australian ships can go into Indonesian waters..
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 9:07:46am
His key points are peppered with "if" and "whether". (He also didn't say that the people would be far safer in a lifeboat than the run-down boats they try to use to leave Indonesia.)
Why didn't he ask the Australian Navy to answer his questions? Perhaps answers would have been satisfactory and he'd be left with nothing to say.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 9:54:13am
I wonder how much we are paying for these lifeboats, to support a populist political issue?
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 11:01:39am
Oaktree- even if these lifeboats cost $50,000 each as was somewhere reported, they would only have to carry one of these illegals back to pay for themselves. And that's without taking future family reunions into account.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 12:10:33pm
Who cares as long as they do the job they have got to be cheaper than 80 odd illegal imigrants.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:09:40am
Just for the sake of clarity, this is a different poster using the same name as me.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 12:12:18pm
John is a pretty common name maybe you could changes yours just a little to make it distinctive.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 12:45:04pm
I've been using it around these topics for some time, and well before anyone else started using it.
Why should I change something that is well established?
Why don't the new posters use new names or indicate a difference?
There are several other "Johns" on these pages who have done precisely that.
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 2:56:07pm
I agree with you John. It gets confusing when we see someone else calling him/herself John, and expressing views based on a different set of philosophies from those we associate with that name.
You were here first and for those who like to look back through history, a divergent John is untenable. I think you also respond as "John" in other places, and that adds to your claim.
(Assuming I'm addressing the right "John".)
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 7:55:02am
'Legal grey areas' are of secondary concern to the interests of most Australians who command their government to secure our borders. This is a practical response that recognises that asylum seekers, people smugglers, and even Indonesians do not operate within the law or spirit of the law and corruption and cynicism. A strictly legal approach will see every asylum seeker that gets on a boat quickly escorted to Australia for a new life whether worthy or not. Refugee advocates who interestingly coincide with 'international law' experts know this.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
17 Feb 2014 8:43:47am
Yeah, I hate the strictly legal approach to anything difficult...
Reply Alert moderator
Zany:
17 Feb 2014 8:01:17am
I think most people feel better that people smugglers are being thwarted. But we must remember that we have to abide by international law. It's no use having a navy that doesn't know where it is and a minister that doesn't know what it's doing. It now seems that Labors Malayasian solution was the way to go to thwart the smugglers and it would have saved billions of dollars that abbot is now guarding so jealously. The boats are still comming and they obviously are pulling the bungs and being put in $70k lifeboats and returned. This is getting very expensive say 10 per week @ $70k is $700k. It's far from over yet.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 8:30:57am
Zany, nobody has ever explained to me how sending one illegal entrant to Malaysia and getting five illegal entrants back in exchange is going to solve the problem.
And nobody has ever explained what was expected to happen after the total number of illegals brought in from Malaysia had been reached.
All that the Malaysian solution would have done is send 800 illegal entrants out, bring 4,000 illegal entrants in, and then revert to the people smuggler boat process.
Reply Alert moderator
get real:
17 Feb 2014 8:43:11am
Zany,
and why do we have to abide by international law? Who says so? what if we don't? is the international court going to bite us? They cannot even sort out the Japanese or the Syrians or anyone else.
And who committed us to the said international law-a few lefty labour polly who take every entitlement and screw the taxpayer for everything.
Give me a break!
GR
Reply Alert moderator
Iorek:
17 Feb 2014 12:52:01pm
Might be a good idea though if we'd like, for instance, some credibility in complaining if our soldiers or others overseas are detained and tortured for doing their job?
We live in a world where relationships are important-tearing up the rules that manage those relationships because we don't like one part of them won't improve our lot overall.
Reply Alert moderator
Chris L:
17 Feb 2014 2:38:44pm
"lefty labour polly who take every entitlement and screw the taxpayer for everything."
I expect there probably are a few Labor politicians who do that, yet it does seem hypocritical to use that as a criticism so soon after so many Liberal ministers, including the PM, have been revealed to be guilty of what you accuse Labor of doing.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 8:51:54am
" The boats are still comming and they obviously are pulling the bungs and being put in $70k lifeboats and returned. This is getting very expensive say 10 per week @ $70k is $700k. It's far from over yet."
Zany, you ignore the fact that there hasn't been a boat in 50 days and hammer Abbott because they might still come.
I can almost feel your yearning for more boats, just to prove Abbott was wrong. Very sad.
Reply Alert moderator
Boggs:
17 Feb 2014 8:57:51am
Do you really believe that the Navy didn't know where it was!
With a $500 chart plotter a primary school kid could work that out.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:11:44am
The RAN has confirmed that errors in Canberra meant that incorrect information was being fed to the Master of the vessel and that any breach of territorial waters was caused by Canberra, not the Captain or Navigator of the RAN ship involved.
Reply Alert moderator
MIK:
17 Feb 2014 11:37:37am
Any captain of a ship who doesnt know its location should be sacked. I doubt that the well trained navy didnt know where they were. Its the Politicians that dont seem to know what they are doing. not the navy.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 12:51:04pm
That simply does not apply, MiK.
First, the Captain of the vessel is under instructions. He would need countermanding instructions before taking any contrary action.
Second, the ships movement might not have been at his command. I have a neighbour who is the Master of a large oil tanker, and he has often commented ruefully that he can set his course, go to bed and wake up next morning to find that the ship has changed course and is in a situation totally different to that which he anticipated. The ships are subject to control from satellite computer commands, which over-ride the on-board systems.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:36:25pm
...incorrect information was being fed to the Master of the vessel..
Give us a break!
Are you telling us a Captain of a Navy ship has to rely on navigation information from Canberra to know where he is on the open sea?
More like an over zealous Captain trying to carry out Abbotts policy.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 4:32:03pm
"Are you telling us a Captain of a Navy ship has to rely on navigation information from Canberra to know where he is on the open sea?"
You tell me you seem to know all about it.So tell us how you thought it happened.
"More like an over zealous Captain trying to carry out Abbotts policy."
Yes I am sure the RAN is full of Mavericks just out to impress the boss.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 12:17:34pm
Boggs you may remember Air New Zealand crashed into Mt Erebus with some of the most sophisticated navigation equipment of its time.I think we can cut our Navy some slack.
Reply Alert moderator
gnome:
17 Feb 2014 2:59:17pm
Did they even have the internet in 1979?
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 9:07:18am
Zany, I've done a bit of research since my last post and I have found this, which makes your comment about the cost of those lifeboats look very silly.
If the average unlawful entrant were allowed to land in Australia and receive a humanitarian visa, he would receive a net lifetime welfare benefit of $500,000 from the taxpayer. This is a conservative estimate, given that the average arrival will be aged 20-30 years, will have little or no English, will not learn English or integrate into Australian society and will have far fewer saleable skills than the population as a whole. He will therefore be eligible for a lifetime?s unemployment assistance, free health-care and other benefits, as well as a pension.
What this means is that each turn-around would require only four illegal entrants to be onboard the lifeboat, (out of a total capacity of 90) for the operation to be financially positive, working on your figures. As it was reported that 60 asylum seekers were returned to Indonesia on a lifeboat recently, the marginal saving to Australia of that return voyage was huge ? in the realm of $30 million.
As the cost of those lifeboats was reported to be $28,500 each, not the $70,000 to which you refer, the saving is even more substantial. And it is is very feasible for boats of even lower cost to be built to order.
Reply Alert moderator
IanM:
17 Feb 2014 8:06:26am
The Indonesian navy, and the ABC frankly, should have greater concerns than a few boats carrying illegal immigrants. In late January a Chinese taskforce of three warships steamed south through the Sunda Strait to conduct combat simulations and other exercises in the Indian Ocean, somewhere between Indonesia and Christmas Island. The vessels, two destroyers and an advanced 20,000-ton amphibious ship capable of carrying hundreds of marines, then skirted the southern edge of Java before heading north through the Lombok and Makassar Straits and into the Pacific.
This is the first substantial Chinese military exercise in the eastern Indian Ocean and in Australia's maritime approaches, and has significant implications for our strategic situation, but the Drum remains obsessed with moral posturing on illegal immigrants in leaky boats. Never mind, the government is successfully dealing with those, taking very little notice of those carping from the sidelines.
It is likely that, whatever it may say in public in an election year, the latest Chinese military exercise has also focussed the Indonesian government's mind on who their friends are and where their long-term interests lie. Perhaps that explains why the Indonesian military seem quite relaxed about Australian naval operations and a few leaky boats full of illegal immigrants.
Reply Alert moderator
sidlaw:
17 Feb 2014 12:09:49pm
IanM,
Not sure where you're going with this but what if Indonesia asks China for assistance in dealing with the 'bully' to the south who insists on towing back refugee boats? Mmmm.
Reply Alert moderator
Concerned:
17 Feb 2014 1:15:37pm
Now WHY would China be interested in assisting Indonesia. Apart from their huge population providing a market for their goods and a few trees still left in their forests that they could chop down. Possibly the resources of West Papua? When what they can dig up out of the ground in OUR country is of far more interest to them. As are the first world prices our consumers are prepared to pay for goods manufactured in their country paying third world wages. They can also come over here and buy up real estate so the emerging rich and privileged in their country can have a few alternative retirement options in a nice safe country. WHY would they want to make trouble for a country which they can purchase via the stock market and real estate agents as opposed to supporting an overpopulated one which has a history of violence against Chinese people (the communist massacres of Sukarno).
Reply Alert moderator
IanM:
17 Feb 2014 1:26:32pm
"what if Indonesia asks China for assistance in dealing with the 'bully' to the south who insists on towing back refugee boats". Sidlaw, given the politics of what's happening in the South China sea, the chances of that are zero. It is not a coincidence that relations between Australia and Indonesia have become progressively closer as China has rearmed and started looking outwards rather than inwards.
My point was that both Indonesia and Australia realise they have more important things to consider than the temporary irritant of a few illegal immigrants in small boats. The recent Chinese naval exercises have served to reinforce that.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 6:10:53pm
They could ask, sidlaw, but it wouldn't get them anywhere. China doesn't care about asylum seekers and isn't going to risk trade relations with Australia, a major source of China's food and resources, in order to back Indonesia on asylum matters. China isn't the US of the mid 20th century. They're not interested in global law and order. They don't get involved unless they can see a direct advantage that they can gain out of getting involved.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 8:09:46am
Cheers Donald , a difficult subject that.
The Navy or Customs boats would have no qualms breaking the 12 nm zone as they have responsibility over the towed life boat and the souls on board. The over riding regard is to get the people SAFELY to shore , political considerations be damned the people MUST make it to shore. Therefore they break the exclusion zone with intent ... not by error.
What I wish for is a Govt that can walk and chew gum.
One that can stop the boats and not destroy our relationship with our nearest neighbour. You keep hearing about the 'success' of operation sovereign something , yet the price of success appears to coming at too great a cost for mine.
Stupid lines like 'Labor hates the boats being stopped' or 'operational/on water matters' 'We have stopped the boats' do nothing but make matters with RI worse.
With any luck we will be able to repair our relationship AND stop the boats , but with this mob in charge , I doubt it.....
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 8:57:03am
"With any luck we will be able to repair our relationship AND stop the boats , but with this mob in charge , I doubt it....."
I am more confident the relationship can be salvaged as the drivers of the problem "the boats" will have stopped.
The relationship is tested far more deeply by the fallout from Snowdens allegations of spying. More allegations came out last night so looks like the decision not to apologise for spying has been vindicated.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 9:52:01am
Vindication for not apologising for tapping phones??
So if it gets worse -Snowden leaks- and we don't apologise at all for any infractions , we are right?
I don't get that especially when you couple it with your assertion that the relationship will salvaged when the boats stop.
We need to be consistent and adult about our relationship with RI , not arrogant and deceitful. Inclusive rather than exclusive ... you know all that diplomatic mumbo jumbo.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 11:17:00am
"So if it gets worse -Snowden leaks- and we don't apologise at all for any infractions , we are right?"
DaveS in light of the following not apologising makes perfect sense.
Australia: 'I apologise for spying on you'
Indonesia ' what spying exactly?, what have you been doing?"
Australia : ' errrrr well um. '
See where it goes? To apologise you have to lay out the whole spying programme to Indonesia, we get one chance, and we can't lie because Snowden could us'
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 12:25:13pm
Nah , I reckon you apologise for getting busted then move on.
If you apologise for more than what you've been caught for , then defence lawyers will go outta work quicker than you can say 'Sorry'.
For mine mate its apologise and move on....... to the next one. lol.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:38:33pm
"What spying exactly"?
The spying you have not denied you carried out.
Reply Alert moderator
Grumpy181155:
17 Feb 2014 2:06:04pm
It is the job of the intelligence departments to spy on our neighbours! We do it, America does it, the UK does it and certainly Indonesia does it.
If the US and Russia had done it effectively in '41 then they would not have been so surprised when attacked.
The incident that Snowden reported of tapping certain phones for a short period seems to me to be more of a capability exercise that any real spying. That does not alter the fact that it is a bit embarrassing when it all comes to light. Maybe an apology along the line of 'we are so sorry that the recent facts have come to light and we sincerely apologise for it' :)
Reply Alert moderator
schuey:
17 Feb 2014 3:58:39pm
Australia " we are sorry for the stuff you do know about and the stuff you might know about if Snowden tells you, but not sorry for the stuff you don't know about which is the stuff we know about but not going to tell you about"
Best to just neither confirm, nor deny. Which is Abbott's approach.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 9:23:34am
DaveS, you are dead wrong about the government's success not worth damaging relations. This is short term pain. Once the boats come to a virtual halt, relations with Indonesia will improve because there is no source of tension, whereas under Labor who are ideologically disposed to open borders, there will be never ending dramas. Therefore you have it all upside down. Labor always damages our relations with Indonesia because of asylum ideology, the LNP has to clean up Labor's mess, which temporarily makes relations more difficult, followed by the problem being solved so everyone is happy, until of course Labor ignores public opinion and reason and starts the madness again.
And Labor does hate the boats being stopped because it makes them look really bad. They did more to encourage than stop the boats and said the LNP couldn't stop them either. Labor's asylum seeker fiasco is the most epic public policy fiasco ever seen in this country.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 9:58:31am
Ideologically disposed to open borders?
Are we talking about the same mob?
I ask as Manus was opened and advertisements openly published stating you wont get to Aus. if you come by boat. The same gang whos oldest and most venerated pollie in Bob Carr said there shouldn't be a cigarette paper of difference between the ALP and LNP?
Im confused a little as I reckon it was a race to the bottom from both sides and our relations with RI were good when the ALP were voted out..... guess its another on water matter so I shouldn't worry. lol.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 10:29:17am
No under Labor we just pretended that relations were good as well as appeased - the worst outcome. The Indonesians are terrible neighbours and they can't be dictating our border arrangements. The ALP is confused DaveS. The Right of the party like Bob Carr is pragmatic and shares the concerns of most Australians. The Labor Left basically takes the Greens extreme position that borders are so yesterday, that human rights trump everything, that asylum seekers don't lie etc. Thus they vacillated between being weak and tough and satisfying no one. They have still to decide what they really believe in. I do not understand this 'race to the bottom'. The desperation of the third world to relocate to rich countries requires practical measures to protect our successful society. Better than importing a hostile backward underclass that is ruining Europe.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:41:57pm
...the Indonesians are terrible neighbours..
WOW straight out of the Julie Bishop Handbook on "How to antagonise our biggest and most important near neighbour"
Reply Alert moderator
sidlaw:
17 Feb 2014 1:27:11pm
DaveS,
Yes Labor is indeed ideologically disposed to open borders and you shouldn't pretent to deny this. That's why Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution. He didn't see a problem with 50,000 illegal immigrants coming here. Gillard understood better than Rudd that she had to be seen to be doing something about it without upsetting the bleeding hearts. Only after his reincarnation did Rudd understand how much of an election issue it was and had to be seen to be tough. If Rudd had defeated Abbott, the boats would still be coming because Manus Island would be full and Rudd would say there was no other option but to take all comers. So the people smugglers business model would have thrived again and yes, people would again have been dying at sea.
Bob Carr admitted the majority were economic migrants. Maybe this is why Rudd had no concerns - less of a burden.
The genuine refugees in the UN camps are destitute and have no chance of independently getting to Indonesia, never mind paying the people smugglers for passage. It's only the economic migrants that can afford to do this.
The point many seem to miss is that it is better for the Australian economy to accept these economic migrants rather than the genuine refugees in UN camps because the economic migrants are more likely to thrive and less likely to be dependant on welfare, whereas the reverse is the case for those coming from camps. So, wanting to take more from the camps is actually more compassionate.
Of course you can always say take them all but this is not a sustainable solution.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 4:05:35pm
Me thinks you are being a touch disingenuous sidlaw.
Every citizen wants strong border protection , its just how severe we are on those that encroach them. The ALP went to the election in 07 championing an end to a very harsh way of treating asylum seekers. What they didn't do was implement harsher punishments when we were effectively being taken advantage of , and have been punished for it at the last election.
We also combine our refugee intake with offshore and onshore arrivals. No other country I am aware of does this , so yes that means someone arriving by boat has taken someone elses place.
Economic refugees is a spurious term as there is nothing I wouldn't do to give my children a better life , I would sell my house too. Does that make them economic or desperate?
Anyway , nice to chat to ya!
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 5:50:29pm
DaveS. I do recognise that you take a middle ground approach. This means you want toughness with compassion. Labor tried that and it doesn't work because it always results in everyone in ten feet in water off Indonesia becoming an Australian citizen. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. We can't make these concessions and stop the boats. They only understand the law of the jungle. We have to say NO and mean it. Us meanies do understand the grinding poverty that drives people here, but being weak just opens the floodgates. There is nothing special about people who get on boats. The only argument should be over how many we should accept through an orderly humanitarian program.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 11:41:53am
Yeah, the 'relationship' is trashed no doubt. And yet Schapelle Corby has been paroled and the live export trade is booming and the Indonesian Navy has made no appearance despite protestations.
Go read Greg Sheridan for a change. He understands Indonesia and Indonesians. The relationship is actually in great shape and the Chinese sending warships through the Sunda Straits is only going to strengthen Indonesia's links with Australia.
There is one thing Indonesia will NOT become and that is chinese!
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 12:41:35pm
So you think RI let politics get in the way of the law?
When you have the Ambassador recalled from your country , have the foreign minister repeatedly state the countries objections to our refugee policy , have our ambassador to RI dragged in for a dressing down , break their sovereignty by towing boats back 5 times, then, RI complains to the US about our policies in the hope we might listen to them as we don't to RI...... gee Id hate to be around when you consider its bad. :)
Reply Alert moderator
get real:
17 Feb 2014 8:20:31am
How about Indonesia rather than boring the US about Australia's management of the Indonesian invasion (the boat people), raise the treatment of Mexicans who are trying to enter the US. It is apparent that the US is building a berlin wall style barrier to prevent 'illegal' entry from the south of the border and shotting to kill.
Get Real
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 9:25:49am
I think Mr Natalegawa would prefer to bring up real events rather than whats 'apparently' occurring in the US.
That plus the fact the US can do what it wants in its own country ,while we cant do what we want in Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 12:22:50pm
We can do what we want in our own territorial waters.What is Mr Natalegawa going to complain about.Australia returning Indonesian boats to Indonesia?.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 3:39:39pm
EVAN , I'm not sure wether you are aware but we have been violating Indonesias territory carrying out our own policy. Most countries , us included (just check out what we do to Patagonian toothfisherman , Indonesian fisherman for instance and lets not even start on whalers) , tend to get a little upset when you cross their line.
Its kinda like your neighbour having a party in your backyard and you aren't invited. Story of my life really..... ;)
Reply Alert moderator
mik:
17 Feb 2014 10:02:15am
I dont think Indonesia is planning on boring the US with anything. I think they are more likely to say to the US gov. (insert multi nationals here) "you know those billions of dollars you have invested in our economy.......
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:44:14pm
apparently shooting to kill!!!
You of course can provide credible evidence of that little doozy?
Reply Alert moderator
Boggs:
17 Feb 2014 8:24:37am
It's all very well to argue the legal points. The fact of the matter is that Indonesia is not fullfilling its obligations. Through corruption (including police, military and I suspect fairly high levels of governemnt), incompetence and apathy it is allowing illegal activities to take place within its juristiction. Indonesia is allowing itself to be a conduit for illegal immigration to Australia. If they were to take their international responsibilities seriously then they may have a moral point, but until they do they should stop whinging about the steps Australia takes to safeguard our borders.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 9:32:53am
". Indonesia is allowing itself ...." is it really? Wow. Here I was thinking its done illegally and with secrecy (asylum seekers get phone calls to be at the docks barely hours before they depart) when all along RI is running a P&O type operation.
Its a complicated issue as under Indonesian law people smugglers get gaoled if caught , think about that , gaol. That means it has to be done on the low low , not advertised or a bell rung in the town square.
So if we can we should be bi partisan and get RI to continue to track and arrest smugglers while we deal with those that get through.
Towing back and entering a sovereign nations territory illegally is a recipe for disaster.
Reply Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
17 Feb 2014 4:11:18pm
"The fact of the matter is that Indonesia is not fullfilling its obligations."
Wrong. Indonesia is not a signatory to the relevant UN treaties, and is therefore not in breach of them.
Indeed, the very fact that Indonesia is NOT a signatory is one of the main reasons why asylum seekers who arrived there are so eager to get here. In Indonesia they have no legal status at all, and no access to the UNHCR.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 6:20:10pm
Indonesia is a signatory to the relevant Convention, David. Indonesia signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on the 12th of December, 2000.
Reply Alert moderator
get real:
17 Feb 2014 8:28:44am
So Indonesia is upset with our treatment of the illegal immigrants that country is pushing our way. Well logically and fairly, the cost of managing this problem should be deducted from any foreign aid given to Indonesia-or for that matter we should stop all foreign aid to Indonesia and use it for helping our own disadvantages such as the aboriginals, homeless, smokers, alcoholics and mentally ill-far better return obviously. $600+M would go a long way!
Get real
Reply Alert moderator
Ted:
17 Feb 2014 8:38:43am
This whole debacle is more like Keystone Cops rather than considered border protection. No wonder we are not allowed to know what is happening.
What was needed was a tougher stance against Indonesia's allowing this trade rather than being on the back foot trying to justify the current actions.
At least the position will become clearer when the navel personnel responsible for such poor navigation are court martialled.
Reply Alert moderator
Poisonous Mushroom:
17 Feb 2014 8:42:55am
Given the total secrecy of Abbott and co actions on asylum seekers, each and every one of their actions need to be urgently tested in eachl international court with legal jurisdiction over every such action.
The only people with anything to gain by saying we never knew Abbott and co was acting illegally is Abbott and co.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 4:46:45pm
So Australia is not allowed to protect its borders.
The Abbott government made it clear that it was going to tow back boats from before the election.So why havn't all the dogooders hot footed it off to court to take out every form of injunction they can think of could it be because they are not breaking any laws.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
17 Feb 2014 6:28:02pm
The only International Court with jurisdiction would be the International Court of Justice as dictated by Article 38 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Any dispute between parties to this Convention relating to its interpretation or application, which cannot be settled by other means, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute.") and Article 4 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Any dispute between States Parties to the present Protocol which relates to its interpretation or application and which cannot be settled by other means shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute."), PM. The ICJ can hear the case should another Convention or Protocol signatory with standing (another country that can prove that it's being directly and adversely effected by Australia's action in this matter) bring the case before it.
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset:
17 Feb 2014 8:46:23am
Indonesians, are only abusing our borders, because they read articles of dissension in 'some' sections of our media, which gives them reason to believe that we want to accept as many overners as can arrive. And with a graduated bribe structure pervading their whole culture they will keep at it, thereby risking lives and confining genuine refugees to African Camps.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 9:36:11am
Mate , if wanting an open and transparent Govt and a free press is dissension , then arrest me now.
Its good to see your concern for African refugees , maybe you can write about the decrease in foreign aid to that area. Or even the attempted reduction in our humanitarian intake?
Good to see ya concerned!
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset:
17 Feb 2014 10:57:49am
Maybe you could write about it?
It's a free forum.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 11:26:06am
Sorry , I consider it an operational matter and all enquiries or suggestions that I should write will be deemed an on water matter as I own a tinny. ;)
Reply Alert moderator
Half Past Human:
17 Feb 2014 2:29:56pm
We often arrive at a generalization but don't or can't list all the exceptions. When we reason with the generalization as if it has no exceptions, our reasoning contains the fallacy of accident. This fallacy is sometimes called the "fallacy of sweeping generalization."
Waterloo says:
"And with a graduated bribe structure pervading their whole culture they will keep at it.."
A typical right-wing comment bordering on racism towards Indonesians. Your knowledge of Indonesia, which has a population of 240 million people with different languages, religions and cultures, is limited. And coupled with that, your fake compassion towards boat people, and those already drowned, makes you appear as an ignorant and a heartless fool on these pages. For all our sakes, and for a better relationship between our country and Indonesia, I hope no Indonesian will read your words today.
Compassion is so easy to fake for Right wingers.
Reply Alert moderator
Hoju:
17 Feb 2014 8:56:21am
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put the number of deaths at sea at over 1,900.
This never seems to get mentioned by authors contributing articles to The Drum.
I wonder why?
Yet journos and authors are so quick to mention claims of abuse by illegal refugees claiming torture or mistreatment by our Navy.
I wonder why?
The ABC Fact Check has even managed to claim that it is both True and False that the Government can refer to the asylum seekers as "illegal".
Reply Alert moderator
IanM:
17 Feb 2014 10:20:49am
"The ABC Fact Check has even managed to claim that it is both True and False that the Government can refer to the asylum seekers as "illegal"." Under our international treaties, it is not illegal for asylum seekers to seek asylum in Australia. It is however illegal to seek to enter Australia without a valid visa. In the same way you would be entitled to seek to renew your driver's licence at the appropriate authority, but not entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road in order to get there. The solution for asylum seekers would be to apply for asylum from outside Australia, as most do.
Reply Alert moderator
hello dave:
17 Feb 2014 12:40:13pm
It's amazing to me that supporters of the policies of this and the previous government on asylum seekers are still justifying the approach based on preventing deaths at sea.
Ask yourselves whether you would have a different line if the people smugglers all got together and leased a P&O liner and then there would be no danger.
Would you support a policy of on-shore assessment for those on the 'cruise'?
I think not.
Tell yourselves the truth and stop using the furphy of the deaths at sea
Reply Alert moderator
penguin:
17 Feb 2014 9:13:11am
For those who don't understand:
1. Our borders are secure. There is no invasion. Nobody is coming to take over the country. People are coming and knocking on our doors and asking for asylum.
2. They are allowed and entitled to come and knock on the door and ask for asylum. We are a signatory to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR). There are 145 signatories worldwide. Indonesia is not one of them.
3. Indonesia has 230 million people. They are not required to accept or take in refugees. They are not required to take back the boats that Australia tows back. Yes they are a transit point. People who arrived in Indonesia cannot claim asylum or any legal status in Indonesia. The only countries where they can claim asylum must be signatories. Have a look at a map in Wikipedia; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Refugeeconvention.PNG
There are no countries who are signatories between here and the middle east.
4 It is our international treaties that govern our place in the world. We are simply breaking the rules. We are not abiding by our obligations under the UN treaty for refugees. We are breaking international law by refusing to process them as refugees, and also as Professor Rothwell states, by towing them back to Indonesian waters.
It is just plain wrong. It is also likely to be illegal. As well as being selfish, greedy, xenophobic and racist. Yet the majority of us want it done. Shame on us.
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
17 Feb 2014 10:08:48am
You just took everyone's side but Australias. You should reflect on that.
Reply Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
17 Feb 2014 4:31:46pm
"You just took everyone's side but Australias. You should reflect on that."
As David Frost so memorably put it in the 1960s:
"Our country, white and wrong!"
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 10:09:44am
Penguin, the UN convention says they must come directly. The refugees come through multiple countries to get to Australia which invalidates their claim under the convention.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 10:12:44am
"It is just plain wrong. It is also likely to be illegal. As well as being selfish, greedy, xenophobic and racist. Yet the majority of us want it done. Shame on us."
Now we get to the heart of your post. You feel guilty about being white and privileged. Admit it.
You want to make yourself feel better so you slag off and morally perjure the rest if us who are happy with who we are.
Well I am not ashamed, i am proud. So take your bile somewhere else.
Reply Alert moderator
General Disarray:
17 Feb 2014 11:01:19am
Penguin gave you the facts and you gave bile.
Funny how you brought up race...
this seems to be the central issue with the proud xenophobes here.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 11:54:30am
You're our on a limb making an assumption over the ethnicity of a blogger to say nothing on whether you think their motives are driven by race. There are plenty of rational, coherent arguments that you can make for restricting maritime arrivals, but white pride isn't one of them.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:45:51am
You are wrong in every one of those claims, Penguin.
1) Our borders are not secure when illegal entrants coming via people smugglers can enter our waters without authority;
2) People are not knocking on our doors asking for asylum. If they wanted to knock on doors there are Australian doors all over the world, including in Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad, Teheran and elsewhere. These people are forcing entry through our doors;
3) Indonesia is required to take back Indonesian owned, Indonesian crewed vessels that breach Australian sovereignty;
4) The fact that Indonesia is not a signatory to the Convention is irrelevant. There is no connection - I repeat NO CONNECTION - between being a signatory and being a place of asylum and safe haven;
5) The international treaties to which you refer are being observed by Australia. They are not being observed by illegal entrants who try to force entry in violation of those treaties.
There are said to be 45 million people in the world seeking to move from one country to another. Under your policy they would all be welcome here. Is that really what you recommend?
Reply Alert moderator
General Disarray:
17 Feb 2014 11:09:42am
Penguin stated nothing but facts.
Your 'facts' are what are obfuscating the issue
and explains the confusion in the public who are motivated by
fear and misinformation.
Perhaps people should familiarize themselves with Australian law
before giving their opinion as fact.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 11:45:01am
Unfortunately, John, those that are forcing entry through our doors (by which we really mean Ashmore Reef) get a pretty high rate of refugee assessment by our own processing. So country of origin, how much they've "shopped" and their method of arrival doesn't seem to diminish the fact that a hell of a lot are genuine. The current government knows this which is why that have stopped trying to stop the boats from making Australia and have now started trying to stop them from leaving Indonesia. If boat after boat were allowed to make Australian territory, not only would the offshore centres fill up fast, it would only defer the problem for two-three years, where it would be much bigger and more difficult to deal with. Labor made this mistake by trying paint over cracks of their own making.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 1:02:55pm
Again, Dove, you repeat that tired, worn out and false allegation. They are not genuine.
The illegal entrants do not get a high rate of refugee assessment by our internal processing procedures.
Those procedures are stalled at every stage by, first the illegal destruction of identity papers and passports, and then by months and months of refusing to co-operate with officials, lying about identity and origin, frustrating all enquiries, and manipulating every appeal and time wasting process possible. This goes on for so long that they then use the argument that they have been badly treated because they were not given what they wanted immediately, were kept in detention and should therefore get everything they demand without justification.
This goes on for so long, costs an absolute fortune and wastes so many thousands of man hours that eventually the authorities simply give up trying to get the truth and allow them in on the "We cannot prove you are dishonest" basis rather than the "You have justified your claim" basis.
Even Captain Emad made his way around that process.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 1:50:44pm
It's no allegation John. You know the figures as well as I. I haven't interviewed anyone, I haven't heard their cases, I haven't had to make a determination. The reality is that the people that do make a determination have made them contrary to what you say are the facts. Many have been deported, but many have been allowed in because it's all been too hard- too hard to process and too hard to find somewhere to deport them. But whether you approve or not, the "system" reckons most to be refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:16:58pm
It is only an allegation, Dove, because is simply, directly and irrefutably untrue.
None of those persons has ever been declared to be a genuine asylum seeker. No migration or refugee authority has ever deemed them to be genuine.
Where an applicant has been found to be a genuine asylum seeker, that decision is published. You can look to the many thousands of Vietnamese who applied, were checked and who were pronounced as genuine for confirmation. Or, as we mentioned before, the case of the West Papuans.
Yes, you are correct in you last comment but one - many have been allowed in because it's all too hard.
But you're wrong in your last sentence. The "system" has never classified them as genuine refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 12:33:14pm
You're wrong on a fair few points yourself, John.
1. Yes, we have a right to protect our borders. We also have an obligation to provide protection to genuine refugees on our territory. Asylum seekers are entitled to make a claim, whether they arrived with a visa or not.
2. Afghans cannot apply for asylum in Kabul. By definition, a refugee is someone outside his country of nationality.
3. Correct. They are not required to take back non-Indonesian, non documented passengers.
4. There absolutely is a connection between being a signatory and offering asylum. Only a country which offers the protections identified in the Convention is a "safe country." Anyone who has fled his homeland for fear of persecution, and does not have the formal protection of another country, including the right of residence, the right to employment and social services, does not have protection within the meaning of the Convention and is entitled to make a claim at the first country which does offer that protection. And that is not Indonesia.
5. The asylum seekers who are genuine refugees are not violating international law. Period.
$.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:31:37pm
Sorry, frangipani, those comments just don't stand up to scrutiny.
1) Yes, we have a duty to provide protection to genuine refugees. But we do not have a duty to provide that protection to people who simply claim it and refuse to substantiate it;
2) Of course Afghans can apply for entry to Australia in Kabul. Admittedly that is not easy because the Australian office moves all the time as it is subject to constant bomb attacks from the Taliban, but it is there, it does receive applications, and many successful applicants have used it. At the same time, the Kabul facility works in conjunction with similar offices in Pakistan, and makes approval and document issue available in both places. There is no excuse for not going through the formalities;
3) I'm not sure what your point 3) refers to. If you are discussing those illegal travellers on board smuggler boats, then of course Indonesia has an obligation to accept them back. The same applies to any unauthorised or unacceptable cargo;
4) Again, I repeat that there is no connection between being a signatory to the Convention and being a country of safe haven. Please read the Convention to satisfy yourself on this point. However, you may be confusing "safe haven" and "residency". Those first countries do offer asylum, but frequently do not offer residency or citizenship. Those are two quite different things, and that is precisely the position taken by the member countries of the EU;
5) I agree with this point, but simply repeat that people travelling via the services of a people smuggler have not complied with Australian requirements and are not genuine asylum seekers.
Reply Alert moderator
jennbrad:
17 Feb 2014 1:57:10pm
This "open borders" furphy really annoys me. We are a very large island, not a landlocked nation - unless we built walls all around our seabird and employ many thousands more of Navy/Customs boats, then there are going to be gaps. Our borders are not "open" - never have been but anyone, not just asylum seekers, but anyone, could probably find a gap somewhere and sneak ashore. Perfect security is highly unlikely in any case.
Reply Alert moderator
Trent Toogood:
17 Feb 2014 2:52:36pm
...enter our waters without authority...
They are seeking refuge for Gods sake!
Do you think they all should write and get permission first?
Do you think the people fleeing Vietnam in leaky boats got authority before they left?
Talk sense.
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 3:47:41pm
The vast majority of Vietnamese arrived after being fully processed in refugee camps.
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 2:59:24pm
Perhaps you could give credible evidence of your sweeping statements as being true.
Anyone can make unsubstantiated comments, trying to present them as fact.
If you want to have any credibility, back up you unproven statements.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 12:35:57pm
penguin
For people who don't understand democracy, it is the fulfilment of the will of the people. In the last election people voted for stopping the boats. The LNP is carrying out this mandate.
In being number 2 globally in permanently resettling refugees and contributing significantly to the UNHCR we are more than fulfilling our obligations under international conventions. Only the foolish will allow boat arrivals because it paves the way for unlimited arrivals and ultimately a collapse in the ability of the government to provide services.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
17 Feb 2014 2:45:44pm
"For people who don't understand democracy, it is the fulfilment of the will of the people. In the last election people voted for stopping the boats. The LNP is carrying out this mandate. "
Another grub who believes words to mean what *they* think it does and reality be damned.
Firstly, this "mandate" mantra is pure garbage. They can form a government, that is all. This does not mean that their policies can go unchallenged or unopposed as too many like to hint at.
This absurd nonsense also ignores the "will of the people" who voted for parties or candidates who oppose the government's policies, around half the voting public. Are you suggesting they don't matter?
Cut the "mandate"/"will of the people" nonsense NOW. It's peurile garbage from people with no understanding of the democratic process.
Reply Alert moderator
Col'n:
17 Feb 2014 9:13:49am
Both governments have engaged in a race to the bottom [sic] in what is held in some personal beliefs, is essentially faux concern for asylum seekers drowning at sea, a euphemism for "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 9:19:22am
"However, towing or escorting those vessels back into the adjoining Indonesian exclusive economic zone without Indonesia's consent is legally dubious.".... Legally dubious? Let's wait until the first Indonesian navy vessel tows back those Australian boats filled with asylum seekers into Australian waters, and let's see how the Abbott Government reacts.
"While Australia is protesting the unauthorised entry of asylum seeker vessels into its waters, Indonesia also has equivalent rights and obligations to Australia within its maritime zones."... Perfectly correct, and this can only lead either to Rudd's predicted Konfrontasi or to the predicted stalemate whereby two army vessels, one Australian and one Indonesian will face each other on the border, with an asylum seekers vessel standing between the two. Messages will then be sent from one captain to the other: "It's yours, no it's yours, it comes from your country, no now it comes from yours..... etc. etc."
Reply Alert moderator
Cobber:
17 Feb 2014 9:44:37am
I love being hectored by Alpo and his failed Labor mates as much as I love being lectured on the Refugee Convention by a country that refuses to sign it. Indonesia couldn't stop the parasites coming to its country apparently, yet now, due to OP Sovereign Borders, there is evidence of them leaving Indonesia back to Malaysia! Both Alpo and Indonesia should just get out of the way and let the obvious success of this policy continue.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 10:25:45am
"the parasites"... How can you know that they are "parasites" if you don't allow them in and properly process them on Christmas Island (or elsewhere)? Cobber, the boats keep coming, they haven't stopped, but now we have a serious confrontation with Indonesia. Your Government of incompetents is making a difficult situation a total mess.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 11:17:15am
Totally agree Alpo!
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 11:31:48am
Alpo, "serious confrontation with Indonesia"? There is no serious confrontation unless you count the Indonesians being precious. It will only become serious when we demand that they (the Indonesians) start doing what we pay them to do. We are being conned on a massive scale and the sooner we realise the Indonesia has no intention of even attempting to stop this people trade the better it will be for us. In a country that runs on corruption there is just too much money in it for them to want to stop it. I know who the parasites are and it's not the refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 12:47:51pm
"There is no serious confrontation unless you count the Indonesians being precious."... Tell that in Jakarta, big joe.
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 1:57:58pm
And they are going to do exactly what Alpo? Stop doing what we are paying them to do? It's fairly obvious that they have already done that if they ever really started. Personally I was embarrassed when Gillard and Rudd sucked up to the Indonesians when it was obvious they were playing us for suckers. As far as telling that to Jakarta Alpo, hey, if you are listening either stop the people smugglers or admit you can't and give us our money back, happy now.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 1:06:15pm
You could try asking ASIC, Alpo.
But then, you already know this but simply refuse to acknowledge the truth, don't you?
"9% of Afghan adult refugees are in paid employment and 81% receive benefits
12% of Iraqi adult refugees work and 78% receive benefits".
Department of Immigration and Citizenship:
Policy Innovation, Research and Evaluation Unit:
April 2011.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 1:27:15pm
John, continue reading, don't stop at the numbers that support your prejudice. Most of those who receive benefits without being at work do so because they are studying. That's why after a while they not only get a job, but become a great asset to our society. Most of them are hard working and grateful for this second opportunity in life. Many of our own citizens should learn about the lives of those refugees and take them as examples. For those refugees who are still too handicapped by their past traumas, the help we give them is part of our humanitarian contribution. Today is them who need help, tomorrow may be us.....
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:36:13pm
Don't be so dense, Alpo. Or so deliberately dishonest.
That ASIC report clearly distinguished between adults and school-age children.
And even if your very abstruse argument had any shred of credibility, you could suggest some reason why these adults on welfare do not work during the day and study at night. That's what adult education is aimed at.
Our humanitarian efforts should be concentrated where humanitarian needs are greatest - in the UNHCR camps.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 5:44:28pm
"Dense"?... "dishonest"?....John, it's the adults who are also studying, not just the children!... They are studying full-time, do you know what that means? I know you are totally desperate, but please do inform yourself first and be rational in your argumentation.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 10:06:30am
Alpo, the RI navy are unlikely to force the boat onto Australia for two reasons. One is the crew of the boat are Indonesian. Secondly, don't expect RI navy vessels to be around in these waters.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 10:41:46am
Coogara, at the border the crew may leave the boat, there is a distance of less than 170 Km from there to Christmas Island. The Indonesians also expect our navy vessels not to be around their waters, towing asylum seeker boats back. I don't think that you are understanding that Indonesia is as much a sovereign country as we are and that asylum seekers are not their citizens, nor they are seeking asylum in Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset:
17 Feb 2014 11:21:38am
"I don't think that you are understanding that Indonesia is as much a sovereign country as we are "
With an extremely porous border!!
What you don't seem aware of Alpo, is that these boats are part of a massive industry in Indonesia. There are several hundred people involved in various transactions: transport; accommodation; security; local police; boats servicing; fuel supplies; choosing the travellers; processing the payments, ect, ect.
None of the people above care if the travellers drown. The ALP didn't care. They encouraged it.
It is only The Coalition that has said time and time again that they want to prevent people making this hazardous voyage.
Now Alpo, how does the number of people in Kevin's Kamps affect the total quota that we have agreed to take - currently 13,000?
And, one last question, if you don't mind: Aren't you pleased that no-one is attempting this hazardous journey now? it's what all thinking humans want isn't it?
Reply Alert moderator
Alphamikefoxtrot:
17 Feb 2014 12:00:19pm
Waterloo, the truly saddest aspect of this entire mess is the absolute lack of any interest Labor and its acolytes have for the fact that people have drowned at sea. They simply do not give a rats as it doesn't fit their view of how things should be.
Reply Alert moderator
Half Past Human:
17 Feb 2014 2:36:34pm
Alphamike foxtrots:
"Waterloo, the truly saddest aspect of this entire mess is the absolute lack of any interest Labor and its acolytes have for the fact that people have drowned at sea. They simply do not give a rats as it doesn't fit their view of how things should be."
Compassion is so easy to fake for Right Wingers.
Reply Alert moderator
Give us a break:
17 Feb 2014 3:04:02pm
...no one is attempting this hazardous journey now...
So what are they turning back?????
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 11:26:59am
Alpo, providing we dont enter RI waters we are not infringing on their sovereignty. Its irrelevant where asylum seekers want to go to. The RAN is there to stop them getting to Australia, fulfilling the mandate of the government.
Reply Alert moderator
IanM:
17 Feb 2014 10:29:08am
In early 2007, before the election, Kevin Rudd said "turning back the boats is Labor policy". I seem to recall you were a fan of Kevin, but now that a government is doing what Kevin advocated back then, you complain. Kevin changed his position on this issue several times, and I don't recall you criticising this either, so perhaps its the messenger and not the message you object to.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 11:09:34am
IanM, refresh your memory, I was against the hard stance (and getting harder in 2013) of the Labor Government against asylum seekers (I even criticised the otherwise excellent Julia Gillard). Unlike the brainwashed supporters of the Liberal Party, those on the centre-left of politics retain their ability to think for themselves....
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset:
17 Feb 2014 12:13:02pm
I can think. And be pragmatic...And have compassion.
Please, please, please, let these people stay in Java, or safely travel somewhere by land (Australia even, if they want to apply and come by air). There are plenty of closer havens.
Please stop criticizing the government for stopping the drownings. You seem almost maniacal about enticing them onto leaky boats.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
17 Feb 2014 1:34:01pm
"Please stop criticizing the government for stopping the drownings"... WS, I fully agree with you that this Government should become far more proactive in speeding up the processing of asylum seekers in Indonesia, so that they can be relocated here or somewhere else. But unfortunately, this Government is not so much interested in stopping the drownings as it is interest in stopping the drifting of votes away from the Coalition.
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset:
17 Feb 2014 2:11:25pm
That doesn't make any sense, unless you are able to table the time(s) taken to process the 13,000 that we have an agreement to take.
Are you suggesting that we concentrate on unregistered seekers in Java, at the expense of others world-wide.
Are you advocating an exclusivity to any potential asylum seekers based on the fact that they have assembled in Java? Does that, somehow, give them priority over families that have been patiently waiting in starving penury in Africa?
The Javanese dwellers are perfectly safe. they have left wherever the action was and are comfortable. Leave them alone.
Java is a wonderful place - as you know I went to school there. It is Nirvana, with food in abundance.
If you want to do some good, agitate to increase our total intake. Then go to the UN camps and help out.
Reply Alert moderator
Boomer:
17 Feb 2014 9:24:14am
I wonder what will be our reaction when the Indonesian navy tow the orange life boats back to an Australian beach?
And what if the orange boats contain the same human cargo they arrived on the Indonesian beach with?
This is not well though through policy.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 10:09:52am
Boomer
"This is not well though through policy"
Hey its working. Sooner or later refugees will realise that they have no hope of migrating to Australia and the number of boats will flow to a trickle. All the issues will vanish
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:17:33am
Australia will just tow them back again.
Indonesia cannot patrol its own waters and would never be able to implement such a tactic anyway.
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 9:29:22am
"Australian diplomats are summoned to Jakarta". If anything it should be Indonesian diplomats who are summoned to Canberra to explain their inability to stop these illegals transiting their territory, if they are making any effort at all it certainly is a dismal one considering the amount of money we give them to assist them in their efforts. In all probability there is just too much money in the trade for the Indonesians to make any serious efforts to put a stop to it.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
17 Feb 2014 2:55:40pm
big tard,
"Australian diplomats are summoned to Jakarta". If anything it should be Indonesian diplomats who are summoned to Canberra to explain their inability to stop these illegals transiting their territory"
See that word "sovereign" that our regressive government flings around with abandon? It applies to other countries too. You may not understand this but the days of Empire and colonialism are long gone. Indonesia manages it's own affairs and aren't "answerable" to Australia or anyone else.
That they aren't illegal doesn't seem to matter to you either and explaining the nuances would probably be lost on someone clearly too enamoured of black and white absolutes thinking.
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 3:51:05pm
Indonesia, like Australia, is a signatory to the Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol on Combatting People Smuggling. It would be well within Australia's rights to call in their Ambassador and ask them why they aren't observing their obligations under that Convention.
Reply Alert moderator
big joe :
17 Feb 2014 6:13:14pm
TFG, name calling is a juvenile way to argue a point but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and regard it as a typo. We would be well within our rights to be critical of Indonesias efforts to date and considering the millions we give them to assist in combatting this scourge and the dismal return we are getting for our money I suspect they would be hard up to come up with a reasonable explanation. It has everything to do with sovereignty and our right who decides to comes to our country. Don't try to cloud the issue with talk of empire and colonialism, these have nothing to do with the discussion.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 9:30:26am
A few grey legal issues are not adequate grounds to close down Operation Sovereign Borders especially since it is successful and is fulfilling what the electorate want. The only alternative to fulfil what the Indonesian president called "removing the sugar", would be to remove free access to education and health as well as remove all welfare payments. At least with the latter strategy, Australian taxpayers will have reduced tax to pay for social services and refugees will not have to be supported (as it is in the case of Italy).
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 11:35:02am
The electorate also want a healthy , positive and productive relationship with an export market/neighbour.
We can do both Coogara. First thing is stopping the tow backs as we are annoying RI and at the end of the day are dumping the same people on a country who share your concern about the sugar on the table.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogars:
17 Feb 2014 12:01:22pm
Dave, the tow backs are not affecting our trade. Once refugees realise they have no hope of getting to Australia then the issue will disappear anyway.
Reply Alert moderator
DaveS:
17 Feb 2014 1:09:40pm
May I be forward enough to add to your thoughts mate?
Good , "Dave, the tow backs are not affecting our trade...... yet". The first thing to go in most relationships is trust. The second is finances ..... or the dog. Sure we don't have a dog sharing arrangement with RI , but its important to add levity as a GSOH is always sought after.
Reply Alert moderator
Harquebus:
17 Feb 2014 9:45:24am
Just once I would like to see on the drum, an asylum seeker article that criticises the tyrants and oppressors that cause people to flee in boats.
Stop the abusers of human rights and the boats will stop.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:20:17am
Harquebus, the travellers on these people smuggler boats are not fleeing tyrants and oppressors. They are simply seeking economic betterment.
If they were genuinely fleeing from tyrants and oppressors they would stop travelling once those objectives had been met. They would not continue to travel through several more countries until the selected destination is reached.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 11:33:37am
It's a combination of both. People flee the fear of persecution and decide to make for the best country that their means will allow. The poor ones don't get far. Those better off make it to a boat off Java.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 1:10:53pm
Yes, Dove, they "decide to make for the best country".
That is destination selective. It automatically denies the claim that they are refugees or asylum seekers.
And that process is specifically forbidden by the UNHCR Convention, which describes it as "forum shopping".
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 1:45:54pm
One wonders, then, at how so many are processed as refugees?
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:38:27pm
You haven't read the other entries on this page, have you, Dove?
They are not processed as refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 3:07:37pm
So you keep saying without defining who you're talking about
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 5:29:25pm
That kind of slippery deception shows just how manipulative you are.
Of course you know who I am talking about.
Reply Alert moderator
Oaktree:
17 Feb 2014 3:03:57pm
John (whichever one you may be) It is pretty sweeping to say people are "economic refugees". There is so much unrest in so many countries that even if they are not at war, the populace may still be in danger. If you could not send your daughters to school, or go and buy some bread without the risk of being shot, you would want to excape these conditions. You would also want to head for a country which did not have the same problems and which would give you security. Why would anyone not try to get to a country with warm weather, social security, healthier economy which will enable your children an education and a working future (if Tone does not wreck all that), and where in general you and your family will not fall victim to terrorists, fundamentalists, social unrest and rebellion, or slave traders??
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 6:04:19pm
Oaktree, of course all those things you say are true, and of course I would attempt to avoid the situation if I were being shot at.
And again, of course I would try to get to a place where those threats did not exist.
But I would knock at my neighbour's door, explain myself and my predicament and I would appeal for help. I would not pay a criminal to break a window at the back of his house, force myself into his living room, refuse to identify myself properly, demand that he accept me, feed me, entertain me, attend to my medical problems, finance me and allow me to bring my extended family into his home and get the same service until such time as I was ready to make my own moves.
Reply Alert moderator
Michael:
17 Feb 2014 9:51:16am
The author fails to address the issue of the crews being Indonesian. One can only wonder why. Is that conveniently left out I wonder. Not being a legal expert placing the occupants of a sinking or near sinking boat in a life boat and assisting them back to where they have come from crewed by the same crew seems a reasonable course of action to me. Especially if they have no documents such as passports to prove their identity which for some reason none of them ever seem to have even though they had them to enter Indonesia. I can't see anything wrong at all assisting an Indonesian crew and their passengers back to where they come from in a sound vessel with the same crew and can't see why the author wouldn't mention that issue as he presents himself as a legal expert one could only think a legal expert would address all the issues unless his competency is somewhat lacking or his bias is showing. Unfortunately the main problem is we have had Labor and their supporters stating the boats couldn't be stopped or turned back. There hasn't been a boat arrival in eight weeks and boats have been turned back. Not only that the purchasing of boats was mocked as a stupid idea when first raised and yet it seems to be working. Which just goes to show when it comes to this issue Labor couldn't manage the situation competently or come up with any different ideas.
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 9:52:57am
It appears that when Mr. Abbott proposed buying people smuggler boats, he meant he'd buy them for people smugglers, not from. How many of these lifeboats have been purchased so far? I guess because of their colour, they'll be easy to spot on their way back to Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Claudius Pseudonymus:
17 Feb 2014 9:53:33am
It is very naive to imagine that the Indon Govt is unaware of the thriving industry involving the smuggling of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (II) The thousands of II flying into Indonesia, spending money to live on whilst waiting months for their turn to board locally manufactured boats laden with locally purchased victuals must be very, very beneficial lucrative for the local economy. Their lingering resentment over Aust's heavy handed interference in East Timor at the time when Indon was in turmoil and the recent spying scandal also reinforces their resolve not to be doing any special favours for Aust.
So it behoves Aust to now act in a unilateral and proactive manner in ealing with IIs. Malaysia took a similar approach when faced with the Viet Boat People tidal wave in the late 1970s. Whatever the legalities involved, the Msian govt elected to protect its own borders and interests first. That particular Msia Solution worked brilliantly and the Viets learned to avoid Msia like the plague. Of course, the Fraser Govt at that time was scathing in its condemnation of Msia. But it is always different when it happens on your doorstep isn't it??
The Abbott govt is applying now the same practices to forcibly stop, turn around and even tow back IIs. It is NOT apologising for that. However many times the Aust Ambassador may be summoned to Natalegawa is really immaterial. However many lifeboats are washed ashore is likewise of no import. The message Aust is sending both to the Indons and IIs is very clear. Abbott intends to stop the flow whatever the cost. The legalities-conventions are inconsequential to the end results. It's a win-win-win-win solution for Abbott.
1) If the Indons increase its Naval presence in the area then they will be forced to respond to all those false SOS from half fuelled II boats. Likewise they will have to police their waters and explain why II boats are still allowed to leave ports.
2) If the RAN turn back IIs or provide life boats the end results is the same. The Indons will still be forced to accept them back given the proximity to Indon waters and their naval vessels as well. If the Indosn refuse to accept or interfere with the return of IIs then any deaths or drownings can be laid squarely at the Indons feet.
3) The more news reports or videos that emanate from Abbott's strong arm policy the better. The news will travel to Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc and effectively deter many from even contemplating paying thousands to those people smugglers for a ticket on rickety boats only to be returned where they came from at the best or drowning at sea at the worst.
4) If no IIs arrive on Aust land then Abbott wins an enormous amount of domestic political capital proving his effective brinkmanship compared to the clownish manner in which the Rudd-Gillard govts handled the entire sordid affair.
The fact that Natalegawa is complaining to the USA
Reply Alert moderator
John Raby:
17 Feb 2014 9:59:10am
On the Insiders program last Sunday the Minister when asked a question regarding the incursions into Indonesian waters bluntly denied that they had been deliberate.
If this is to be believed then it begs the question, which was not asked, as to how highly sophisticated ships of the Australian Navy were not able to avoid crossing the boundary. If the incursion was not a deliberate action then it follows that it must have been accidental.
How did these ships/boats make such a gross error in determining their position.
My mind is taken back to aircraft which have in the past been guilty of similar navigational errors and as a consequence been destroyed by the offended state.
Regards
John Raby
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 10:48:07am
John Raby, please read my reply above. The ships were fed incorrect data from Canberra.
Reply Alert moderator
General Disarray:
17 Feb 2014 11:19:52am
That's rather frightening...our Navy is run by remote control from Canberra?
Time to upgrade?
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 1:12:14pm
Of course it is run from Canberra.
All our Defence Forces are run from Canberra.
The entire country is run from Canberra.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 12:00:12pm
Is that seriously the "line"? That the ships relied on a satellite feed for navigation that's routed through Canberra? Or does it relate to they think Indonesian waters end? Is that every Australian naval vessal all around the world? Are they all "out" by a kilometre or two? It's a wonder they're not all running aground. I thought the reforms made after HMAS Wollongong prevented this? Sounds like a big load of bunkum. They were in hot pursuit and did what they felt their orders required them to do. No shame there. The shame is trying to spin it.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 2:43:06pm
Take more care please, Dove.
I didn't say that they relied on a satellite feed. I said that they had been given incorrect information from Canberra because that is what the RAN revealed. The source or form of that incorrect information has not, at least as far as I can locate, been described in any detail.
I merely used the example of the oil tanker to demonstrate that it is possible for on-board controls to be over-ridden.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 3:06:56pm
I didn't say they relied on a satellite feed either. I asked if they did. Perhaps you need take more care. No details have been released because there are none to give. It's a snow job. The vessals were in hot pursuit and felt that the only way to affect an intercept was to tip-toe across the border. There's need be no need to be ashamed of that. These nancy explanations reek of politics.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
17 Feb 2014 5:33:04pm
Yes, you did say that, Dove. You said:
"Is that seriously the "line"? That the ships relied on a satellite feed for navigation that's routed through Canberra?"
I did not say that the feed was by satellite.
Your allegation is not true.
Reply Alert moderator
Realist:
17 Feb 2014 11:48:01am
If you cared to read the various statements BEFORE commenting you would have an understanding of how the incursion occurred.
Not because of 'remote control' from Canberra, not because of poor position fixing, simply because of the way in which Indonesia determines it's 'territorial waters'.
No problem really, the Indonesians would not have known if we hadn't told them. A gesture of goodwill that has not gone unnoticed.
By the way, have you ever tried to determine where you are in relation to a boundary at sea? You should try it sometime and then you could comment from experience.
Reply Alert moderator
uglyducling:
17 Feb 2014 1:34:23pm
This is exactly how the breach of Indonesian sovereign waters by the Australian Navy occurred.
The 12 nautical mile zone of a nation's sovereign waters is not calculated just by being 12n/m from the shore at every point. Rather, to calculate this zone you draw a series of straight lines from 12n/m out from one headland, the point of the mainland jutting farthest out to the sea, to the next salient point. Thus if the shoreline in part is shaped like a large bay, the 12n/m sovereign zone will be considerably more than 12n/m out from the inward curve of the bay. Thus Australian ships at all points were attempting to be 12n/m from the Indonesian shore, but when they communicated to the Indonesians the precise points at which they had turned around the various boats the Indonesians calculated these on a map and came to the conclusion that, technically at least, they breached Indonesia's sovereign waters.
Reply Alert moderator
John Raby:
17 Feb 2014 2:39:56pm
Good explanation on how to accurately plot the area on a chart. Thank you "uglyducling".
If the Indonesians were able to plot the outline of the area on a chart presumably our navigators would have been capable of doing the same. Having a plot and an accurate present position, GPS is a help "Realist", you could easily determine the boundary and your position in relation to it. being a warship you would presumably be able to represent all this data on a moving map/chart.
In response to<"Realist", last paragraph. Yes and it is very simple to within meters with todays navigation aids.
Reply Alert moderator
CorowaKid:
17 Feb 2014 10:20:31am
It's going to be interesting if Indonesia elect their "Abbott" later this year. The only trouble with playing one-upmanship, is two fools eventually cause chaos and real people get hurt.
Reply Alert moderator
anote:
17 Feb 2014 10:20:42am
When a salesperson needs to say they can be trusted and expects the customer to act on that advice alone then the customer should be suspicious. Abbott and Morrison are such a sales people and he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted.
Just because Abbott says the Government is cooperation with the Indonesian Government does not mean that it is. Just because he and Morrison say secrecy is required does not mean it is required for the purpose they says it is required and he is not misusing secrecy to hide from the public what the public has a right to know.
Towing back the boats was policy of the Coalition in opposition, later denied by the Coalition and now practiced by the Coalition. They say the Australian people just want the boats stopped and that suits their attitude that the ends justify the means. The ends can never justify 'at any cost'. While Abbott officially represents Australia I am tired of him (and politicians of all persuasions) telling the public what 'Australians' want and offending many Australians in the process.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 10:24:26am
Thank you Donald for a succinct piece on the possible legal repercussions.
Although the racist, bigoted dullards here won't appreciate you making them having to grasp this within their own moralities. Thats a whole other debate I guess.
Now on the returning of refugees in these orange lifeboats. It seems to me it's only a matter time before the "Smugglers" click.
They will start sending asylum seekers in lots of 10-15 and take a decline in their profit margin for a while. No boats returned to Australia means only a matter of time before the governments' stash of orange taxi's are depleted. Then everything's back to par, like sabotaging their vessels. Then the RAN are obliged to retrieve them. The great exodus from Indonesia will resume. Unless of course if this "Debt Emergency" government want to keep paying 50-60 thousand per boat.I don't believe so!
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 11:27:01am
"They will start sending asylum seekers in lots of 10-15 and take a decline in their profit margin for a while. No boats returned to Australia means only a matter of time before the governments' stash of orange taxi's are depleted. "
Another poster yearning for the boats to continue. Conconting fantastical scenarios to reinforce the delusion. Bursting with anticipation for the next boat to arrive so to relieve the rising anxiety that they might have been stopped.
I really wonder who side some of these people are on? Certainly not the 'home team'.
Reply Alert moderator
Mike North:
17 Feb 2014 1:18:12pm
That,s exactly right, X ray eyes wants it to fail. What else can you draw from his comments apart from hate and spite,
poor soul.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 3:08:58pm
I'm for no team unlike yourself.
I was raising the possibility/probability of the next move in this game of chess on the high seas.
and I'm not "conconting"
How many times will you take a rabbit punch before you retaliate?
We are pushing Indonesia!
Does this government have the nous to know when to back off a little?
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 12:24:13pm
X-Ray. don't get your hopes up. The key outcome is to reduce interest at source. Once people realise there is no entry to Australia. they will cease to come to Indonesia. No entry to Indonesia means no boats.
Reply Alert moderator
Universal Soldier 11:
17 Feb 2014 10:43:12am
When was the last time we were attacked...during WW11? All of our defenses were being used by Briton (again)!
We are using our ADF as a "shark net" as if this nation is not in part to blame for the masses of people escaping war torn middle eastern nation including Afghanistan...we did sign up to Bush's War on everything, this is the aftermath for us! No we didn't get in on the "profits' of war which just makes us the "dills" as been the case with us following the USA into wars, prior Briton?
All we are is a "garrison" protecting foreign interests in this huge island in the southern hemisphere...anything else is a delusion! Slowing being taken over especially if the Trans Pacific Partnership goes ahead!
Not conspiracy...another international policy to totally control!
Reply Alert moderator
MJLC:
17 Feb 2014 11:06:45am
I think Professor Rothwell might have got closer to the mark if he'd used the analogy of straying into charted waters with the vessel's lights switched off (and no-one being home).
Anyway, if the Chinese continue to come and have a sociable sail off the northern and western coasts there's a silver lining in all this - an economic boost from the necessity to build bigger Navy vessels to tow back all the additional orange lifeboats we'll need to have constructed with Cantonese safety instructions inside.
Reply Alert moderator
scourge:
17 Feb 2014 11:07:48am
This post is neither to support or oppose LEFT or RIGHT it is about the bigger picture or rather the smaller picture being obscured by a bigger illusion.
SADLY I now see that, roughly, 50% of Australians have compassion and humanity and care about the world that we are borrowing from our children.
More SADLY I now see that the other, roughly, 50% of Australians are belligerent self centred greedy uncaring arseholes who care for nothing except their own interests and to hell with anyone who does not agree with them.
To see this percentage of people outrightly verbalising or legally criminalising other people albeit "refugees" or "bikies" "associates" "friends" "legal representatives" or basically any one seeking the Australian "RIGHT TO A FAIR GO" I feel sick to my stomach.
YOU have brains and need to start to use them. When you rely on ANY media albeit TV/NEWPAPERS/RADIO shock jocks etc to tell you how to think about this Great Country, and those that went before us to make it so Great, and they in turn twist the truth and therefore twist your feelings THEN you need to sit back and ask yourself WHY?
WHY do you feel desensitised to the feelings of others?
WHY do you not care about the environment?
WHY are you led by the nose by those that shout the loudest?
WHY dont you CARE anymore?
And if you cannot answer yourself and cannot show care nor compassion anymore then you are not Australian and you shame our forefathers who fought to make this Country GREAT to live in.
Reply Alert moderator
Schuey:
17 Feb 2014 11:44:10am
WHY are you SHOUTING?
Reply Alert moderator
Ian:
17 Feb 2014 12:07:05pm
Because he's mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore!
actually he will, we all will, I dont see anything being done to change any of this.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 12:19:14pm
Scourge
Others will argue that Australia's status of being number 2 (on a per capita basis) for permanent refugee resettlement and a significant contributor to the UNHCR means Australians are already very compassionate.
There is of course the vocal minority who equate compassion with allowing unlimited boat arrivals. It is a perverse view because it encourages deaths at sea. It is also a foolish view because ultimately it will lead to unsustainability in providing health, education and welfare services.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 1:23:47pm
You sound more of an illusionist with that bit of sleight-of-hand.
Keep telling yourself it's about drowning if that helps you handle the guilt but don't denigrate well-meaning, compassionate people who know we have a duty of care to people who have suffered the torment from wars, even the ones we didn't participate in.!
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 2:15:03pm
X ray, you are living in a fool's paradise if you believe we can take in the world's 40 million registered refugees not to mention countless unregistered ones. There is a point an action is not compassion but stupidity.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 2:57:39pm
Coogara:
Not 40 million, that would be an impossibility. That is a deflection from doing our fair share of the load.
Yes I believe there has to be a better way of dealing with the refugee "Problem" but as the saying goes "If we can put a man on the moon..........."
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
17 Feb 2014 3:07:54pm
X-Ray, surely being number 2 in permanent refugee resettlement is more than our fair share.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 4:04:04pm
Coogara
Now we export them (refugees) to other countries, thanks to both political persuasions.
I'm all for the return of non refugees ( those looking to park themselves in this country just for wealth reasons) and the government of the day having enough political fortitude to take responsibility for confirmed asylum seekers after being processed here. Then if other countries (not at war and where vilification is not rife, there is education, health, you know, the things we take for granted) are a signatory to the convention on refugees and agree to accept some or even all then that sit better with a lot people. After all we have 11,000 years of civilsation, surely we have evolved since then.
Reply Alert moderator
Bush Dweller:
17 Feb 2014 1:16:11pm
scourge :
"If you can-not show care or compassion, you are not Australian"
Yes I am, born, bred, and proud.
Re the shame of our forefathers. Rubbish, Are those who fought in The Boer War, WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam plus multiple peace keeping missions supporters of the White Australia Policy, deny votes for ATSI, no doubt some were, some were not, until Gough, fixed up those "issues".
Your illusion that Australian`s are led by the nose and believe everything said or read, shows your inability to understand the complexity and diversity of this nation.
Ian :
Careful about allocating sex to posters. I have been accused of being a she yeah I know, who cares.
Reply Alert moderator
Freedom of Speech:
17 Feb 2014 11:19:55am
I think you are missing the point ... the asylum seeker boats are emanating from Indonesia, therefore they are being forced to turn back to Indonesia. However, what is of more concern is if the UN investigates the claims made by asylum seekers that their hands were burnt, due to our military personnel intervention in their endeavour to "turn back the boat" may well bring our military personnel before International Court of Justice. An issue our politicians have so far not addressed, just simply ignored, and hope that it will go away - considering that there is no statue of limitation on human rights abuses - If they have been abused in this case.
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 12:23:12pm
From what everyone now seems to concede to be the truth, the asylum seekers got their hands burned while scuffling with Navy personnel. That's hardly going to put the Navy in the dock, nor should it.
Reply Alert moderator
Freedom of Speech:
17 Feb 2014 1:20:29pm
Obviously, you are one of the privilage few who know all the 'facts' about this issue, until the public gets full and frank report on this issue what you are stating is pure conjecture, and if the UN does investigate I would expect the Australian military to be fully co-operative
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:20:43am
"Meanwhile, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Marty Natalegawa, continues to voice his concerns over Operation Sovereign Borders"
I wonder what Mr Natalegawa would have to say if Australia was making little or no attempt to stop its nationals trying to smuggle people into Indonesia.
Now I admitt that Indonesia might be confused as to what Australia realy wants with regards asylum seekers due to our recent past of taking anybody who came by sea but now it should be obvious to Mr Natalegawa and Indonesia that we want a stop put to this trade.
Reply Alert moderator
Dingo:
17 Feb 2014 11:21:00am
Winners are grinners - that all he wrote
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 11:24:21am
Surely Australia has the right to bar any vessil from entering Australian waters.If they were smuggling guns or drugs nobody would be objecting to Australia trying to stop them but because it is people it is a whole different matter.
Reply Alert moderator
X-Ray Eyes:
17 Feb 2014 1:28:52pm
"If they were smuggling guns or drugs nobody would be objecting to Australia trying to stop them but because it is people it is a whole different matter."
Some of the BS analogies that rednecks come out with is truly farcical.
Shame Shame Shame!
Reply Alert moderator
Dingo:
17 Feb 2014 5:18:41pm
X-Ray Eyes:
Approximately 1,100 drowned trying to get to Australian.
Shame, shame shame.
That's what's happens when Tinker Bell, Peter Pan and their trusted band of Fairy Tale characters are put in charge.
Reality is a hard teacher.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
17 Feb 2014 3:01:02pm
A mindless argument based on a hopelessly inept comparison.
Gun running and drug smuggling are already illegal. Seeking asylum is not, despite the endless rhetoric from our xenophobic government and it's cowardly bogan supporters.
Reply Alert moderator
Ian:
17 Feb 2014 11:29:52am
Do you ever notice how eloquently written, well thought out pieces of writing like this always draw two distinct comments?
1. Well thought out, referenced and even-handed retorts.
2. Bogan bafoonery
Take a stab at who voted for Abbott
(notice I say Abbott, not liberal, I still have hope in 8 years time)
Reply Alert moderator
Closet Romantic:
17 Feb 2014 2:38:52pm
In other words
Those you agree with and those you don't.
I think both sides of the argument have intelligent and ignorant responses we even have some trying to get a balance between the two acknowledging that there is no easy solution either ideological or pragmatic.
But hey let's just try and insult those we don't agree with
I know I shouldn't feed trolls
Please put your arguments and refute those you dislike but saying arguments and information
I don't agree with are stupid and wrong is bullying behaviour. It's like trying to shout people down admittedly listening to most people can be a waste of time but by interacting on these forum we are, well I am trying to listen to other opinions and see what thoughts others have.
Having contempt for the border protection argument, when it has enough public support to sway an election is irrational and rude I am not saying I support the policy but I understand that a majority of my fellow voters do.
I thought that the reporter who asked Abbott what would Jesus do was brilliant he scored a pop t
Point and won the argument with out being at all rude...it didn't change anything but it certainly made some people stop and think,
Reply Alert moderator
Michael:
17 Feb 2014 3:07:57pm
Do you notice how those who think they are morally and intellectually superior to others like to call those who they don't agree with names such as 'Bogans.' It obviously makes them feel better to call someone names because unfortunately they don't have the eloquence to argue their point of view.Better just to mock and belittle!
Reply Alert moderator
Concerned:
17 Feb 2014 11:50:08am
"It also raises questions as to whether the persons placed in control of the lifeboat have the seamanship skills to be able to successfully navigate their way back to the Indonesian coast."
Duh, a professor of law says this??? Hullo how do you think they got to the point of interception in the first place. There was a skipper on board the vessel who had rudimentary seamanship skills. So unless that skipper had a second boat which they leapt onto before they abandoned their vessel then one assumes that person is still on the boat? So obviously THEY will have to navigate the lifeboat.
But with the whole emotive question of asylum seekers logic usually flies out the window.
I have believed for a long time the simplest solution to this whole sorry business is just to take our names off the UN refugee convention until this document is changed to reflect the realities of the 21st century and not those of the post WW2 era when most refugees and asylum seekers did not arrive on leaky boats from Indonesia piloted by people smugglers. I think if we lead the way on this one that there would soon be a rush of other first world nations also joining us in withdrawing their signatures. That finally those who are also plagued with this same problem in Europe would no longer be under any obligation to accept asylum seekers arriving in this fashion.
Reply Alert moderator
old67:
17 Feb 2014 12:04:08pm
There are some who have forgotten all this started by Australia being a partner in two conflicts overseas by the LNP. And since then the LNP has been chaotic to agree on any outcome of this matter now everything is a secret and riding roughshod over another country. Just think how the LNP would handle the hundreds of asylum seekers that ITALY has to deal with. Shame on you.
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 12:18:56pm
I must have missed the conflicts started by the LNP in Sri Lanka, Iran, and Pakistan, which are among the top source countries of boat arrivals.
Reply Alert moderator
Concerned:
17 Feb 2014 12:30:42pm
I fail to see how asylum seekers arriving from Sri Lanka have anything to do with something you say started with Australia being a partner in two conflicts. Because, hullo, we were never involved in the civil war in that country. The only two countries you appear to be talking about are Iraq and Afghanistan. So by your logic we would only then have an obligation to accept refugees and asylum seekers from those two countries.
Reply Alert moderator
Filipio:
17 Feb 2014 12:11:08pm
The persistent confusions, misrepresentations, errors and exaggerations that are peddled by the pro 'border protection' mob (read ideologically committed lib/nat supporters) demean discussion of this important humanitarian issue, reducing it to rhetorical one-upmanship, political mud-slinging and diatribe.
First up, on 'boats to Australia have stopped' claim. Evidently false. Boats with people aboard seeking asylum in Australia travelling from Indonesia have not stopped -- they are, to all intents and purposes, being blockaded by the Australian armed services.
What we are seeing is a situation, so far, of boats failing to run the blockade. But the boats themselves and the asylum-seekers/refugees in Indonesia are still there.
Have the boats been permanently reduced in total number and/or frequency in response to these blockading efforts? Is this a trend? Hard to tell, as (a) we are not being sufficiently informed, and (b) the monsoon season this year is significantly more active (i.e. more weather events of greater intensity than last year -- kicking off much earlier).
The real test of any claimed reduction in raw numbers of departures (i.e. as distinct from those interdicted) will occur over the next six months.
Those who object to the blockade do so on several solid grounds. The policy is arguably damaging Australia's relationship with Indonesia, an important neighbour. The operation has ambiguous, likely dubious status in terms of our international obligations, and hence Australian status as 'global citizen' (a status that has implications in the international arena, now or in the future). There are also ethical objections in relation to the plight of asylum-seekers/refugees.
These are entirely valid perspectives to raise.
To reduce complex issues to stock responses like the following is sad: 'well, how many refugees should Australia take then -- pick a number -- and how much would this cost and what happens when that limit is exceeded?'.
An equally simplistic response would be: what is the total cost so far of operation sovereign borders be? How long should it continue (pick a number of billions of dollars)? Add to this the cost of offshore detention etc and compare this total, per asylum seeker, to the cost of simply accepting greater numbers of asylum seekers into the community.
But to me, the most bizarre aspect of the anti-asylum seeker diatribes is the suggestion that asylum-seekers with greater means are somehow less deserving. As if someone fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution would not use whatever means at their disposal to do this - walk if necessary, pile into a bus or car if you can, fly if possible, boat if possible, whatever enables you to begin a new life somewhere that offers a permanent solution to your predicament.
In another context, wouldn't this amount to what the ideological right would describe as the 'po
Reply Alert moderator
frangipani:
17 Feb 2014 12:21:43pm
The only asylum seekers who are "deserving" are the ones who actually meet the Convention definition of a refugee. I don't think anyone believes that the numbers being accepted reflects those who are actually suffering persecution. And therein lies the problem. So long as the determination system is incapable of identifying and removing the economic migrants in the mix, the desire to migrate by irregular means will be there.
Reply Alert moderator
filipio:
17 Feb 2014 4:02:40pm
I would agree that the perception that not all of those of the boats are genuine refugees is part of the political reality those of good will face in Australia in discussing this issue. What people believe -- public perceptions -- are important. But they are not necessarily correct.
One critical point is that a person does not have to be 'actually suffering persecution' to be a genuine refugee under the convention. The criteria is: having a well-founded fear of persecution.
Secondly, the much-vaunted contrast between 'economic' and 'genuine' refugees is in fact problematic. People are economic animals, and when an individual arrives at the point of departing from their home country and entering the uncertain future of an asylum-seeker, a range of motivations shape that journey and the choice of destination - economic factors included. Will I be able to have a secure long-term future at the destination?
It seems to me that by 'economic refugee' people really mean someone who has no fear of (potential or actual) persecution -- in other words, economic matters are the sole motivation. The evidence to date actually suggests that the Australian review process is actually pretty good at separating out those people. Note, for example, that the proportion of nominal asylum-seekers deemed not to be genuine refugees has increased somewhat over time, particularly from certain source countries.
To suggest the determination system is 'incapable' of identifying those with a genuine fear of persecution is a claim that just doesn't bear scrutiny.
Reply Alert moderator
Joan :
17 Feb 2014 3:32:42pm
Laugh - what fictional post to create phantom people smuggler boats out of none.
Reply Alert moderator
filipio:
17 Feb 2014 4:05:04pm
'Phantom smuggler boats'?
Who were the people interdicted and placed in the orange lifeboats then hmm? Spectres?
They were passengers on boats that didn't reach Australia and were not processed as asylum-seekers, and therefore remain 'off the books'.
Hence the disingenuous mantra: 'boats stopped'.
Reply Alert moderator
franklin:
17 Feb 2014 12:15:01pm
The asylum seekers arriving in Australias migration zone from Indonesia are not coming directly from a country of persecution as specified in Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention. By the time they have reached Indonesia they have left their alleged persecution far behind, on the other side of the world in fact. There are a few random acts of violence that occur to asylum seekers in Indonesia but no actual sytematic persecution. The asylum seekers are travelling on Indonesian flagged shipped manned by Indonesian crew which have departed from Indonesian ports.
Father Frank Brennan is Professor of Law at the Australian Catholic University and wrote an informative article entitled An Indonesian solution A better approach to asylum seeker policy. The following is an exert:
Australian governments (of both persuasions) have long held the defensible view: "The condition that refugees must be 'coming directly' from a territory where they are threatened with persecution constitutes a real limit on the obligation of States to exempt illegal entrants from penalty. In the Australian Government's view, a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection will fall outside the scope of Article 31(1) if he or she spent more than a short period of time in a third country whilst travelling between the country of persecution and Australia, and settled there in safety or was otherwise accorded protection, or there was no good reason why they could not have sought and obtained protection there."
Like all other countries, we are rightly obliged not peremptorily to expel those persons arriving on our shores, legally or illegally, in direct flight from persecution. We are entitled to return safely to Indonesia persons who, when departing Indonesia for Australia, were no longer in direct flight but rather were engaged in secondary movement seeking a more favourable refugee status outcome or a more benign migration outcome.
Reply Alert moderator
Filipio:
17 Feb 2014 12:40:15pm
On the numbers issue: if Australia accepted a good deal more refugees, what might happen?
In the short term, I think it would be entirely likely that numbers of arrivals would increase. But the extent of that increase is unknown. This is where all the reductive discussions about cost etc become nonsense.
We don't know -- I don't, you don't -- that if Australia significantly increased its intake of refugees that the rise in total numbers as a result solely of 'pull' factors would necessarily exceed, in terms of cost per refugee accepted into the community, the cost of the current policy of running a military blockade against the civilian families on boats, and the linked policy of offshore detention.
Also in the mix, on the positive side of the ledger, would be contributions to the Australian economy made by accepted refugees.
Anxiety about millions of refugees moving about the globe is misplaced for very practical reasons. Australia is a long way to come, and contrary to nationalistic conceit, neither is it a desirable destination to all.
I sincerely doubt Australia would ever see the kinds of numbers of refugees in our part of the world that routinely arrive in European nations. The bulk of the numbers currently in SE Asia are stateless people from Burma, and these folks are essentially looking to return, not to relocate permanently.
UNHCR annual snapshot figures for Indonesia are pretty consistent at around 10,000 or so. So the numbers -- were the 'door' to be opened -- are not vast, certainly in comparison to many other nations where the refugee presence amounts to hundreds of thousands.
Re: preventing deaths at sea - a regional processing centre based in SE Asia would address the problems. This will take some negotiation as Indonesia felt burnt by hosting a major centre for refugees from Vietnam that eventually only closed in the 90s.
But immediately accepting all the refugees currently in Indonesia as a gesture of goodwill and bonafides of seriousness would go some way towards smoothing the path.
We are a wealthy, first-world country. We should be taking the lead in our region on this issue (in funding and resettlement), which would bring around our neighbours. The Malaysia Solution (which was misnamed as such) essentially comprised a gesture of this sort - but Australian politics got in the way, as usual.
The real, longterm solutions to this situation require politics to be removed and people of good will to come together looking for a range of complimentary, creative and positive humanitarian measures.
On the evidence of comments here, I'm not holding my breath.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 2:08:05pm
But you overlook the real question, are these people genuine refugees?
Weaving all the complex logic that you tessay in your comment is all well and good. But if the 10,000 in Indonesia are in fact economic migrants who were prepared to indulge in criminal activities to get here, then it would be silly to take them.
Reply Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
17 Feb 2014 5:00:24pm
Having no reason to think that the boat people who have arrived here so far are not representative of the majority, I'd say about 90% are genuine refugees.
After all, that's the proportion of boat people that DFAT have assessed as genuine refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
17 Feb 2014 3:02:13pm
Fillipio,
Your argument is exactly what Rudd argued - that push factors were all and that pull factors were insignificant. He was proven wrong, by about 50,000 people and a few thousand drownings.
"Australia is a long way to come, and contrary to nationalistic conceit, neither is it a desirable destination to all"
The distance is irrelevant if -people arrive in Indonesia by plane (which most do), and to which category of "refugee/asylum-seeker" is it not a desirable destination? Exactly which sections of our population are longing to return to their countries of origin? If this is indeed the case, should we not return to the issuance of Temporary Protection Visas?
You might consider these questions, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey :
17 Feb 2014 3:11:16pm
Your statement that Australia is not a desirable destination is nonsense. Australia has one of the top three standards of living in the world and an article in the UK Guardian, writing for left of center British audiences showed Australia was one the preferred destination for would be emmigrants. It also showed in Kabul for a fee you could obtain any document you wanted, death threats from the Taliban being a favorite.
Reply Alert moderator
Corsair1972:
17 Feb 2014 12:59:23pm
Maybe you couls update your image library,, HMAS Bunbury (217) was decomissioned in 2006!
Reply Alert moderator
Gilbert:
17 Feb 2014 1:11:26pm
If it was unacceptable for the Gillard Government to return asylum seekers coming by boat to Malayasia, documented and managed, because that country was not a signator to the Refugee Convention why is it acceptable that the Abbott-Truss Government return asylum seekers coming by boat to Indonesia, which is not a signator to the Refugee Convention?
Those of you who wish to attempt to rebut the question take a moment to think what the electorate will consoider when such an inconsistency is not resolved with a reasoned and equal argument to that which was applied to refuse the still-born Malayasia Solution.
Reply Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:
17 Feb 2014 1:13:52pm
Nobody seems to be pointing out the obvious: that the Coalitions so called "Soverign Borders" policy which is basically the Pacific Solution in a cheap tux is in direct violation of international law. In case anyone forgot, we are a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.
If Australia wants to go down this path of flaunting international law, we should at least withdraw from the convention and give up our seat on the UN Security Council
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
17 Feb 2014 3:54:50pm
The refugee Convention is not a law.
Reply Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:
17 Feb 2014 1:19:26pm
We keep arguing about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
Reply Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:
17 Feb 2014 1:34:28pm
We don't really need to "protect" our borders from little brown people in boats. They're simply not a threat to our sovereignty.
They're a threat to our consciences though!
They're a threat to Abbott's political rhetoric.
And they're a threat in terms of permission we've taken to insist an accident of birth should be the main determinant of privilege.
Reply Alert moderator
GraemeF:
17 Feb 2014 1:39:34pm
They have lied through their teeth and attempted to use secrecy to hide it. They have absolutely no consideration for our neighbours in their heartless attack on a small number of people seeking asylum.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
17 Feb 2014 1:56:29pm
International law is whatever a country can get away with. Australia can get away with this, for a time, and operational secrecy extends the length of this window. A time is all that Australia needs. Because when the boats stop being launched, so too will the interceptions, the towbacks, the contentiousness of the innocence of Australian vessels' passage, and the current irritant in Indonesia/Australia relations will have passed.
Surely this is a good result. Because according to the Rudd/Gillard government, 4% of those who attempt the voyage to christmas island drown. When 2,000 people were arriving by boat a month, as they were under Gillard's watch, an average of more than 80 asylum seekers/crew were drowning a month, or 1,000 people a year on an annualised basis, with about 100 of these deaths being Indonesian crew.
This context needs to be taken into consideration, because abiding by all the niceties of International Law was slaughtering people, many people, more people than we've lost in half a century of wars. But lawyers and the likes of Sarah Hanson Young don't care about this. To them, if an asylum seeker boat sinks it's a regrettable tragedy, but if Australia replaces a people smugglers' unseaworthy and poorly provisioned vessel with a virtually unsinkable lifeboat, and if somehow the people on board manage to sink this, then it's all Australia's fault.
Reply Alert moderator
TBear:
17 Feb 2014 2:01:05pm
The Bear quotes:
" ... the Abbott government's border protection policy has begun to drift into some legal grey areas ..."
So what?
Well done, Mr Abbot and Mr Morrison. Keep it up.
Reply Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
17 Feb 2014 5:04:20pm
"So what"?
The next time that a government agency slightly oversteps its remit, and impinges upon your rigths, will you say that?
If our government will not abide by the law it is charged with administering, then what hope have we as a society?
Reply Alert moderator
countrygirl:
17 Feb 2014 2:03:42pm
Thanks for this clear explanation re "sovereignty" and "innocent passage".
Scott Morrison on The Insiders stated that an official inquiry into Oz navy incursions into Indonesian waters is almost complete. He said a report would be released minus info that touches on "national security". One would wonder which nation's? When will a report be released ?
He also said that "of course " he knows how many incursions had been made but refusede to give that info.. He kept on about "Customs" and the Sov Borders operation only mentioning the navy "in passing".Any report he releases is unlikely to give any credence to claims about mistreatment (burns) etc of asylum seekers and will certainly omit any mention of the allegations that the navy doused nav lights during their "inadvertent" incursions into Indonesian waters.
So the public will just have to hope that all the facts come out via a whistle-blower or leaks.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:
17 Feb 2014 2:03:43pm
It seems that on one side we have those ('Refugeeists') who believe that all those who get on a boat in Indonesia and head for Australia are genuine refugees and should be given residence and welfare in Australia.
On the other hand we have those ('Ilegalists') who believe that very few of the boat people are geneuine refugees and therefore should not be reqarded with Australian residence.
The Refugeeists spend most of their time any time this topic comes up on the Drum telling how cruel the idea of 'stopping the boats' is. In fact most them would seem to be advocating that all boat people be allowed to settle in Australia without detention first.
The Illegalists do at least point out some resons why they think the boat people are not refugees. They then explain hoe Australia cannot afford to let everyone inwho arrives here by boat.
The problem is that until the Refugeeists and the Ilegalists have the real argument as to whether the boat people are genuine refugees or not, all other arguments are moot.
Can one person here who is Refugeeist at least set out why they think that all those on the boats from Indonesia are genuine refugees?
Reply Alert moderator
GJA:
17 Feb 2014 2:52:34pm
Please at least try to be intellectually honest.
I don't see any evidence that 'Refugeeists' believe all those travelling by boat 'are genuine and should be given residence and welfare in Australia". The arguments on behalf of these and all others seeking asylum in Australia seem to lean towards processing their claims. In specific regard to residence and welfare, I have heard that settling refugees within communities rather than mandatory detention has seen failed applicants and discontents resettling outside of Australia, but that was a radio interview with someone whose name I cannot recall, so I apologise for not being able to provide a citation. In any event, why not? Surely it's less expensive, especially if there's a local community they can call upon for support. In addition, I cannot recall seeing here a 'Refugeeist' argument against mandatory detention.
On the other hand, the 'illegalists' don't seem to believe that 'very few of the boat people are genuine'; they appear to believe that none of them are. I have yet to see any 'illegalist' explain 'how Australia cannot afford to let everyone in', although I have seen many of them make unsupported assertions to that effect. I also see more assertions than reasons why 'illegalists' don't believe any boat arrivals include refugees.
If you'd like to hash out who's a refugee and who isn't, I'd suggest you need to apply more nuance. Some are, some aren't. You can't know if you don't examine their claims.
Reply Alert moderator
Dove:
17 Feb 2014 3:15:10pm
"ist"....I don't think it means what everyone seems to think it means :)
Reply Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
17 Feb 2014 5:09:58pm
We "refugeeists", as you call us, do not, and never have, claimed that ALL boat people are refugees.
Having said that, DFAT's figures show that more that 90% of those people who arrive by boat, claiming refuge, are, in fact, assessed as refugees.
In contrast, on 50% of those who arrive by plane, claiming refuge, are assessed as such.
Reply Alert moderator
mr shark :
17 Feb 2014 2:44:10pm
The vast majority of the comments here today are a sad indictment of the selfishness , xenophobia , fascist tendencies and naked fear felt by many on the right .Very , very sad.....
i find it interesting that hardly anyone on the right has mentioned the push factors , many of which were caused by our involvement in colonialism, international alliances and sheer stupidity.
For the record, i am against large migration from non western countries purely because of our inability to get on with each other- the fault is from both sides- intolerance and racism isn't just a anglo saxon phenomenon .
Having said that, all the refugees i know have come from intolerable situations, the Harzara i know was persecuted in both afghanistan and pakistan the african went from camp to camp for nearly two decades.
We display our morality clearly in our comments on forums such as these. Those of you who clearly really loath refugees and use their deaths at sea as an excuse to mask your intolerance clearly demonstrate you don't have any moral code , or if you do, its one of total self interest and lack of empathy- which for me equates to a fascist morality - which is of course is, by its very nature -immoral.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
17 Feb 2014 4:58:04pm
Mr Shark. You are making a big mistake to think that it is only the right that had a problem with the boats.
It is the right, the centre and even the centre left that had a problem with the boats.
I know workers who in 2007 had the dilema of voting in K Rudd to get rid of workchoices knowing that the dismantling of the Pacific solution would initiate a return of the boats. They hated it when the boats resumed.
Reply Alert moderator
EVAN:
17 Feb 2014 5:35:16pm
"For the record, i am against large migration from non western countries purely because of our inability to get on with each other- the fault is from both sides- intolerance and racism isn't just a anglo saxon phenomenon . "
So how exactly do you reconcile this with the compassion for anybody who wants to come.
Reply Alert moderator
Captain Col:
17 Feb 2014 3:06:20pm
What is the basis for saying "those vessels, many of which are not flying the Indonesian flag and appear to be stateless"? What rot. A vessel departing from its Indonesian home port, with an Indonesian crew, and Indonesian owner is Indonesian whether or not it is flying a national flag or carries Indonesian papers. You don't need a flag to belong. Why do we overlook the fact that these vessels depart illegally (under Indonesian laws) from ports because they have not cleared proper departure procedures for an international voyage. This article comes from a so-called Professor of International Law. He must know this, but wants to slant his opinion against a policy that's working. Look back a bit into what he's said before and we'll probably find he predicted this policy wouldn't work.
Reply Alert moderator
gerard oosterman:
17 Feb 2014 3:31:39pm
With the latest poll veering back to the Government it didn't bode well for a cheery start of the day. The biggest achievement that this governments seems to keep banging on about is that of 'having stopped the boats!' What a distinction for a country to have achieved!
The misery of the millions of displaced people now roaming the world hasn't been made any better. Australia has helped making it worse. They have pushed the boats back and are heralding this as a major success. The triumphant smiling upturned faces of Prime minister Tony Abbott and immigration minister Scott Morrison says it all.
"We have stopped the boats." "We have pushed the boats back." " We have not had a single boat arriving in Australian waters for fifty days." Oh, how this must make us the envy of the world.
Reply Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:
17 Feb 2014 4:25:00pm
It's funny that the only people that do not see Australia as a racist nation seem to be Australian's themselves.
Funny that.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
17 Feb 2014 4:51:22pm
The only people who see Australia as a racist nation are Australian.
Reply Alert moderator
bluedog:
17 Feb 2014 4:40:34pm
Indonesian FM Dr Marty Natalegawa is a highly sophisticated operator, and his continued provocation of the illegal immigrant situation suggests that Indonesia is now Australia's diplomatic enemy. But what does Dr Natalegawa hope to achieve? Why does he think that complaining to the US will bring a beneficial result to Indonesia? Most importantly, what would Dr Natalegawa regard as a beneficial result for Indonesia?
It is well known that Indonesian officialdom calls Australia 'the white snake'; in their eyes a largely European and Christian state that suddenly emerged to the south of their own Malay and Islamic equatorial paradise. Yet most of the illegal immigrants that transit Indonesia and depend upon on Indonesia facilities and support for their journey to Australia are Muslims from the Middle east and the broader Islamic world. Could it be that Dr Natelegawa is playing a very long civilizational game? Does he resent the return of the boats because a trend that ensured the long term Islamification of Australia is now thwarted? If so, we must hope that the US is not persuaded by any sophistry about human rights and refugee obligations from Dr Natalegawa.
In the past Australia has resolutely defended the integrity of Indonesia, with the exception of the East Timorese adventure when we reacted emotionally to facilitate the formation of a non-viable but Christian micro-state on the eastern fringe of the Indonesian archipelago. Is it now time to change our policy on the province of west Papua? Perhaps that should be Dr Natalagawa's reward for gratuitous diplomatic provocation. Our neighbours in PNG would not object.
Reply Alert moderator
martel24:
17 Feb 2014 4:59:22pm
Many people wasting their time engaging in this useless polemic. Abbott's government does commendable job, you better concentrate on yours.
Reply Alert moderator
CJB22:
17 Feb 2014 5:05:00pm
Remind me again how many people have drowned at sea since this change in response to illegal incursions into our sovereign waters. If it is zero, as I understand it to be, then hasn't it achieved the most highly desired outcome, ie. saving lives.
Reply Alert moderator
Razget:
17 Feb 2014 5:22:00pm
Let me guess what Indonesia is looking for...hmm...oh more bribes.
Sovereign borders has worked, the boats have basically stopped, oh how that must rankle Indonesia.
It shows just how useless all that supposed cooperation was to Australia.
By cooperation we mean get out of the way and let people who really care fix it.../closed.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
17 Feb 2014 5:22:42pm
The best chance the coalition has to get re elected is for the ALP to oppose the coalition's policies on assylum seekers.
If the electorate even suspected that leftoid forces within the ALP would once again soften our position then they will stay in opposition.
For the vast majority of Australians this issue is dead and buried. The old ALP policy of open borders is now only supported by those who will do anything to admit they were wrong and that curious band individuals who have a need to be on the high moral ground.
We need to focus on the macro economic reforms and repairing the economic mess we have found ourselves in.
Put pressure on the Govt over debt/deficit/jobs, not boats. The more we make the Govt talk about boats the more they like it because they are not talking about the economy.
Reply Alert moderator
GrumpiSkeptic:
17 Feb 2014 6:25:56pm
I can't help but wondering what actually happened during a boat tow-back event. Surely the refugees would be very reluctant to point their bright red life boats in the direction where they came from. Did the Navy use force to make them do it?
OK, they were towed back. Would that mean the Navy have to be right inside the Indonesian's borders?
What would happen if the refugees pinch holes in the lifeboats and render them un-seaworthy? Would a sinking lifeboat become an Indonesian matter?
I am disappointed that the boat buyback did not eventuate as it will surely help some poor Indonesian fishermen financially. That pile of rotting wooden craft which once was called a boat may finally be worth some decent money again! No matter, the Singaporeans will be happy as their secondhand lifeboats are being snatched up by their good friends in Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Add your comment