Mandatory detention: At least we have recognition of a problem
Posted
There is a recognition that the current approach to dealing with asylum seekers has to change. Malcolm Turnbull may be the one to bring about rationality and reform, if not compassion, writes Mungo MacCallum.
It has taken nearly six years of bluster and bombast, but Tony Abbott has finally come clean - or, if you prefer it, has come down and dirty.
Delivering the Margaret Thatcher lecture in honour of his hero, our former prime minister admitted that his policy on asylum seekers - on stopping the boats - was never really about saving lives at sea; this was useful politically, but it was a side issue. The constant sanctimonious homilies on the subject were a cover - sheer humbug.
The real imperative, he warned Europe, was the need to secure the borders. Not to do so would be catastrophic. The imputation was that if the free flow of refugees was allowed to continue, it would imperil the ethnic and cultural integrity of the entire continent.
To some, his message was seen as disturbing, even sinister. It was hardly surprising when at least one leading Tory politician described it as "fascistic". But most of the rusted-on Thatcherites in his audience were cautiously approving, and Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence party, called it heroic.
Certainly it struck a chord with the nationalists - the exclusivists, even - among the British who basically disapprove not only of the European Union, but of Europe itself; after all, they say, "the wogs begin at Calais", so how much more alien can be the barbarian hordes from the Middle East, from Africa and Asia?
But surely Australia is different. It is all too easy to dismiss Abbott as the exception; after all, he is a Pom himself, so what else can you expect. But the man who supplanted him, Malcolm Turnbull, has already demonstrated that although the words may be more measured, the substance remains the same.
Turnbull does not talk in three word slogans; his tones are mellifluous and hushed, and he speaks more in sorrow than in anger. But off-shore mandatory detention, or whatever he wants to call it, will prevail. There is, he laments, just no alternative.
This is of course untrue; there are plenty of alternatives, but none of them is acceptable to the Government, and probably not to a well-conditioned electorate. But this does not mean that there is not a political problem. While the formula that no boat people can be settled in Australia remains sacrosanct, their incarceration in Manus Island and Nauru is finally producing headlines the Government would prefer to avoid.
Tony Abbott would simply have ranted his way through, in the manner of the reconstructed Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton. When Amnesty International released a report on the allegations that Australian officials paid people smugglers to return boats to Indonesia, and supported the claims with some 68 witnesses and photographic evidence, Dutton called it bullying, an ideological attack, beyond the pale - his suggestion that criticism of his paramilitary force was tantamount to treason.
But Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop were a little more circumspect: they too dodged the substance of the report, but replied simply that Australian domestic laws had been obeyed (which was hardly the point) and that international obligations had been followed (which was, at least, contestable). The accusations may have been shelved, but they have not been settled.
And Nauru remains a particular sore spot, not only because of the ongoing saga of the unfortunate asylum seeker known as Abyan, but because it has become increasingly clear that for all the talk of sovereignty and independence, the island is very much a client state of Australia, and a somewhat embarrassing one. It remains essentially a closed society.
The Australian columnist Chris Kenny was eventually granted a visa, and good for him, but he admits that the fact that he is a sympathiser of the Pacific solution just may have given him privileges denied to more sceptical colleagues.
And the overall secrecy continues; the Save the Children Fund has twice had its offices raided by Nauruan authorities, and has not had its contract renewed by the Transfield Corporation that runs the place; the fact that the welfare organisation refused to submit to rules gagging whistleblowers may have had something to do with its effective sacking.
And whistle blowers have been outlawed by the Australian - not the Nauruan - government, with the threat of gaol sentences for offenders. The repressive nature of the regime has been too much for many of the medical professionals, who have staged demonstrations in protest of what they see as the abuse of children in the detention centres, and want to keep them out of the places to protect their health and sanity. The voters may still support stopping the boats, but the plight of the individuals who have been incarcerated and the manner of their treatment is becoming a problem.
Thus the government is redoubling to its efforts to get them out of the way. Cambodia, the Philippines, Kyrgyzstan - anywhere, as long as they are out of the immediate neighbourhood. And the more venal and impoverished the destination the better. As far as we know, the basket cases of central Africa have not yet been approached with offers, but surely it is only a matter of time.
This solution is obviously no more than buck-passing, but the fact that it is being entertained with some urgency is a sign that, at last, there is a recognition that the policy has to change. Mandatory detention has run through the governments of Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, and has become more brutal with each successive incarnation. Turnbull may be the one to bring about rationality and reform, if not compassion.
Abbott, and his revered mentor Margaret Thatcher, were never for turning. Just perhaps our new Prime Minister will be innovative, nimble and agile enough to divert from the habits of what has been, for far too many, a lifetime.
Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator.
Topics: refugees, federal-government
Comments (300)
Add a comment.
Please read the House Rules, FAQ and ABC Online Terms of Use before submitting your comment.
Feline14:
03 Nov 2015 11:23:09am
If people arrive a country illegally i.e. outside of the recognised process, then they need to be excluded from the country they are trying to enter and returned to where they came from.
Reply Alert moderator
Connie41:
03 Nov 2015 11:53:38am
Why? This is an assertion, not an argument.
Actually, every new-born baby is just as much 'illegal' until its parents have registered it as people who come by boat to seek refuge in Australia. in other words, the due process of applying to be in Australia has yet to be undertaken. 'Illegal' means, in both cases, a legal process is still pending, not that the action is criminal.
It is our moral obligation, as human beings, to do what ever we are able to help people in need of a refuge to find a place of safety and hope. And, if you can't get beyond xenophobia and and selfishness, then you may be relieved to know that the history of Australia shows very clearly that we are most likely to benefit as well, economically and in the form of a more interesting and stimulating society.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
03 Nov 2015 12:49:54pm
It is not selfish to want to maintain what standard of living and community safety for yourself, your children and grandchildren. Unrestricted mass immigration from countries who have vastly different cultures imperils that future.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:37:27pm
Yes, Bev, but this is the ABC. We don't talk about the reality of the outcome of mass immigration of people who judge our national anthem as being "forced assimilation".
In other words, we should just open the door and let anyone who hates us enough, full right of entry and a lifetime of welfare and health support paid out of our kids taxes.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 2:02:48pm
We sure don't. Mass immigation has bipartisan support.
100,000s of new people a year.
And our living standards are forecast to drop (if they're not already). Let alone things like amenity going downhill.
But best we suck all the oxygen out of the air talking about slightly different ways to deal with boat people.
Reply Alert moderator
Sue:
03 Nov 2015 9:06:56pm
Bipartisan support? Then it is time to vote in an alternative party. I am.
Reply Alert moderator
John Coochey:
03 Nov 2015 2:29:12pm
Well said John, I remember a Sunday program of about ten years ago which showed what happened in the UK without mandatory detention. A legal Slovenian changed her identity and went underground when her application was refused many months later she simply went to a police station again in Dover said "asylum" and gave a new identity. Look what is now happening in Europe.
Reply Alert moderator
Django:
03 Nov 2015 2:36:40pm
Contrary to popular belief this is not a black and white issue. People talk about either going into lockdown or opening the doors up for a free for all.
This is lot of grey middle ground that is rarely even considered. I'm all for a deterrent factor for leaky boats but as long as they're properly managed immigrants (boat or otherwise) can be a valuable resource. This country was built on immigration.
Reply Alert moderator
TC:
03 Nov 2015 6:10:49pm
The modern day world is vastly differemt to decades long gone. Back then, refugees and immigrants had to pay their own way, get a job doing whatever was available (such as on teh Snowy River Scheme) and they often lived in humpies for a few years. Now refuggees get welfare and free education and housing from the day they arrive with a low percentage of them in work even after five years. Stop dealing in romantic generalisations and start dealing with actual realities.
Reply Alert moderator
reddog:
03 Nov 2015 3:03:44pm
Bev and TOJ -
It is not selfish to want to maintain what standard of living and community safety for yourself, your children and grandchildren. Unrestricted mass immigration from countries who have vastly different cultures imperils that future.
Imagine you were aboriginal. The first fleet arrives and you say the above. Ironic perhaps?
But I guess you both know best.
Reply Alert moderator
awake:
03 Nov 2015 3:41:22pm
How foolish to think the way you do. Where is the proof of what you are saying in particular about the ABC. No-one will open doors and let millions of people in and why would they be on benefits and welfare?
This nation has been raised up by immigrants from the food we now all eat to culture, art, education, science, etc. How can you think the way you do. Perhaps you and your like should move to an island somewhere and keep to yourselves.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 4:56:34pm
"No-one will open doors and let millions of people in and why would they be on benefits and welfare?"
Rudd did just that, and you might like to check the official employment statistics for recent immigrants, particularly those admitted on humanitarian grounds.
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 5:01:48pm
Actually the argument of open doors is not impossible: ask Germans how they think about 1.5 million newly arrived mostly Muslims - twice the annual birth rate? And that is this year, and we know from migration everywhere that first settlers encourage and support later migrants - family, friends etc. It is called chain migration.
Reply Alert moderator
Shocked Again:
03 Nov 2015 6:27:23pm
Germany expects between 4 and 8 further applications for each immigrant they accept. A catastrophe. People who bring their stupid fights and prejudices with them, but expect the utmost tolerance from their hosts, and seem to be very picky about where they live and their financial position, not to mention returning ISIS fighters among them.
Reply Alert moderator
Red:
03 Nov 2015 9:02:46pm
awake. We've all heard of the increased culinary choices we enjoy now thanks to immigration, but please provide more specific real examples of how life is better for Australians because of immigration. Immigrants come here solely because it is Australia and not their country of origin.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
03 Nov 2015 7:19:49pm
TOJ, or Tosser if you prefer, your assertion is nonsensical lies, as you would recognise if you were not a rusted-on Abbott-loving hater. No one, NO ONE has ever suggested unlimited what, "open the door" with its accompanying "they all get a Mercedes and a unit at Pittwater." Go on living out your life in fear and ignorance.
Reply Alert moderator
Red:
03 Nov 2015 8:57:32pm
The Other John. Also, if Muslim refugees are settled in Kyrgyzstan they will not have to suffer persecution or be subject to "forced assimilation" with infidels. I fail to see the injustice here.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:02:22pm
The thing that people like yourself need to get into your head is that ASSUMED version of the future is actually NOT guaranteed to happen.
From my perspective it takes an absolute insane amount of self confidence and ego to be so certain of your own opinions that you will enforce them as fact onto everyone else. I saw this in Duttons recent response - he would say what he wants to say regardless of if facts show something different.
That is my problem with certain politically motivated people...they believe their own rhetoric but the fact is that it is VERY LIKELY that we could allow many more people into our country without presenting any risk to your precious way of life.
PS: nobody wants to open the door or allow "unrestricted mass immigration" - this is another false assumption.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
03 Nov 2015 5:03:42pm
I did not say would. Based on what we are seeing in Europe there is a chance that it could affect our society (a reasonable chance) so forewarned you take precautions and devise policies to combat it if the problem arises. You have taken the opposite tack, everything is rosy, do nothing, it is not going to happen. I bet Scandinavia was wishing they had of taken a cautionary approach instead of now trying to control the situation after the event.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 7:17:26pm
the problem really comes down to our approach. We can find a better way which is humane AND cautious about who we let in. They don't need to be two things at the opposite ends of the policy agenda. I'm not saying everything is Rosy or to do nothing at all....we still need to learn from the mistakes made elsewhere, but without going to the other extreme of assuming the worst about people.
The crisis in Europe is being felt by many other countries but the alternative is for everyone to close their borders and see those people die of starvation or from disease in some struggling refugee camp in a poor country who won't let them work.
There is no evidence that there isn't a risk...but what if it isn't significant? Do you always judge a book by its cover?. Do we assume guilt before a judicial process? this is no different. It is bigotry to assume that an influx of muslims will have adverse effects on your life and to use this as a means to discriminate against them. What I'm saying is that we should give up a small chance of this risk for the sake of helping others and then hope that these good deeds will be rewarded down the line. Instead we are assuming refugees (especially muslim ones) will be criminals and terrorists.
Reply Alert moderator
Shocked Again:
03 Nov 2015 8:03:10pm
All many of us hope for is that Australian culture, law and values hold primacy, not superiority, in Australia. Many groups come here, and seem to settle in fine, follow their religions privately. It is not bigotry to observe the reality that one particular group has trouble accepting the way of life here, and many amongst them actively espouse overthrowing the law and freedoms here. There are heaps of countries in the world that are expressions of Muslim values.
As for your comments about Europe: 40% of those arriving in Germany are from Balkan states, part of Europe but not EU. 30 to 40% are Syrian or Iraqi, most have been safe in Turkey, Lebanon etc until Merkel recklessly said Germany would take all comers. Mainly men, few look as if they were starving.
The big change in the world in the last 30 years has been the reduction in poverty. Combined with access to the Internet and modern communications ( all migrants travel with phone and satnav and apps) , this means that people see an easy route to a better life, and have the means to get there, not that the average situation of people is worse. As countries start to lift their citizens out of poverty, the paradox is that these people have the means to leave. A man on social security in Europe can remit sums to his home country, or try to bring his family to wherever he is.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
03 Nov 2015 9:30:35pm
" refugees (especially muslim ones) will be criminals and terrorists."
Only a small number are going to be the above.
That is not the problem the real problem is a large group who tend to live in enclaves, pay lip service to Australian allegiance, living separate lives and whose children are even less likely to ever be part of Australian society. They can grudgingly be accommodated but if things go pear shape the lack of social cohesion can break down our society from the inside.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 6:32:45pm
Of course no prediction is certain to happen, prison, but why would we take action predicted to have an adverse outcome for us even if that adverse outcome is not certain? You claim that it is "VERY LIKELY that we could allow many more people into our country without presenting any risk" to our way of life, but on what are you basing that claim? Are you basing it on immigrants in general or specifically on the types of asylum seekers we were getting during the recent Rudd/Gillard years?
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 7:10:52pm
Of course, the safest thing to do is to risk nothing, and close our borders to all migrants. We choose to let certain ones in because we trade short term financial benefit for a likely vastly worse long term result. Se hope that we don't cop the hit ourselves, and choose not to think too hard about it.
The entry of refugees does not even offer a short term benefit: the overwhelming majority of cases involve immediate and enduring cost: financial, cultural and social.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 4:57:30pm
Sorry Reddog, I fail to see any relevance to indigenous Australians and what Bev has written.
Are you suggesting that our earliest European settlors came here with the sole intent to sponge off the generous welfare system that prevailed at the time? Must have been a shock to find no centrelink offices here in the early days, huh?
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
03 Nov 2015 7:30:36pm
No, but they were perfectly happy to kill the existing population and steal their land. So your pathetic attempt at humour is deposed for the rubbish it is.
Reply Alert moderator
eljay:
03 Nov 2015 12:53:58pm
sorry but i laughed long and loudly at your effort of comparing a new born to what is considered an illegal/asylum seeker.
i am left just a little perplexed at how you could come up with that comparison. It's my moral obligation to point out that such assumptions verge on the incredible possibly hysterical but none the less incredibly funny
in the words of John McEnroe "you cannot be serious"
Reply Alert moderator
JohnC:
03 Nov 2015 12:58:42pm
@Connie41:
The human race is tribal by nature and is unlikely to ever change. Australians in favour of Operation Sovereign Borders might care to reflect on where we as a nation might be if the Aboriginal inhabitants who previously owned the place had been capable of enforcing the current protocols. Lucky us, we just rolled our way in and claimed ownership of the place. Now we are protesting furiously that other aspiring groups are seeking to do the same thing.
Reply Alert moderator
Room full of elephants:
03 Nov 2015 1:36:00pm
Yes JOHN C.
Europeans rocked up here and slaughtered and warred with the indigenous inhabitants until they won and took over the country.
It is a basic tenant of a certain religion, which can't be named on the ABC, to do just that again in Aust. and the rest of the world.
Should we just invite them in to do to us what the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples 200 years ago? You think Yes. I am not as sure of my self righteous Devine infallibility as you are.
So its OK if people do to you what Europeans did to indigenous people 200 years ago.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
03 Nov 2015 7:32:28pm
I would suggest that you are absolutely certain of your self righteous (Miranda) Devine infallibility.
Reply Alert moderator
Rhonda:
03 Nov 2015 1:44:23pm
Hear! Hear! JohnC. Now we are paying bribes for countries poorer than ours, to take over our responsibility, with no guarantee of the health or safety of these asylum seekers.
The 'protecting our borders' rhetoric which has prevailed since Abbott was given the Liberal leadership (almost six years ago) is firmly embedded in peoples' minds.
But - protecting us from WHAT? According to Abbot in his Thatcher Lecture last week, 'these people' are ECONOMIC refugees - so what 'threat' do they pose? Surely, if that IS true, why then would they they wish to harm the very country in which they want to prosper (and which they had risked their lives to reach)?
No one seems to mention that...
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 3:09:49pm
These asylum seekers showed up uninvited and against the clearly stated and even widely advertised wishes of Australia, Rhonda. Why are they our responsibility?
Many of these asylum seekers come here for their own economic betterment, not out mutual economic betterment, as demonstrated by the fact that so many of them never get jobs. An action can be done for the betterment of the individual, but have adverse consequences for the rest of us, as the Global Financial Crisis and the preceding actions of many financial institutions also demonstrated.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:39:33pm
What often enough does not get talked about Rhonda is what the position is in westernised countries re welfare and how that compares with where economic refugees may have been living.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 2:19:43pm
The British invaded Australia, JohnC. Are you saying that the arrival of the asylum seekers is also an invasion? If not then what is the parallel between the two situations?
Reply Alert moderator
maus:
03 Nov 2015 4:05:10pm
JohnC, I'm confused by your rationale. So are you saying in this instance we are the Aboriginal inhabitants and a new force has arrived so we should let them in so they can do to us what my ancestors did to the Aboriginals.
Well I think that is a great idea as look at what was achieved with the white man 'invasion' of Australia (well the country that is now known as Australia) I mean we can look forward to a vastly improved standard of living and almost doubled life expectancy.
Reply Alert moderator
Tory Boy:
03 Nov 2015 1:05:14pm
Why Connie? Because that is what the majority demand; simple.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:39:01pm
So can we help all 3 billion of the world's poor? If not, at what point are you prepared to say who comes in and who does not? Or are you just not bothered with practical realities when they get in the way of your warm fuzzy compassion?
Reply Alert moderator
Room full of elephants:
03 Nov 2015 1:46:29pm
Connie,
Like all 'refugee' advocates you seem to suggest that everyone doing it tougher than the average aussie should be granted aust citizenship if they demand it.
like all refugee advocates you refuse to put any number on how many should be admitted. You also refuse to say what happens to subsequent 'refugees' that arrive here once that number is reached.
In other words you and the other advocates including the Greens are just advocating open borders. Fair enough. That is a legitimate policy advocated by big business like clive palmer. Big business will clean up with your open borders policy. As will property developers.
You wonder why house prices are so high. Ever heard of 'supply and demand'. Open up the borders fully as the Greens want, and watch house prices redouble.
And the Real estate developers don't even have to make political donations to the Greens for them to advocate get rich quick schemes for real estate developers. Keep up the good work.
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 5:16:07pm
We are either for open borders OR a form of Nauru.
We either accept all who come, or impose some restriction. Restriction means some form of seperation, either physically like in Nauru or Manus, or within the community where not accepted refugees live without the rights of the rest of the community.
So either we destroy ourselves, or exercise some degree of refugee refusal. We could of course accept no refugees, and like Japan or even NZ, wash our hands of other people's problems.
Reply Alert moderator
Jane2:
03 Nov 2015 2:46:59pm
A little known fact, a lot of Australia's new borns are in fact not Australian's as citizenship is no longer given with being born here, only residency.
If you were born after 1993 in Australia, you better have a parent who was an Australian citizen else you yourself are not an Australian citizen.
Reply Alert moderator
TBH:
03 Nov 2015 2:54:35pm
@Connie41
The moral obligation you refer to sounds terrific in the abstract - but in my view is impossibly broad, and really means nothing without a detailed background as to what it is that the person is fleeing and why they need a refuge, to give it context.
Look at this, " ... This is of course untrue; there are plenty of alternatives, but none of them is acceptable to the Government, and probably not to a well-conditioned electorate."
Typically of those who frantically disapprove of the present approach, none of "the plenty of alternatives" are set out here, or presented for analysis.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 8:50:56pm
There are acceptable outcomes
To the Greens it is no government selection upon whom enters. This may be disguised as accepting all those that say "asylum"
To the ALP its pretending to have a solution whilst increasing numbers drown which is the humane option. We would have been like Germany under the last ALP government if we where a nation connected by land and part of such a large union.
To the Liberals it is increasing our total intake based solely on our own selection.
To the Nationals it is saying asylum seekers must be willing to work in rural areas.
To the PUP (whatever is left) its anything that makes the Liberals look inhumane.
To Xenaphon (forming party) it is empty statements that allow criticism of the party in power.
All have their own policies. Only one tries to implement anywhere near a sustainable migration policy for asylum seekers / economic migrants. Sadly the Liberals have no credibility for working migrant intake.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:36:01pm
" Actually, every new-born baby is just as much 'illegal' until its parents have registered it as people who come by boat to seek refuge in Australia. in other words, the due process of applying to be in Australia has yet to be undertaken. 'Illegal' means, in both cases, a legal process is still pending, not that the action is criminal. "
You cannot hopefully be serious Connie as what you have posted is just so rediculous.
And btw, many new born babies in Australia will not qualify for citizenship or even permanent residency unless one of the parents is an Australian with permanent residency standing.
Reply Alert moderator
Kevin52:
03 Nov 2015 7:23:51pm
We have no "moral obligation", every time somebody, somewhere in this world decides they are going to go and live in Australia.
I'm sick of hearing this "moral obligation" rubbish.
We didn't invite them and we don't want them here.
If they don't like living on Nauru, they can always go home.
It's not our fault that people in the middle east and other countries are killing each other over minor things like their religious beliefs.
It's not our "obligation" to just keep excepting people who decide to move here.
We have our own problems without importing more of them.
Australia is a big country, yes but it is unable to support a large population.
We have water shortages and not enough jobs to go around.
We've also been a very peaceful country up until we started importing unwanted people from the middle east.
Reply Alert moderator
Tim:
03 Nov 2015 12:00:55pm
what is the recognised process of seeking asylum?
i cant imagine the governments they are fleeing from being happy with these people poping over to the Austalian embassy (which is often not even in their country)
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:42:54pm
Tim, you ought to have a thorough read of what an organisation with initials UNHCR is all about, the global numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons in camps run and paid for by countries like Australia contributing to the UN.
You may even find out that the UNHCR finds most refugees have a primary desire of being able to return to homelands.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 8:53:33pm
Please educate yourself on the topic. Information about government processes can typically be found on government websites. The Australian government has pathways to take people who have not caught a boat to Australia.
If you need to ask such an initial question, try using google for a start. For accuracy avoid fairfax, abc and "refugee" advocate web pages. All have shown their willingness to have dead bodies bloating in the ocean for political purposes.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
03 Nov 2015 12:04:36pm
"If people arrive a country illegally i.e. outside of the recognised process,"
They aren't arriving illegally and this "recognized process" you speak of covers irregular arrivals by boat (and other modes of transport) - it's legal to come here seeking asylum irrespective of transportation methods.
"then they need to be excluded from the country they are trying to enter and returned to where they came from."
If you're going to assume guilt out of hand and suggest refoulement (which is illegal under the conventions we're signed up to) then you have absolutely no place talking about the legality (or in your case illegality) of seeking asylum as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:20:25pm
No, ThatFlemingGent, the High Court has been utterly unambiguous about this. It is not legal for asylum seekers to come to Australia for the reason of seeking asylum unless they adhere to Australia's immigration laws. In order for a foreign national to enter Australia legally they must either have a visa or fall into one of the visa exempt classes laid out within the Migration Act 1958. Asylum seekers do not fall into any of those exempt classes.
Reply Alert moderator
Trevor:
03 Nov 2015 1:56:56pm
Are we not bound by the treaties we have signed concerning the protection of refugees? I understand this goes back someway and was designed to never again let refugees be turned away from location after location the way the Jewish refugees were when fleeing the nazis.
The issue about having to settle in the first location rather than travelling on is another topic. I am just interested in our legal obligations under the treatment of refugees protocols we have signed up to. As I see it this does make them legal and we have an obligation to provide protection.
Reply Alert moderator
Francis:
03 Nov 2015 2:25:01pm
I doubt that it is as simple as that Reaver. Having read Klaus Neumann's book Across the Seas : Australia's Response to Refugees, A History there have been many different wordings and interpretations of the international agreements that Australia has signed in the past.
The High Court has taken the stance that it is up to the government of the day which determines policy in the light of our national sovereignty. Different judges at different times make different decisions. Witness Mabo etc.
It may be in future times that a less literalist approach by the Court or a different government may decide differently.
I do not wish to bandy words whether it is "illegal" or "unlawful"
to arrive here without due authorisation.
It is up to us the people to accept the fact that there are overseas people coming here seeking asylum. It may be that this is inconvenient or even alarming to us, but it is a fact.
Our present approach is to sent them offshore without determining their right to residence either temporarily or permanently if they are the right type. They are left in limbo until they return to their country of origin or some country will accept them.
In the process it costs us $1.2 Billion every year and demoralises them and degrades our own system of law because the government of the day (both major parties LNP and ALP) does not want us, the people, to know how wretched conditions are in detention centres. Hence anti whistleblower legislation etc.
You may believe that this is a satisfactory situation but I do not.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:35:19pm
It does not matter what other interpretations you can come up with, Francis. When it comes to what is and what is not law in Australia only one interpretation matters: that of the High Court. No other interpretation equals it and no other interpretation overrides it. The High Court is happy to rule that the entry or attempted entry is unlawful, so that is the word I too use.
It does not matter whether you think that the current solution is a satisfactory situation. Australia is a democracy. It only matters whether a majority of voters think that it is a satisfactory situation.
Reply Alert moderator
moraldinosaur:
03 Nov 2015 3:32:39pm
Hi Reaver.
What High Court case has determined that it is not legal for asylum seekers to come here unless they adhere to our immigration laws? I've followed the High Court cases on asylum seekers and know of no such decision. In fact because Australia is a signatory to article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention asylum seekers who enter Australia without a valid visa by boat or airplane are not illegals. People seeking asylum are permitted to enter without visas or other prior authorisation and to have their claim to be an asylum seeker tested.
It is a fine point but people entering a country illegally under the Immigration Act 1958 have not committed a crime or criminal act under that legislation or any other Australian law if they claim asylum. Read the Act, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.
All the best
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:02:16pm
reaver is probably getting emotional, understandably given the persistent nonsense peddled about this issue.
It is not illegal, but it is unlawful.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:33:26pm
I am aware of the difference between illegal and unlawful in Australian law, moraldinosaur, which is why I did not state that a crime had been committed when the asylum seekers tried to come to Australia. It is not possible for someone to enter Australia illegally under the Migration Act 1958. All unauthorised arrivals are deemed unlawful under the Act because, as you yourself wrote, the Act does not make that arrival a crime.
You have clearly not been following the High Court cases and have not been following them for some time. If you had then you would know that almost every High Court ruling concerning an asylum seeker's case, from Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration to CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has in part been based on the unlawfulness of the asylum seeker's entry or attempted entry into Australia. Australian law, as interpreted by the High Court in these rulings, contains no recognition of a right to entry that you claim exists.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 3:59:23pm
Where did the high court rule on the legality of asylum seekers? It ruled on the legality of the government's response to them last time I checked reaver. One suspects that you are telling lies deliberately, to create a false impression that asylum seekers are somehow breaking the law. Of course, the high court has never ruled this to be the case. If you can't tell the truth, you mustn't have a good argument.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 4:56:05pm
The High Court has been ruling the arrival of asylum seekers without visas to be unlawful ever since the Keating government changed the Migration Act 1958, I think I think, and ever since the Court's ruling in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration. The High Court has, for the past two decades, ruled that the entry of asylum seekers is not lawful and has ruled that this unlawful action is the only legal reason for the government detaining them. This legal concept was applied in cases such as Al Masri v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002), Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004), Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Khafaji (2004), Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) and other cases all the way up to CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015). You would know this if you knew anything about the High Court's rulings on immigration matters.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 5:45:16pm
Of course, I have checked those cases and I can't see where the high court has ruled on the legality of seeking asylum. Care to quote it for the rest of us, or perhaps admit that you are being deceitful?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 6:21:31pm
Read them again (or as I suspect for the first time), I think I think. In them the High Court did not rule on whether it is lawful to claim asylum, it ruled on whether the actions of the government were lawful based on the legal status of those detained. In those cases the High Court ruled that the detention was lawful due to the unlawful nature of the asylum seekers' presence in Australia (or their attempted presence in Australia in the 2015 case). The asylum seekers' actions made them unlawful non-citizens under the Migration Act 1958 as they had and have, to quote from the current Migration Act 1958, "no lawful right to come to Australia" thus their actions in trying to come were in themselves unlawful. The lawfulness of the government's actions in these cases directly stems from the unlawful nature of the asylum seekers' entry or attempted entry into Australia. Had the asylum seekers' actions been lawful then the government's actions in detaining them would not have been lawful. The fact that the asylum seekers had not come to Australia lawfully was the reason why the government could lawfully detain them.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 8:55:59pm
"it ruled on whether the actions of the government were lawful based on the legal status of those detained."
So, you were being deceitful. Thank you. The high court has not ruled on the legality of seeking asylum.
The rest of your conclusions should be taken with the same grain of salt. You have an agenda to use doublespeak. The high court did not ever say that asylum seekers are performing an illegal act by seeking asylum. It simply said that the government did not perform an illegal act by detaining them indefinitely, without charge.
There is a massive difference between the two claims, and being familiar with the judgements of high court cases is pointless if you can't spot it.
Reply Alert moderator
moraldinosaur:
03 Nov 2015 9:15:44pm
Hi Reaver
This is incorrect, the cases dealt with the constitutionality of the detentions under powers conferred to the Commonwealth under Ch III of the Constitution, and in each case the decisions written by the judges split the Court, the majority finding in favour of the constitutionality of the Commonwealth's actions. Not one case was decided upon, or even considered, the matter in light of the legal status of the asylum seekers as unlawful aliens. I tried to give a more detailed response earlier but it did not get past the moderator, but 1/2 an hour research of those cases and commentaries on the by legal experts will inform you of the facts.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 12:06:35pm
Furthermore, it should not take years to figure out that a person is an economic migrant and/or has no real evidence to prove their case is genuine.
The only reason we're turning back the boats is to put up the image of a "tough stance". In truth, we still lack the political willpower to deport boat people once they've reached our shore.
Reply Alert moderator
the yank:
03 Nov 2015 12:07:23pm
Once again it is not illegal to seek asylum so lets drop that and get to the core of the problem. There are tens of millions of people on the move desperate to leave their present situation.
This situation is not unlike what happened during WWII though at a slightly smaller numbers. Western countries turned their backs on many desperate persecuted minorities, what followed became know as the holocaust. We can just ignore the present situation we are an island and it is easier to protect our boarders than Europe but that doesn't take away from the seriousness of the plight of these people.
The first step to finding a solution is transparency. the government should not keep this issue hidden it would be best if we were told what is going on and what they are doing to solve the problem. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Reply Alert moderator
phil:
03 Nov 2015 1:25:15pm
by your logic we should have invaded Germany, deposed Hitler, and stopped the holocaust.
And what would have happened if we did invade Germany, and lost ?
or maybe put up a trade embargo and not trade with Germany ? That worked out so well with Japan - the USA blocked them buying oil, so the Japanese could either see their economy collapse, accept being the lapdog of the USA, or go to war for the oil they needed.
Reply Alert moderator
Left of Centre:
03 Nov 2015 2:46:16pm
"by your logic we should have invaded Germany, deposed Hitler, and stopped the holocaust."
We did!
"That worked out so well with Japan - the USA blocked them buying oil, so the Japanese could either see their economy collapse, accept being the lapdog of the USA, or go to war for the oil they needed."
Japan had already invaded Korea and China in 1930s and made its imperial ambitions crystal clear. It signed the Axis Treaty in 1940. It was always on a collision course to go to war with the Western Allies.
The oil embargo in 1941 played a vital role in curtailing the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Japan's lack of oil reserves to fuel its fleet severally limited the way it could deploy its navy throughout the course of the war.
Coupled with the US's successful submarine attacks on Japan's merchant navy, the IJN was effectively hamstrung by 1943.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 4:07:46pm
That is not yanks logic at all.
Reply Alert moderator
Left of Centre:
03 Nov 2015 2:54:02pm
"This situation is not unlike what happened during WWII though at a slightly smaller numbers. Western countries turned their backs on many desperate persecuted minorities, what followed became know as the holocaust."
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to compare the two situations.
Many of the persecuted minorities that fled in the early and mid 1930s were welcomed by France, England and the US.
By the time of the German conquests/annexations in Central Europe, many of the minorities were systematically rounded up and imprisoned. They did not have the chance to flee/seek asylum.
In Eastern Europe (especially Ukraine), if the Nazi's didn't get you, the NKVD or partisans did.
Those that did flee/seek asylum at this time did so via people smugglers.
Knowledge of the holocaust only came out when the Allies overran the concentration camps in 1945.
I don't think you can say that Western countries turned their backs on minorities. Other than invade and declare war, what could they have done?
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:48:38pm
Yank, our own government has been very clear and even transparent if you like on their policies to stop the people smuggling that was occurring within our own region, that trade having the one target, us btw.
As for solving the global issue of refugees and then people smuggling, that is not for Australia nor any of our governments alone to resolve.
Now if you think the UN ought to have a solution, that of course would be ideal if somewhat of wishful thinking.
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 5:22:11pm
We ALWAYS turn or backs on mistreated, persucuted minorities - because we cannot fix the planet's problems. Well, we might for 10 minutes and then become the latest of many third world pits.
The only question is how many we turn away and ignore: do we stay with our relatively low numbers, and have only occassional bouts of violence and social discord or we take in proportionally more and have the days and days of refugee violence like Sweden? Or we recreate that little gem of tolerance and harmony called Lebanon which has enjoyed the multicultural joy of sectarianism and civil war?
Them or us: hardly a wonder a lot of people choose them.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 8:59:43pm
Chalkie, relatively low to whom?
Australia has the highest per capita intake of asylum seekers. Third largest in total number. This is according to the ABC's fact checker.
Temporary we are very far down.
So it you want to increase the temporary, we could do it at the expense of the permanent. How many temporary is the value of one permanent?
If you cant answer that, how can you say we accept a low number?
Reply Alert moderator
John:
03 Nov 2015 6:12:25pm
Quite incorrect, yank.
It is illegal to enter any country claiming asylum if you have been granted asylum in a previous country and have voluntarily abandoned that asylum.
It is almost universal that people arriving via the services of people smuggler boats have transited through two, three or even four or five countries that granted asylum. They have therefore irrevocably and inevitably violated the right to seek asylum in Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 6:47:18pm
Sorry, John, but in that limited regard yank is quite correct. Under Australian law the term illegal refers to criminal actions, the commission of a criminal offense. It is not a criminal offense to enter Australia under any circumstances, but it is also not legal to do it under some circumstances. When an entry is made or attempted under those circumstances the entry or attempted entry is unlawful (rather than illegal) and makes the person doing it an unlawful non-citizen and in some cases an Unauthorised Maritime Arrival, as laid out in the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and other measures) Regulation 2013.
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 8:14:52pm
I think you pay a bit loose with the facts Reaver. I read a few of your comments and they did not ring true so I checked a few "facts" you state. Your stated legal definitions of both unlawful and illegal are incorrect. A check of dictionaries and legal dictionaries show that unlawful does not mean it is criminal, as stated in another of your posts, and illegal does not mean it is criminal. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 9:07:33pm
You should use an Australian legal dictionary, Oneview. In some other countries' legal systems, that of the United States of America as an example, the terms illegal and unlawful are essentially interchangeable, in many cases being synonymous. In Australian law this is not the case. It has been a long standing fact of Australian law that the two words are not synonymous, which is why when a law such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes an act unlawful it is separate and distinct from an illegal act, opening the performer of such an act to legal action, as happened to Andrew Bolt, but not to arrest or trial, neither of which could have happened to Bolt. Let this be a learning experience for you in not trying to disprove something using random online resources which have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
03 Nov 2015 8:53:37pm
reaver, you're not fully following the discussion.
First, it is quite illegal to enter a third or subsequent country and try to claim asylum if the second country, that is the first country entered after leaving birth country, does not have a policy of refoulement. Asylum is automatically granted in those circumstances, and the UNHCR Convention is quite explicit in setting this out, specifying that moving on after attaining safe haven is "forum shopping" and is forbidden under the Convention.
Second, it most certainly is a criminal offence to enter Australia, and your suggestion that applies in part only is quite incorrect. I refer you to:
"Unless you are an Australian or New Zealand citizen, you will need a visa to enter Australia. New Zealand passport holders can apply for a visa upon arrival in the country. All other passport holders must apply for a visa before leaving home country. It is an offence to enter without a visa or other authorised document".
The Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994.
None of the euphemisms of "unlawful non-citizen" or "Unauthorised Maritime Arrival" can evade the fact that an illegal act has been committed.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 8:57:57pm
Yank seeking asylum is making a request.
It is not illegal to make a request. That does not mean the request needs to be followed. This could be because their are worthier candidates, the applicant is believed to be lying, the applicant is an unknown person or other security threat or the applicant has acted in a manner that demonstrates poor character such as nearly half the rape allegation on Naruu.
But you may prefer such people in Australia.
That is why there is a democracy. Both major parties could tell Australians wanted a border policy where Australians chose the applicants whom entered, instead of the applicants choosing whom entered.
Its amazing you call for transparency now. Did you call for the transparency of knowing one name of a person whom drowned? The ABC did not deem any of the 1000+ deaths news worthy as an individual story. Just a few in detention centers that they complain they cant get access to.
Reply Alert moderator
splod1:
03 Nov 2015 12:15:59pm
Australia is a signatory of the UN Refugee Charter. Under that charter, it is NOT illegal to arrive unannounced and uninvited by boat, plane, helicopter or swimming. (With or without paperwork.) I do wish that people who constantly refer to refugees and asylum seekers as "people who arrive illegally") would check their facts.
Reply Alert moderator
hello:
03 Nov 2015 12:33:36pm
I do wish that you would read the Refugee Charter, those seeking asylum must register in the FIRST safe country they enter. They are not allowed to through dozens of countries and select which country they will then demand to be settled in. Please check your 'facts'.
What these people are doing is illegal as they are bypassing the convention (which you completely ignore), destroying their documents, come here claiming to be minorities with no identification. Also a refugee is someone who is being persecuted and cannot find safe haven anywhere in their country, not someone who just wants a better life.
Reply Alert moderator
Rhonda:
03 Nov 2015 1:55:12pm
Many of those 'safe countries' are either refusing entry, already overcrowded, or they themselves are unsafe. Those on the move are escaping war or the effects of it, so they need somewhere secure. They shouldn't be demonized for that!
Reply Alert moderator
James:
03 Nov 2015 2:55:11pm
It also says " refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules."
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
03 Nov 2015 12:40:31pm
The bit you left out about the first safe country. The UN convention does not allow you to country hop after you reach a safe country. You are no longer a refugee.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 1:11:12pm
Safe country? What is that? Name a safe country between here and Afghanistan. You are still wrong, none of the intervening countries are signatory to the UN Human Rights and Refugee conventions. There is no safety afforded to asylum seekers in those countries.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 1:38:39pm
Safe country = the first nation in which you're no longer under active persecution.
If you enter that safe country and leave for any reason other than direct persecution, you cease to be a refugee and become an economic migrant.
Reply Alert moderator
A Former Lefty:
03 Nov 2015 2:18:11pm
Safe countries between Afghanistan and Australia include;
Pakistan
India
Bangladesh
Nepal
Burma
Thailand
Malaysia
Singapore
Brunei
Indonesia
East Timor
And thats only in ONE direction!
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 5:00:24pm
Those are not safe countries according to the UNHCR definition.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 9:01:04pm
I think, I think
You obviously are not thinking. The UN would not list safe or unsafe countries. That would be an insult to individual countries that are not white.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:52:56pm
Just because India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia or any other nearer countries are not signatories to the UN charter, does not mean that people arriving in those countries would not be free of the persecution they had faced.
The UNHCR does run quite a few camps throughout the region.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:42:23pm
NO, Bev is correct. Show us the evidence that asylum seekers are being persecuted in Indonesia for example? If the war they flee is in Syria, they are "safe" in a country currently not "at war".
Reply Alert moderator
Marilyn:
03 Nov 2015 3:09:45pm
War is not the point, the point is persecution. Indonesia is not signatory to the refugee convention and does not and will not actually protect refugees as they have 100 million of their own very poor people while we are the richest country on the planet.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 4:59:12pm
So how many of these refugees are housed at your place, Marilyn?
I see you are all so very keen for our country to accept them in, just as long as it someone else paying the additional taxes to keep them fed, clothed, educated, housed etc. etc.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
03 Nov 2015 8:57:42pm
Being a signatory to the Convention or not is utterly irrelevant in indicating whether asylum is granted or not.
And asylum does not need to be sought - it is automatically granted when the country does not have a policy of refoulement.
Reply Alert moderator
Left of Centre:
03 Nov 2015 2:31:35pm
So we leave these people in the safe countries in refugee camps where they live off the charity of others and have no prospects for employment or advancement for years on end with no hope of a return to their homes and former lives for the foreseeable future.
I think the line between economic migrant and refugee gets blurred here.
Although safe, they are only economic migrants because their home economies have gone to hell in a hand basket. They are not migrating to another country because they want a better job.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 6:09:46pm
"I think the line between economic migrant and refugee gets blurred here."
There is no blurred line.
If you were stuck in Afghanistan with no job, money, prospects or future, you'd be expected to deal with it. If you leave Afghanistan and end up with no job, money, prospects or future in Indonesia, why should your situation be any better?
The conventions are designed to save people from persecution - not save them from disappointment.
Reply Alert moderator
Left of Centre:
03 Nov 2015 8:25:52pm
"If you were stuck in Afghanistan with no job, money, prospects or future, you'd be expected to deal with it. If you leave Afghanistan and end up with no job, money, prospects or future in Indonesia, why should your situation be any better?"
Replace Afghanistan with Syria to place it in better context and then repeat:
"If you were stuck in Syria with no job, money, prospects or future, you'd be expected to deal with it."
Then go further and suggest that those Syrians in camps with no prospects etc should be happy they are safe from persecution and that nothing can or should be done for them until the war ends (whenever that may be). If they leave seeking greener pastures, they are 'economic migrants'.
The Afghan example has some semblance of a working government and economy. The Afghan has an economy that they can be expected to deal with.
I don't think the same can be said for a Syrian.
Reply Alert moderator
Breakfast in Bed:
03 Nov 2015 1:12:41pm
People take it as fact splod because as you are aware it was/is the language of the LNP used to justify the cruel and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers. For them and the racists claiming arriving by boat is so unfair to the poor souls waiting in camps for decades, all of this deceitful language and fake compassion seems to have worked a treat don't you think.
The other incredibly arrogant and false myth that is peddled is the notion that so many asylum seekers are just economic migrants. Yes of course they are, people readily leave everything behind and risk their lives for money. What a joke!!
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 5:25:57pm
No - refugees flee persecution and go to the first safe haven.
They go past lots of safe havens for money.
Understandable, and undeniable, and awkward for those wanting a lot of different kinds of people who incidentally mostly hate the values of those who so keenly want to help these same refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:27:34pm
It does not matter what the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (not "the UN Refugee Charter") says, splod1, as that Convention does not make anything legal or illegal in Australia. The High Court heard and ruled upon a case in 2006 (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. QAAH of 2004) which included that very question and ruled that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is only law in the limited circumstances when the Migration Act 1958 makes it law. Outside of those limited circumstances the Convention exists only as an element of procedural fairness. This means that when the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Migration Act 1958 come into conflict it is the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which is invalidated.
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 1:56:07pm
So reaver, what law makes it illegal to seek asylum here in Australia?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:39:23pm
No law makes it illegal, I think I think, but the High Court has consistently ruled it to be unlawful under the Migration Act 1958. For something to be unlawful means that it is not a crime, but it is also not legal i.e. not allowed by the law. Are you even reading posts before you respond to them?
Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:
03 Nov 2015 9:00:24pm
"No law makes it illegal"
So stop defending the lie that asylum seekers have entered the country illegally.
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 2:05:38pm
Dear reaver
Can you please stop muddying the waters with facts.
What we need is raw emotion.
That is how to solve the world's problems - a bit more empathy and self-loathing. Not rational thinking.
Reply Alert moderator
ThatFlemingGent:
03 Nov 2015 2:52:33pm
"The High Court heard and ruled upon a case in 2006 (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. QAAH of 2004) which included that very question and ruled that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is only law in the limited circumstances when the Migration Act 1958 makes it law."
The case you cite claims nothing close to what you assert, you are lying as usual. It's centred on burdens of proof and entitlements for re-applications for TPVs by refugees.
You rednecks will latch on to anything to keep your hate going. Vile
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 7:41:54pm
Posts containing hyperlinks will not make it past The Drum's moderators, ThatFlemingGent, so it falls to me to quote directly from the majority ruling of Justices Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan in that case:
"The Convention has not been enacted as part of the law of Australia, unlike, for example, the Hague Rules and the Warsaw Convention. Section 36 of the Act is the only section (apart from the interpretation section, s 5) which refers in terms to the Convention. That does not mean that thereby the whole of it is enacted into Australian law. As McHugh and Gummow JJ said in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar: [T]he Act is not concerned to enact in Australian municipal law the various protection obligations of Contracting States found in Chs II, III and IV of the Convention. The scope of the Act is much narrower. In providing for protection visas whereby persons may either or both travel to and enter Australia, or remain in this country, the Act focuses upon the definition in Art 1 of the Convention as the criterion of operation of the protection visa system."
Also: "Whether under s 36(2) Australia has protection obligations depends upon whether a person satisfies the definition of a refugee in Art 1A of the Convention, in the context of other relevant articles, none of which say anything about the period of residence or permanent residence. If they did, they would have to yield in any event to the provisions of the Act which do."
Additionally: "In enacting s 36(2), the Parliament's intention was to give effect to the "definition in Art 1 of the Convention as the criterion of the operation of the protection visa system". Because, in this way, art 1 is incorporated into Australian law, it cannot be said that having recourse to the requirements, object, scope and purpose of that article amounts to the subordination of municipal law to the demands of the Convention, as the joint reasons in this Court would suggest. On the contrary, any other approach would involve a departure from the letter of Australian law."
A reading of the ruling very much shows that this (whether the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is binding law in Australia and if so, when) was a matter dealt by the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. QAAH of 2004, exactly as I earlier wrote.
Reply Alert moderator
Red:
03 Nov 2015 7:57:38pm
ThatFlemingGent. Condemning anyone in disagreement with the Left as a 'hater' or a 'redneck' is just puerile. Australians are more informed now and not us gullible as they once were. Not everyone who turns up on a rickety boat with no ID is escaping 'torture' or 'hell'.
If you deny that thousands of asylum seekers have entered this country fraudulently then that is puerile too. Amongst the most vehement opponents of opportunistic foreigners entering this country undeservedly are dual citizen Australians who have entered honestly. Are they rednecks?
Reply Alert moderator
Marilyn:
03 Nov 2015 3:11:08pm
That is utter nonsense, the refugee convention was Articles 36 and 65 of the migration act.
Reply Alert moderator
Marilyn:
03 Nov 2015 3:11:11pm
That is utter nonsense, the refugee convention was Articles 36 and 65 of the migration act.
Reply Alert moderator
Trevor M:
03 Nov 2015 12:29:55pm
The "recognised process" consists of:
1. Arriving.
2. Claiming asylum.
Anyone who tells you that there is a requirement to form an orderly queue is being inaccurate. Especially anyone who tells you there is a requirement to form an orderly queue in a country that hasn't signed up to the Refugee Convention.
Reply Alert moderator
Optimist:
03 Nov 2015 1:04:03pm
'If people arrive a country illegally i.e. outside of the recognised process, then they need to be excluded from the country they are trying to enter and returned to where they came from.'
That's what happens Feline. The anti abortion chap arrived without a visa and was detained then sent back, so what's the problem. Maybe you're getting confused about people arriving legally but are being classified as illegal.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:43:23pm
Yeah, we don't want anyone coming here thinking we support free speech.
Reply Alert moderator
anurse:
03 Nov 2015 4:02:11pm
Did he have a visa?
Reply Alert moderator
chalkie:
03 Nov 2015 5:26:54pm
he was denied one on political grounds?
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:01:02pm
Wilders did, but that didn't stop your like kicking up then.
Seems freedom of speech ought to be relabeled, freedom of "only leftists gibberish" but no other views will be heard.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:35:07pm
I agree, Feline 14, but this is not the "reality" in Mungo's world or the ABC generally, where compassion is the order of the day, and Australia can supposedly house, feed, pay welfare and health costs for all of the almost 3 billion people in the world whose standards of living are below our current levels....without anyone at the ABC taking a pay cut.
In every article that Mungo has written on this subject he has never once managed to articulate the ACTUAL number of people that would be likely to attempt to migrate if we had open border policies? So in the absence of anything tangible in his writings, it is just as valid to assume that there would be no end to the number of people wanting to move here to improve their economic circumstances.
It is always bright and sunny in Mungo's world.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
03 Nov 2015 2:07:44pm
TOJ, I think the people who think like you should start preparing themselves.
We have seen the 'slowly slowly' process in the area of dealing with climate change and I am willing to place a bet on the fact that we will see a similar process with asylum seekers and the detention camps.
TA may be happy to make a fool of himself overseas but I doubt MT is of the same mind.
Reply Alert moderator
Chubblo:
03 Nov 2015 2:10:39pm
There's no such thing as being an illegal asylum seeker...lol.
Reply Alert moderator
Swan dive:
03 Nov 2015 7:22:33pm
But there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant, which they become after landing the first safe country e.g. Indonesia.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 9:06:27pm
And not actually being an asylum seeker. Someone who makes false claims to the government if guilty of a crime, which could make them an illegal migrant.
Reply Alert moderator
James:
03 Nov 2015 2:53:58pm
It is NOT illegal to arrive at a country's border and ask for asylum. That is explicitly permitted under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which Australia helped write. The Convention specifically states " refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules."
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:01:50pm
Asylum from persecution in the country you have just left, James. Is there a jurisdiction or two between Australia and Syria?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 7:01:03pm
Firstly, James, that quote does not come from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but from the introductory note written by the UNHCR in 2010. The introductory note is usually attached to the Convention when it is published, but not a part of the Convention.
Secondly, it is not lost on us that Australian law, which is legally regarded as being superior to the Convention, does not conform to the Convention which Australia helped to write, but the inescapable fact is that it does not.
Reply Alert moderator
John:
03 Nov 2015 9:06:24pm
You are only telling us part of the story, James.
The Convention clearly states:
Article 31(1)
" ... to apply, other countries or territories passed through should also have constituted actual or potential threats to life or freedom, or that onward flight may have been dictated by the refusal of other countries to grant protection or asylum".
Reply Alert moderator
Arthur Baker:
03 Nov 2015 9:17:56pm
Oh dear. "Outside the recognised process". The asylum system IS the recognised process. It's what we signed up to in 1954, and we're still signatories. How long does it take to get this message through, and how many times does it have to be repeated. that this IS The Process. Arrival by whatever means, with the intention of claiming asylum, is not only NOT illegal, it IS the recognised process.
Reply Alert moderator
phil:
03 Nov 2015 11:25:53am
"Thus the government is redoubling to its efforts to get them out of the way'
Send them to Jordan ?
From an earlier ABC story ..
Jordan is home to more than 600,000 Syrian refugees. They are not allowed to work, and many live in dire poverty.
Some of the families in Zaatari have been living in the camp for as long as four years.
if they have 600,000, what difference will a few hundred more make. And lets see if the AI complain about how the refugees are treated when its not a western country doing the treatment.
Reply Alert moderator
scott:
03 Nov 2015 12:13:30pm
Strangely enough, you'll find [if you look] that Amnesty International makes criticisms of a great number of countries. Our politicians are so over sensitive however that they feel 'picked on' when it happens here.
Get that - the people that run an entire country say they feel 'bullied' by some little non-government organisation.
Poor babies.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 1:06:56pm
We're not feeling bullied by Amnesty International.
What we're feeling is that Amnesty International is trying to facilitate people smuggling. But rather than call them out on it, we're just politely ignoring them.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 2:07:26pm
At least they're not actually hiring people smugglers like we are.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 5:33:18pm
Graazt. It's yet to be proven that we paid anyone.
And even if we did, it doesn't count as people smuggling. If you leave Indonesia and land back in Indonesia, then your captain didn't smuggle you anywhere.
Reply Alert moderator
Chubblo:
03 Nov 2015 2:22:09pm
Last I checked it wasn't Amnesty International that was being accused of making payments to people smugglers for the purposes of transporting people to a destination?
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
03 Nov 2015 4:45:00pm
Amnesty International is a joke.
In 1977, it won the Nobel Peace Prize, and in 1978, the UN Prize in the Field of Human Rights.
Since then, crickets.
Today it's more like a socialist student union but with highly paid executives. Ignore its posturing at your leisure.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:04:27pm
How many have been accepted by the Saudis? And they are a Muslim country, so no "forced assimilation" issues there.
Tent cities exist there already which could house millions, yet not a single Syrian refugee has been accepted the the Saudis. Oh, by the have promised to build Mosques throughout Europe. Perhaps they could also spring for some extra prisons to account for the increased rape cases in places such as Sweden?
Reply Alert moderator
Don:
03 Nov 2015 11:26:04am
It is a good policy which is working. Get used to it.
Reply Alert moderator
the yank:
03 Nov 2015 12:08:38pm
No, I want to know what is happening and why. You best get use to the question and the search to a solution we can all be proud of.
Reply Alert moderator
eljay:
03 Nov 2015 1:05:17pm
so stopping or greatly reducing the amount of people who drown while trying to reach our shores isn't a solution that we can be proud of ............. oh right,
strangely enough i disagree i think that saving these lives is a good solution and if we do it by preventing these flimsy boats from leaving the safe haven of origin so be it
really you doth protest far to much
Reply Alert moderator
Tory Boy:
03 Nov 2015 1:07:05pm
There is no solution that we can all be proud of; you wont be happy until all border controls are ripped apart and anyone who wants to arrive is allowed to do so. I wont be happy until the borders are closed and we start tackling the chronic overpopulation of this planet. There is no middle ground.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 1:45:18pm
The big difference, Tory, is that under your plan, Australia will continue to prosper enough to afford aid to people all over the world.
If you open the door to an unlimited number of immigrants with no controls, then our economy will basically bleed to death.
The ALP Green vote will go through the roof, though, which is what much of this debate is really all about.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 3:13:10pm
If the West was not propping up backward societies with foreign aid and ignore-the-law-and-look-the-other-way migration policies (such as those which are currently being displayed in Europe) then the global overpopulation problem would soon solve itself, Tory Boy. Is this the kind of thing you had in mind?
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 1:15:52pm
You have the right to demand answers from the government, Yank.
But other Australian citizens have the right to demand the government not answer you, if they believe you'll misuse the information. Democracy will decide which course we take.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 9:09:46pm
Yep, I vote the Yank and biased boat advocates like the ABC are kept in the dark. There desire for facts should not come at the cost of life.
Reply Alert moderator
Alphamikefoxtrot:
03 Nov 2015 1:28:52pm
I'm very proud we are the only country on earth successfully dealing with this issue and being recognised as such.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:17:17pm
yes, whatever it takes to make yourself feel slightly better about such disgusting, inhumane and unchristian policy.
is empathy completely missing from this many people as the comments on here today would suggest?. I'm starting to think that this is an organised campaign....surely Australia is better than this!
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:10:10pm
"unchristian policy"
I'm not aware that policy has to be christian. If certain events occurred, we could be living under Sharia law, and there would be no apologies about it.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
03 Nov 2015 5:18:42pm
prison, I share your suspicion. Any article even vaguely concerning refugees, Muslims or terrorism attracts the same names using exactly the same arguments, often distorted, inaccurate or just plain wrong, but out they come every time.
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 6:39:59pm
DW , it's called freedom of expression .
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
03 Nov 2015 7:13:48pm
indeed it is Himself. You are free to expose:
- your ignorance of some basic relevant facts
- your inability to learn and change
- your choice of politics over humanity
- your prejudices
- your manipulation of arguments to disguise your ulterior motives
- etc etc
It is a democracy which only thrives on open information flows. That means we are also free to expose your tactics. Campaign away and as the political stance at the top slowly changes, we will see who has had the most influence.
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 7:40:21pm
DW , and that is the very foundation of humanity , to be free , free of a pious moron telling the world what is good for them , free of all knowing telling one to believe or else , free to be what you are , an individual .
Yup I reckon I am exposed ,
Reply Alert moderator
Frontschwein:
03 Nov 2015 9:25:04pm
Yes, the left are famous for that sort of distortion.
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 7:00:45pm
Prison , now is your big chance , how many asylum seekers , refugees do you want let into Australia , first year , then ongoing years , give us all here some numbers Prison ? , show us your empathy by organising your OWN campaign to personally house families for years , it's your time my friend , take along all your friends here in this forum on this campaign, sign up , show the way to the disgusting , in humane and unchristian lot out there.
Go for a walk down any city back lanes and watch the in humane , disgusting and unchristian folk helping the homeless because they don't care about your stance , they care for our own first , all one hundred thousand of em . Good luck on your quest.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 7:07:08pm
We have empathy, prison, but we do not base our actions on it. Adults should base their actions on a dispassionate analysis of the evidence and based on the available evidence we have concluded that allowing an unlimited number of unauthorised persons into Australia is not in the best interests of Australia or Australians. Whether it is in the best interests of the unlimited number of unauthorised persons is a low priority to us.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
03 Nov 2015 8:02:52pm
reaver, what evidence is that? The available evidence from our intake of refugees immediately after WWII? The evidence from our subsequent waves of immigration? Who is talking about unlimited? Please supply the evidence that caused you to determine empathy was an inadequate basis for accepting a regulated flow of boat people.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 5:03:37pm
Yank, with the amount of posting you have done re aticles published by the ABC, are you really serious in claiming that you do not know what is going on and why?
If that is so, I'll briefly try and enlighten you:
1. Our Australian government introduced policies of smugglers boats and others interception/turn back along with transfer to offshore detention centres of people desiring entry to Australia.
The detention/processing centres are an alternative to UNHCR refugee camps that would seem to have been getting bypassed.
2. Those policies are in place because it was accepted by governments and electors that people willy nilly attempting to get to Australia courtesy of people smugglers was not acceptable for a number of reasons which have often enough been talked about, deaths at sea being near the top of the list.
Reply Alert moderator
Puffin:
03 Nov 2015 9:08:39pm
I understand you are not proud that people are no longer drowning. I am very proud of it.
I understand you are not proud of our refugee intake increase. I am proud of it.
I understand you are not proud that the Liberals did something the ALP couldnt. I couldnt care less about that. The result is what matters.
Reply Alert moderator
scott:
03 Nov 2015 12:14:19pm
It's a policy that uses the fig leaf of 'saving lives' to act out strictly racist ideas about immigration.
It just transfers deaths to other places.
Reply Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset DD 2016:
03 Nov 2015 4:23:00pm
So, you're saying that, if a Sri lankan, is returned to to Indonesia; being saved from drowning in the process, he/she will die in Indonesia?
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 8:29:26pm
I don't know that it transfers deaths to other places. Instead I think it sends innocent people for torture. Either way not something Australia can be proud of.
Reply Alert moderator
splod1:
03 Nov 2015 12:18:54pm
It's a bad policy that goes against our refugee support commitments, as outlined in the UN Refugee document, and it is callous and selfish. Get used to it.
Reply Alert moderator
eljay:
03 Nov 2015 12:58:19pm
really please preface your statements with "in my opinion" because some may not agree with you when you say "it's a bad policy"
and it seems when a say some i really mean "the vast majority of the voting public"
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 1:08:09pm
Plenty of people are used to it, Splod.
You're the one who seems to be having trouble.
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 8:32:32pm
Do you really think only one person is having trouble with the policy?
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 1:15:39pm
splod1: Incorrect we do not have to accept people who depart on their current journey from a country in which they have no real claims of persecution. All conventions have their limits and that limit is when the host country is likely to suffer economically and socially.
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 8:38:53pm
Can we therefore assume that if a person is found to be a refugee, i.e. they are escaping persecution, it is OK for them to come? I hope so.
Reply Alert moderator
Frontschwein:
03 Nov 2015 9:29:54pm
Yep, but as the High Court has found that offshore detention and processing and third-country resettlement is totally legal, it is OK for them to come and equally OK for us to move them on. And, funnily enough, that policy has stopped them coming! Now why is that if they are so oppressed and desperately need to come here?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:38:05pm
Whether your or Don's opinion wins depends of which opinion is shared by the majority of voters, splod1. So far the majority of voters have come down on Don's side, so the policies will remain in place.
Reply Alert moderator
Optimist:
03 Nov 2015 3:53:48pm
The majority of voters are happy with the treatment of asylum seekers?
I think the majority of voters cover their eyes and put earplugs in because they do not want to know what is going on. For some reason Australians are totally paranoid about boat people.
About half the people we all know vote for opposing political parties, but we all get on in the street and pub. But then some boat people arrive, 0.07% of our population in 2012 (the highest number in one year) and the country freaks out.
In South Australia in the sixties some friends of mine were greeted on the dock with Go Home Pom signs. Mediterranean folk had their share and now it's the turn of refugees.
I believe if people were made aware of what was happening to the refugees, they would throw open the borders and that's why there is so much secrecy. Our politicians are playing to the noisiest, most ignorant ones among us. Australians are better than this.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:04:05pm
You can believe as you wish, Optimist, but at the end of the day all that matters is whether the majority of voters are willing to support the polices and currently they do support the policies. Your belief that if people were made aware of what was happening to the refugees they would throw open the borders is not based on any evidence that I have seen. When people were completely aware of what was going on it only lead to them demanding more harsh border protection measures. As for "the majority of voters cover(ing) their eyes and put earplugs in because they do not want to know what is going on", that is their choice. Some people like the outcome while not liking how that outcome was achieved. The idea that they would oppose the outcome if they knew how it was achieved is somewhat far fetched. More likely that they would either look away or demand that another way be found to achieve the same outcome.
Reply Alert moderator
Optimist:
03 Nov 2015 9:18:11pm
'When people were completely aware of what was going on it only lead to them demanding more harsh border protection measures. (So they know and agree?) As for "the majority of voters cover(ing) their eyes and put earplugs in because they do not want to know what is going on", that is their choice. ' (So they don't know)
I'm extremely confused with your logic.
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 11:26:14am
"It was hardly surprising when at least one leading Tory politician described it as "fascistic". "
I have seen this comment made several times before. Together with the comment that "leaders winced" at the speech.
Strangely, the people are never named, and the whole story can be traced back to one journalist who has consistently advocated an open borders policy. (Is there any other sort of journalist?).
So one biased report has been repeated over and over again.
On the other hand, I have seen several comments by British MP who are prepared to be named, all of whom are supportive of Mt Abbott's speech.
Equally strangely, these statements are not mentioned.
I realise that Mr McCallum is widely known to be, shall we say, left leaning, but there is a possibility that someone, somewhere, might take his diatribe as being a sensible discussion on an important issue.
If you want that, I suggest you read Chris Kenny and find out some facts.
But if you prefer emotional rants over facts, then Mr McCallum is for you.
Reply Alert moderator
JoshRCole:
03 Nov 2015 11:52:49am
So your solution to bias you don't agree with is to pick a journo whose bias you do agree with? This is the problem all around, we should just give up on every issue because it's just people picking their favourite teams rather than actually discussing anything rationally.
Reply Alert moderator
eljay:
03 Nov 2015 1:09:37pm
but isn't that what you are doing by denying an opposing opinion
really the level of debate/discussion on this subject is rather self defeating far to many "dissing" other opinions without adding anything (including this opinion)
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 1:33:28pm
Dear JoshRCole
Of course I do not advocate picking journalists in that way.
My point was that we have a story, based on a report by a biased reporter that some unnamed source reacted in a way which the journalist thought was appropriate. No way of verifying the truth of the story: we have to take it on trust it occurred..
On the other hand, we have reports from a variety of sources that named MPs made public statements that can be verified by simply asking them.
I choose to follow the latter. That is the rational decision and I am nonplussed why you should think otherwise.
And please: no more comments re the content. This is a simple matter of practical journalistic integrity and reporting.
Reply Alert moderator
splod1:
03 Nov 2015 12:22:42pm
You make some valid points concerning selective use of evidence. Mind you, I am confused by one line: "I suggest you read Chris Kenny and find out some facts." Do you want us to find out some facts, or read Chris Kenny? Chris is known for his bias, so the two are not synonymous.
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 1:36:44pm
Dear splod1
You may not like Mr Kenny (or possibly it is his employer you dislike) but it is not often that he is found to get facts wrong.
Do not confuse his opinions with his reporting of facts.
I found it quite refreshing to read something that did not start with "It is alleged" or "It is reported" or "Sources claim".
All of which render what follows to be of dubious worth.
Should you have evidence of factual errors of any significance, feel free to pass them on.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 2:11:32pm
"I found it quite refreshing to read something that did not start with "It is alleged" or "It is reported" or "Sources claim"."
Indeed. A good argument for freedom of the press when it comes to reportage of such matters.
Obviously not something the Liberal and Labor parties are keen on.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:08:47pm
Number of ABC, Fairfax and Crikey journalists who bothered to travel to Nauru and ask first hand questions of the "alleged rape victim"? Zero.
Number of Australian journalists who elected to actually, you know, apply "journalistic" skills in doing so? One. And that is all it takes to show how biased, and how insanely entrenched the left wing junta is at the ABC and friends.
Now, where is media watch when you need them? Oh, that's right, they are too busy picking up spelling errors in the telegraph.
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 8:55:29pm
Many journalists have applied to go to Nauru to report on the issue but have been refused a visa. Number who applied for a visa many, number who got a visa one. Accordingly, your alleged evidence of bias is wrong. Your comment is poor on facts biased.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 9:30:22pm
Oneview, can you supply a source for that assertion?
According to Radio New Zealand, Nauru received zero applications for a journalist visa in 2014. Not one, from any country.
Reply Alert moderator
Tom1:
03 Nov 2015 12:35:05pm
Tabanus: Abbott's speech was broadcast so people had ample opportunity to make up their own minds. One can expect a variety of opinions.
However having Chris Kenny visit Manus is unlikely to result in anything else than a white wash of Australian policy. Why else do you think he was specifically selected.
Australians are well enough informed, despite all of the secrecy to know the basics of our overseas detention programme, and many are becoming more concerned about overseas legitimate criticism.
To a good percentage of Australians, through a fairly extensive demonisation period have become convinced that asylum seekers are a lot of rapists and murderers, and do not deserve to be able to settle in Australia. Just read some of the contributions here. Those that aren't murderers and rapists, are sure to be economic migrants.
I am personally not for open borders, but I blame Howard and then Abbott for politicising this issue for the sake of retaining or gaining government, when bipartisan policies could have possibly succeeded years ago.
Reply Alert moderator
KK:
03 Nov 2015 3:51:25pm
What 'extensive demonisation period'? We have been subjected to years of propaganda from the Left media, the Greens, the UN, Amnesty International, activists and lawyers and through it all the opinion of the Australian public hasn't budged an inch. They overwhelmingly support policies that successfully fight people smuggling.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
03 Nov 2015 5:04:50pm
It seems only the responses of anti-Abbottites such as various members of the Greens and Labor found there way into the Fairfax and ABC stories on the speech Tom. Not sure many people took the time to listen to the full speech and made up their minds about it uninfluenced by others.
I don't demonise asylum seekers. Many of them would make good citizens, showing more initiative than their fellows (and me). I see our refugee policy as more a humanitarian one than one focussed on accepting all comers who show no respect for our laws. No doubt there are rapists among their number. Murderers? Don't know. Hard to tell when ID is tossed. A number of refugees have found it hard to adjust to the local culture and have committed criminal acts. Don't know what you do about that, it is always a risk.
How different were Howard's measures from Hawke's and Keating's? They introduced mandatory detention did they not? For mine it was Rudd and Gillard sniffing the electoral wind that did most to politicise the issue. To their everlasting shame.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:11:23pm
Tell us, Tom1, did you actually watch or listen to Abbott's entire speech? Or are you happy to simply accept the pre-digested, sanitised for-leftist-grievance, version spun out by the ABC/Fairfax/Crikey?
I bet you didn't even hear a word of it, did you? Yet here you are, the expert on all things Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 9:06:18pm
You don't know whether Tom 1 listened to the speech, but bet he did not, then accuse him of being, or claiming to be, an expert on all things Abbott. Do you have a point other than having a general rant?
Reply Alert moderator
Twiliteman:
03 Nov 2015 11:53:45am
Mr. McCallum is a journalist of repute in my view and imparts truthful and accurate observations which are missing in the mainstream media. These poor journalists have been nobbled by their patron. The atrocities conducted by successive governments will need to be carefully excised from history books lest our school history studies show us as we really are to future generations.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
03 Nov 2015 12:36:55pm
I am presuming you were in sarcastic mode when you wrote this.
Reply Alert moderator
Yorker:
03 Nov 2015 1:11:48pm
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer's brother Herb ask the automotive engineer to phone back and say the exact opposite of what he just said " ... oh, and his personal hygiene is above reproach" ;)
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 1:39:01pm
Dear Bev
It does sound a little like "and they are all honourable men".
I hope it was sarcasm, but on the Drum one cannot tell.
Somebody the other day thought John Pilger was a journalist and a reputable source!
Reply Alert moderator
Gordon:
03 Nov 2015 1:58:20pm
I have come to respect John Pilger for his great outreach work: keeping the Marxists huddled in draughty halls where they can do little harm.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
03 Nov 2015 5:07:42pm
I see Mungo as a commentator these days. He might have worked as a journalist back in the old days at The Australian but he took a different path from his days at The Nation Review. That is not a criticism, it takes all kinds to fill a newspaper (or equivalent).
Reply Alert moderator
Shorten Curlies:
03 Nov 2015 12:14:07pm
Typically, a leftie commentator refuses to admit some home truths:
- Labor (not the Coalition) first introduced the policy of mandatory detention, including for women and children. In fact, it was Keating who introduced that policy.
- The government's asylum seeker policy (including the policy of turning boats around) has bi-partisan support.
- By implementing the abovementioned policy, the risk of asylum seekers drowning is reduced. That's another way of saying Rudd's open-door policy directly led to the deaths of over 2,000 people at sea.
- Many so-called asylum seekers do not seek asylum in the country where they first arrive, leading to an obvious conclusion: they're really economic refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
Elvis:
03 Nov 2015 12:43:34pm
Gotta love any comment including the term "lefties". But you are right - but sides support the current regime. Which doesn't make it right. We need to take a world picture and realise that our actions in the Middle East have exacerbated the refugee problem and we have (at least) a moral responsibility to help!
Even if they are economic refugees we should welcome them just like we welcomed the Abbott's back in the day.
Reply Alert moderator
Tory Boy:
03 Nov 2015 1:09:42pm
Elvis - why should we welcome them? Have you got a number at which you would say enough is enough...a number at which you start to get concerns over the environmental impact of an ever expanding population on the driest continent on earth? Do you even care about the long-term social, economic, environmental, political, etc, implications of an open-border policy or is your response a knee-jerk, bash the right at any opportunity one?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:31:56pm
There are well established paths for economic migrants (not "economic refugees" as there is no such thing) to come to Australia, Elvis. Turning up uninvited and demanding entry is not one of them.
Reply Alert moderator
The Other John:
03 Nov 2015 5:14:07pm
Welcome them? Or force them to assimilate by asking them to value the customs of those who have come before them?
Anyone who hates this country and its values as much as Muslims appear to, will never feel "welcomed", because they do not want to be "welcomed", they are too busy hating our way of life.
Reply Alert moderator
Jungle Boy:
03 Nov 2015 1:07:42pm
Make up your mind. First you bag "lefties", then you give "Labor" the accolade for introducing the policy. The policy stinks, and if the ALP introduced it then they stink. Happy?
As for "bi-partisan support": it's also given to MP rorts, so bi-partisan support is no guarantee of good policy.
You've noted that the risk of drowning is reduced. However the costs include: the failure of justice, the risk of the survivors (including children) suffering mentally or being abused; and last but not least, the millions of dollars spent to keep them in detention.
Doubtless we'd see a similar reduction in road deaths if we started rounding up the survivors from road accidents and putting them in indefinite detention. When do you propose we start? Or does your passion for the reduction of deaths only apply if it conveniently serves to prevent foreigners getting into the country?
As for whether asylum seekers meet the requirements for asylum, it would be preferable to leave that to experts rather than to armchair commentators.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 1:34:15pm
Typical, a right wing commentator that can not see the evidence under their noses and instead attacks lefties. It shows a skilled mind to reject reality so often.
I quote: "Mandatory detention has run through the governments of Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, and has become more brutal with each successive incarnation."
See? There in black and white just a little bit up the page. Next time read the article before making a complete right wing goose of yourself.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:48:07pm
That is an article writer's opinion, GreyBags, not a fact. Just because it is written down does not turn an opinion into a fact. In order for something to be a fact it must be independently verifiable as true and not in any way based on the subjective interpretation of evidence.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 2:17:13pm
Thankfully we have Kenny available to verify whichever facts the government feels are agreeable.
And jail for anyone else.
Reply Alert moderator
Jungle Boy:
03 Nov 2015 2:43:19pm
It's great to see that you're in goose-step with Shorten Curlies.
'Shorten' claimed that the article had left out a point (it's irrelevant whether that the point is a fact or opinion). GreyBags has merely exposed 'Shorten' for jumping in without thinking, and you've followed 'Shorten'.
In any case, it was 'Shorten' who claimed the point was a fact (and by the way I think he's right on this issue). So if you dispute the fact then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 4:10:11pm
Yet another right winger who doesn't bother reading before making stupid statements. My response was to the statement that "- Labor (not the Coalition) first introduced the policy of mandatory detention, including for women and children. In fact, it was Keating who introduced that policy" and the claim the author ignored that fact.
I pointed out with a clear quote that the statement was incorrect and that Keating was mentioned first.
There is no 'subjective interpretation'. The post was clearly wrong because it ignored the clear black and white facts. My 'subjective' interpretation is that right wingers don't bother with the facts. I have evidence twice now to support my theory just here. Much more evidence regularly appears.
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 3:05:27pm
Dear Greybags
"It shows a skilled mind to reject reality so often."
Thank you for that comment.
It explains so much. There are many skilled minds at work posting to the Drum. Minds that can completely reject reality and live in a dream world where all those who claim to be refugees actually are, where there are unlimited resources available to accept all who want to come and live here, and where all of us already living here are quite happy to change our way of life to fit in with those who arrive here determined not to change anything about themselves.
PS Who is the right wing commentator? Aren't they an endangered species on the ABC? Shouldn't they be protected in some way?
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 5:33:29pm
If right wingers are so worried about asylum seekers then why to they create so many of them with stupid wars?
You break, you pay.
The lie that they are all just economic refugees is just another right wing lie to avoid paying the consequences for their own actions. The bully who blames the victim.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 6:50:02pm
During the Rudd/Gillard government the two main source countries for asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat were Iran and Sri Lanka, GreyBags. What wars did Australia participate in with regard to those countries?
Reply Alert moderator
Oneview:
03 Nov 2015 9:14:34pm
Most of your points are true.
However it is not true to state that as "Many so-called asylum seekers do not seek asylum in the country where they first arrive, leading to an obvious conclusion: they're really economic refugees." The clear majority of asylum seekers, including those coming by boat, are found to be refugees. That has been the case for many years. I strongly expect the reason the asylum claims have not been processed is because the result would be a problem for the government. Your "obvious conclusion" is incorrect.
Reply Alert moderator
the yank:
03 Nov 2015 12:15:58pm
I doubt we will see many comments showing any largesse towards these people. Tens of millions of people on the move away from poverty and oppression.
We played a part on tearing their region apart but we are not the main culprits that title belongs to centuries of hatred between religions, cultures and the occasional European invasion.
We are not going to fix this situation quickly but at the very least we can do is be honest. What I want is transparency. No more keeping our actions covered by "operational" matters. Fess up what is happening and what we are trying to do about it. Then we might actually have an adult conversation on what we as a nation are willing to do or not do.
Reply Alert moderator
Nothing To See Here:
03 Nov 2015 12:50:54pm
You have not been watching or listening over the last few years have you.
The boats have stopped.
Indonesian officials are saying that the flow of "refugees " into their country has also stopped.
The methods used have become a shining light amongst the international countries that are now becoming infested with the products of people smugglers.
Your wanting transparency will only aid people smugglers so in that respect alone you do not deserve it.
Reply Alert moderator
frank of malvern:
03 Nov 2015 5:27:32pm
The rot set in for the Middle East around 575 AD in Mecca long before any involvement from the West
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 6:54:13pm
Tens of millions of people who have elected to abandon their countries, instead of working to fix the problems within them.
We are entitled to strategic policy transparency, and we get that in abundance when it comes to asylum seekers, but we are not entitled to tactical policy transparency which can be exploited to undermine the policy. Because it is in our collective interests (i.e. the governments interests) for tactics, like paying the crew of a boat to turn back, to come as a surprise to people smugglers. If we take tax evasion as another example, we have strategic transparency (data is cross checked), and tactical opacity (the tax office doesn't disclose which data is cross checked) - for obvious reasons.
Reply Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
03 Nov 2015 12:36:24pm
Disclosure: In 2013 I placed the Liberals ahead of Labor on my ballot paper (and so contributed to their 2PP figure), and at this stage (and with more gusto) I plan to be doing the same next year. That won't stop the usual idiocy that gets flung around about being a "Leftist" and the like, but I'll mention it anyway.
I am happy that what amounted to open-slather when it came to boats pitching up has been reversed - and yes, that means the previous Labor administrations absolutely sucked in this regard, but I'm not obsessive to the extent that we throw unlimited amounts of scarce money around just to get a zero arrivals figure that is simply a millstone around this country's neck. Call it an appreciation of the law of diminishing returns if you like.
I look forward to this country not torturing (yes, that IS the word I want to use) people just for the sake of satisfying bigots. What is ongoing on these remote islands has gone well past the stage of dovetailing with on-water displays of strength, and is now both counterproductive to the nation's interests and a ridiculous waste of money - I'll leave the moral hand-wringing aspect to those more used to that approach; I prefer to talk in more prosaic terms.
I get sick of hearing it from ridiculous people who approach this issue with hate and seething and a puffed-uppedness which I'm sure anyone watching from outside would just laugh at, but that DOESN'T make me someone who "advocates an open-border policy".
Let the screaming commence...
Reply Alert moderator
Alfie:
03 Nov 2015 1:08:55pm
"...torturing (yes, that IS the word I want to use) people just for the sake of satisfying bigots."
And, your evidence to support this spurious claim is???
Then you say: "I get sick of hearing it from ridiculous people who approach this issue with hate and seething and a puffed-uppedness".
Well me too Zaky.
Reply Alert moderator
Tory Boy:
03 Nov 2015 1:11:18pm
Lots of accusations against other contributors but I see nothing that resembles suggestions for sustainable population control in your writing. I'll start the process, I believe we are already over-populated and advocate closing the borders....
Reply Alert moderator
Jungle Boy:
03 Nov 2015 2:50:46pm
"suggestions for sensible population control"
Dump baby bonuses, family tax benefits, paid parental leave, child-care subsidies, etc.
"closing the borders"
So you advocate banning tourists, imports & exports, etc.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:36:17pm
Tory boy compare us to china, Japan or just about any other country on the planet and we are less densely populated that almost every single one of them. So, your justification for "closing the borders" has no merit at all.
Having said that, I don't think we should open the borders either - nobody actually does (well maybe a couple of do)
Our permanent resettlement numbers are not the problem here. Maybe we can raise this slightly with minimal impact on our way of life. So there isn't really an argument on that front.
This is it...this is where people are getting it wrong. The crisis the world faces is all of those people who are refugees who have had to leave their homes. They are living in very poor conditions in places like Jordan and Turkey where they cannot legally work or rebuild their lives.
My proposal...bring in a new visa which allows people to temporarily come to Australia but also WORK below minimum wage for struggling regional centres, on rural properties and for remote mining projects. Its a win for our economy, a win for the refugees who get a foot in the door and a win for our consciences by doing more. I suggest that we can take 100K people this year and see how we go from there. Their visa's can reoccur each year or they can be removed if strict conditions are breached. Once their homeland has been rebuilt then maybe we don't renew their visa...or maybe they have a path they can follow and be allowed to stay.
Second idea. The companies who benefit from cheap refugee labor maybe required to pay a small percentage to a 'fund' which directly goes back to supporting UN refugee camps. Lets say a man is getting paid $5/hr then maybe $1 can be paid to this fund...the mans other option is to die of starvation somewhere else, possibly where his wife/kids are located (its an incentive for them to work here)
So again, not open borders....we just need more ideas. We are perfectly situated to trial something like this and the details shared with the rest of the world. We can be the 'feel good' hero's while also having a benefit to our economy. Closed door advocates will dismiss this and call me a dreamer...but that is the typical response from those who lack imagination.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:22:07pm
"WORK below minimum wage"
You really are living in dreamland.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 9:22:03pm
Your "solution" would be political and electoral suicide for any party that adopted it, prison. If the Labor party or the four coalition parties were to adopt it (importing 100,000 people and allowing them to be employed at wages below those which unemployed Australians could legally be employed at) as their policy then not even their own mothers would vote for them. This is not the lack of imagination, this is the application of political reality.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 5:40:58pm
You are far from alone on that position. It is Australian business that wants more people in this country, not the Australian people.
Reply Alert moderator
Nothing To See Here:
03 Nov 2015 1:15:59pm
Sounds a bit ranty ...[not a real word].
What are you really unhappy about ?
Reply Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
03 Nov 2015 2:03:26pm
I'm happy with your choice of "ranty" NTSH - you may have noticed it's a topic where "ranty" always seems to figure prominently.
As far as your actual sign-off question goes, I would have thought there was sufficient material (in what is a word-limited forum) for you to work with, but to avoid any further rantiness I'll gently and calmly re-state those "not happy" points in a more compact form;
* Ridiculous descriptors applied to people who you (not you personally) disagree with.
* Labor's shambolic handling of this matter when in government.
* Wasting money for a dubious return on investment.
* Absolutism.
* State-sponsored torture.
* Counter-productive behaviour.
* People who feel compelled to argue in moral certainties when an economic and/or productivity argument will suffice (and sway more people along the way).
* The amount of hate, bile, and irrationality which swirls around this topic.
Hope that helps.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 1:43:16pm
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Coalition hadn't blocked the Malaysian solution so they could keep using asylum seekers as a political football. The boats stopped almost immediately (tiny trickle) when that was announced and only returned with a vengeance when the Coalition blocked changes to legislation.
There is also strong evidence that it was Rudd's legislation to block asylum seekers from gaining citizenship in Australia that was the main cause of the stopping of the boats. By the time Abbott got power the boats had already severely diminished in numbers and he only had to mop up the dregs.
This says nothing about the mental and physical torture of asylum seekers by both parties but does put a dent in the constant cries that Labor had open borders and that the Coalition were completely responsible for stopping the boats. The latter needs to be filed under Coalition myths, alongside their 'superior economic management' that is not backed up by any evidence.
Reply Alert moderator
Alfie:
03 Nov 2015 4:14:54pm
"It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Coalition hadn't blocked the Malaysian solution."
Firstly, it was the High Court that blocked the so called Malaysian Solution. secondly, it was trading 800 asylum seekers for 3000 refugees. So the upshot is: it was never a "solution" and we would have been worse off.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 5:44:34pm
Selective memories there Alfie.
The historical record, including Hansard, showed that after the High Court decision Labor introduced new legislation in parliament to change the law to allow sending people to Malaysia. The Coalition opposed the amendment. In fact there is a lovely piece of vid you can find with Hockey bursting into tears at the prospect of sending asylum seekers to a brutal life in Malaysia. Such heart rendering theatre shown up now in all its falsehoods because they want to send them off to countries that are more brutal.
Every boat that arrived after their blocking of the legislation is entirely owned by them.
As for the lack of logic of your simplistic numbers game, try this quick quiz. Q: If you were going to pay money to get to Australia and you knew the first 800 people who arrived would be sent back and most likely never get to Australia, then would you get on the boat? Would you waste your money?
Reply Alert moderator
Monkey See:
03 Nov 2015 9:28:33pm
'If you were going to pay money to get to Australia and you knew the first 800 people who arrived would be sent back and most likely get to Australia, then would you get on the boat? '
'If you were going to pay money to get to Australia and you knew the government would transfer you to an island outside Aust where your asylum application would be assessed and if verified, you would spend the rest of your life there, then would you get on the boat?
Yes - and yes.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 6:01:20pm
Yep, the 800 spots would have been exhausted in under 2 months when the swap deal was first announced. And Labor was still pushing this policy as some miracle cure, when the 800 spots would have been exhausted in under 2 weeks.
More like a Malaysian Vacation than a Malaysian Solution.
Reply Alert moderator
CM:
03 Nov 2015 7:35:26pm
Zoltar, to be fair, the logic of it was that no asylum seeker would want to be among that first 800 so the boats would stop altogether. And the boats did actually slow or even stop so it looked as though it might work, until it was struck down by the High Court.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 9:25:32pm
CM, that logic can be sustained when the Malaysia Solution was first touted, but not in 2013 when 2000 people were arriving by boat a month.
And of course such an interpretation requires one to ignore other factors. Such as the lack of resolve of the Labor government on this issue, due to internal divisions. Or the stupidity of arming people smugglers with the failure condition for a policy (801 boat people, and the smugglers win).
It wasn't until July 2013 that the Labor government conceded that Howard's approach was right. I don't believe it was possible for Labor to stop the boats in 2011, period.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 9:27:38pm
At that time the 800 spots would have been exhausted in 34 days, Zoltar. What people like GreyBags seem to miss when discussing the Malaysia "Solution" is that the people smugglers were paid more than 34 days in advance, were not in the habit of giving refunds and had a well documented history of forcing asylum seekers onto boats, which is unsurprising given that the boats the asylum seekers were promised were never the ones they ended up on.
Reply Alert moderator
Tabanus:
03 Nov 2015 3:09:19pm
Dear Son of Zaky
No screaming I promise.
I think you are getting a bit worked up over nothing.
Read Chris Kenny's report on conditions on Nauru (where there is no longer a "detention camp") and you will be a lot calmer. You will know there is no torture, no cruelty.
Just a firm commitment that those who try to break into Australia will never be allowed to settle here.
That may comprise "torture" to you, but I am afraid that is the will of the Australian people. You, and the self selected arrivals, must live with it.
Reply Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
03 Nov 2015 5:20:18pm
The "will of the Australian people" (of which, if you go back to my original post, I had a part in declaring) was to "Stop the Boats". I remember this quite clearly, as there wasn't a great deal of anything else spoken about at the time that might have confused me. And as I also have said above, I was in favour of this happening.
Courtesy of on-water operations when Scott Morrison was in charge, boats appear to have stopped leaving Indonesia for here. Which - as apparently I seem to need to keep stressing this - is good.
If I want to know what is going on in my name I'd want something better than whatever slop that lap-dog Kenny dishes out. His "report" gains veracity in my eyes if this government showed the same degree of "co-operation" they did with him and allowed ANY journalist (the left-wing nuttier the better - unlike some, hearing from extremes doesn't frighten me, it helps better identify where the truth actually lies) to tell the Australian people what they find, and that it confirms Kenny's observations. Call it a "second opinion" if you like. Apparently this "right to know" stuff has something to do with a healthy democracy, or so I'm told.
With boats on the water stopped, what you call "...a firm commitment that those who try to break into Australia will never be allowed to settle here" and what I call "torture" (it comes in many forms you know) also needs to stop. Pandering to hate-filled bigots isn't in this country's national interests, nor is it an efficient use of resources (note to reffo haters - you're also supposed to be concerned about economics and budgets as I understand it).
Thank you for not screaming - please pass your secret on to some of the others here.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 3:40:26pm
There's nothing to scream about, Zacky.
You object to the camps. You object to the policies. But you don't provide any solutions apart from the ones you leave unspoken, which is do nothing and let them in. It's fair to conclude you're an open border advocate by default.
You can waffle, abuse and mock all you please. These things just create the impression that you're trying to avoid a label you've fairly earned.
Reply Alert moderator
wabunda:
03 Nov 2015 6:06:37pm
I've always enjoyed reading your responses, clear, concise, and honest, still to this day no one seems to be able to answer your fair, reasonable and sane questions.
Keep it going Zing, there are millions of us here in Australia and abroad that support you!
Reply Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
03 Nov 2015 6:31:37pm
I most warmly and sincerely congratulate you Zing. Apparently there are millions both here in Australia and abroad that read things like;
"Graazt. It's yet to be proven that we paid anyone.
And even if we did, it doesn't count as people smuggling. If you leave Indonesia and land back in Indonesia, then your captain didn't smuggle you anywhere"
as supplied by you (above), and see fairness, reasonableness and sanity. If nothing else, you've locked-up the idiot vote. If I was wearing a cap, I'd doff it. Well done.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 1:01:39pm
What can be more rational than the current policies which work in controlling migration to Australia. They are also compassionate because in deterring hopefuls, hundreds of people do not drown getting to Australia. Moreover, Australia is able to take in the most deserving of cases in refugee camps using the money saved from legal challenges, the long drawn out assessment process due to a lack of documentation and long periods in detention.
People like Mungo won't be happy until they see the boats arriving again. They will only start squealing again when the large numbers arriving threaten the whole system of social and welfare services. Then they will be saying "why doesn't the government do something about it".
Reply Alert moderator
Grant:
03 Nov 2015 1:06:01pm
So people want more unskilled, uneducated people from a culture that doesn't assimilate well into western society? People are willing to pay more taxes, see costs skyrocket and live under the fear of Islamic attacks which are sure to follow? Where is all this compassion for fellow Aussies who're homeless, long term unemployed and living under the poverty line? Where are the activists for female equality pointing out the inequities for females in this culture that those want imported?
Reply Alert moderator
frank pf malvern:
03 Nov 2015 2:43:56pm
Spot on Grant!!.
And in addition to your comments now in the last two days both NSW and Victorian Governments have separately announced they intend spending millions of dollars of our money on countering violent Islamic extremism along with de radicalisation programmes
Where does ever end?
Reply Alert moderator
Right Way Up:
03 Nov 2015 1:06:18pm
"The imputation was that if the free flow of refugees was allowed to continue, it would imperil the ethnic and cultural integrity of the entire continent."
Please state which part of this is untrue as I can't see it. Stop the boats means exactly that. I for one applaud the government's success.
"...there are plenty of alternatives, but none of them is acceptable to the Government, and probably not to a well-conditioned electorate.". A well conditioned electorate? The electorate IS the government and in a democracy the government enacts the will of the electorate. Are you saying that the electorate is only right when they are not conditioned? Or only when you agree with them?
Reply Alert moderator
A Former Lefty:
03 Nov 2015 2:25:53pm
I think its the latter, after all its Mad Mungo were dealing with here.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:42:13pm
the problem is that the quoted statement is a fear driven assumption that many people have decided is fact.
You can't prove it is true and we can't prove it isn't. So, surely the logical approach is a balanced compassionate while cautious one?
I agree with Mungo. When he says "conditioned" he means that you have been influenced by the divisions created and criminalisation of refugee's via political language used and slogans...
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:28:48pm
"You can't prove it is true"
Ask the Swedes. They admit to being worried, as do many of the small European nations. Germany plans to admit about a million people, probably none of whom speak German, and you think this will have no effect?
Reply Alert moderator
Mawson:
03 Nov 2015 1:11:37pm
I think we all have to acknowledge that as a nation we don't really want to share our riches with other people, especially people who owe no allegiance to our country; and that having a treacherous bit of water between here and Asia is a convenient moral escape for us all - it is too dangerous (FOR THEM) to come here so we should deter them from making the journey (for their own benefit).
We then have the odd spectre of having refugee "advocates" and lawyers getting blamed for deaths at sea (because it is obviously their fault for being members of a profession whose rules require independence from government) and then (for the few who made it) gag laws on doctors and a Guantanamo Bay style arrangement with Nauru designed to defeat that interfering High Court and that even more annoying Commonwealth Constitution.
I don't mind having a tough immigration policy. What I do mind is the hypocrisy of it all. We either say "we are happy to inflict harm and damage on those women and children in detention because that is the price of our policy", or we don't.
We need to have an honest argument about it all. It may very well be morally acceptable to harm a small group of people for the greater good, or even the national interest (I mean our RAAF airmen are currently killing people in Syria for our benefit and we don't argue with that). Of course if there are those people who think that it is not OK to harm those people, then we should hear their arguments and come to a decision which is based on moral, rather than on political, considerations.
Reply Alert moderator
phil:
03 Nov 2015 1:29:56pm
(I mean our RAAF airmen are currently killing people in Syria for our benefit and we don't argue with that
actually I don't know how many we have killed, but I accept we could have killed people we believe where either on their way to kill other people, or on their way back from killing them.
hopefully we can kill them on their way to behind 80 year old men who are trying to safeguard historical items from destruction.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:43:19pm
Australia is a democracy, Mawson, and so the will of the people, as shown via the political and electoral systems, must win and your, my or anyone else's morals be damned.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 4:48:46pm
Mawson, the Pacific Solution worked because we were bastards to a group of people, which stopped others from coming by boat. When the Rudd government unwound the Pacific Solution, there was a price, and that price was drownings, and a need to be bastards to a new group of people to stop the boats again. And, I should add, that these people are not being punished, they are merely being denied a reward - there is a difference; similarly, these people are not imprisoned, they are free to leave to any country which will take them - except Australia, and we will help them get there.
A majority of Australians accept that mandatory detention is a necessary evil. This moral battle has been fought and won.
As to sharing our wealth, given the high percentage of Australians who weren't born here (28%), we've been doing a lot of that.
Reply Alert moderator
Breach of peace:
03 Nov 2015 1:13:18pm
Once again we have an 'Australian politician' being dishonest. It never amazes me to the depth that they will sink in coming up with scenarios to spin to the public electorate! He constantly used his religion for morality, yet like most other politicians they are simply compulsive liars unable to tell the truth.
The secrecy instilled by the 'Border Protection' and the paying off of smugglers was the last draw by hook or crook which may have broke Australian law and has contained International law. Is this going to be covered up as well?
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 1:15:10pm
MacCallum states that "there is a recognition that the policy has to change", but provides no evidence that this is the case. His assertion seems to be based on little other than wishful thinking. The current policy suite has always been about denying Australia to asylum seekers who would seek to arrive unlawfully by boat (once again, if you do not like this fact then take it up with the High Court as it was they who made the rulings) and there is no evidence that there is any great electoral shift away from supporting that outcome.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 1:54:13pm
Reaver; Indeed, the game plan still remains deterring asylum seekers from arriving in Australia. Turnbull is only likely to make any changes when particular measures are cost ineffective. This will be difficult always to judge so it is very likely Turnbull will be reluctant to make changes in case it badly backfires (as happened under the ALP).
It is also important to put all this in a global context. Lucky refugees find a space in a UNHCR refugee camp. Those on Manus and Nauru are living in conditions superior to those in the camps. It has of course been argued that the refugees in these two islands live better than the general population. Logically if any reform is needed it might be to reduce conditions to what people receive in the refugee camps.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
03 Nov 2015 1:26:47pm
Mungo et al:
The boats are not stopping because of the Pacific solution it is because of push factors.
We can unwind the Pacific solution and the boats will not resume
OK the boats have resumed but that is because of push factors
The number of boat arrivals will never exceed our intake quota
The coalition will not be able to stop the boats
It is impossible to do tow backs
OK the boats are slowing down but that is push factors
This will upset Indonesia
OK it is working exactly as the coalition said it would but it lacks compassion.
Oh we are only taking 12,000 true refugees from Syria because our border policies are functional again.
It is time we stopped listening to people who have been dead wrong for so many years.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:50:56pm
All of that may or may not be true but I can't see your point being made.
Maybe in this confusion lies the answer? reflect on that a bit. Think outside of yourself....its not that hard.
Do you simply misunderstand where refugee advocates are coming from? Is it a lack of ability to comprehend what many of us find second nature?
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
03 Nov 2015 5:52:26pm
Many (most?) would be able to comprehend the meaning of my post as second nature.
I will try to make it simple for you. People like the writer of this article have been consistently wrong on this issue for over a decade. Never once right yet they get so much valuable space on the drum and the like.
Yet those that have been consistently right get no space on the drum and the like.
For some it appears to be second nature to keep backing those that are always wrong. I suppose like the broken clock that is going to be right twice a day there is hope of finally getting something right.
For me it is second nature to back those with a proven track record. Mungo is not one of those on this issue.
I prefer to be slightly cryptic on occasions rather than spell out the obvious in a boring fashion as you required today. Esteban is a distinctive name so it might be best to skip over some of my more cryptic stuff.
Reply Alert moderator
Esteban:
03 Nov 2015 6:10:23pm
"There is ample evidence that the TPVs, with their ban on family reunion, actually led to more women and children accompanying their husbands on the boats, with consequent loss of life. But even if they did play a part in easing the flow of boats, that was then and this is now. It has now been established that Nauru was simply a staging post for the asylum seekers. More than two thirds of those sent to island ended up in Australia anyway, and most of those who didn't were taken by New Zealand.
The people smugglers are perfectly aware of this and so are their prospective clients. Ten years ago Nauru may have been seen as a deterrent, but the trick won't work a second time. That, at least, is the view of all the experts, including the head of the Department of Immigration, Andrew Metcalfe. Nor will turning the boats around work as a threat, as was occasionally done in the Howard years and remains a plank of Abbott's platform. Indonesia simply won't wear it anymore and even to try it would bring on a diplomatic meltdown."
Mungo mcCallum July 2012.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 6:23:42pm
Esteban didn't make a fancy point. But his message was clear:
"Pro-asylum advocates have been wrong about everything in the past. And even if they were correct in the future, there is still no benefit in listening to what they think".
And it's safe to say most Australians agree.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 1:26:49pm
The fake concern for drownings is simply an excuse to be cruel. Just admit it. You would be quite happy if they crawled away and died out of sight. You care not one jot for their safety or well being.
This is paralleled with the fake concern for the impoverished of India when we demand to keep making profits from coal, a product that is destroying the planet for poor and rich alike. Just admit it. You put profits above the environment. You care not one jot for the impoverished of the world or else would not have slashed the aid budget.
I could add more, such as the crocodile tears for renters when supporting the wealthy with negative gearing that drives up the prices and keeps renters trapped with homes too expensive to buy.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 3:57:10pm
good point. All 3 issues stem from the same inability of a certain type of person to show empathy towards others.
This is a crisis for us as people....our evolution and development as a civilisation is at risk from people who could never understand, even if you spelled it out to them because they will just shout over the top of you more loudly in order to protect their 'way of life ' (aka financial benefits). What makes it worse is these people tend to be in positions of influence, because it is easier to protect their 'profits' from there, not because they genuinely care about others.
Maybe we do need to divide people? the differences seem almost irreconcilable between people with and without compassion.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:37:51pm
prison, compassion ends when your hand slips into my pocket.
Reply Alert moderator
barbara page:
03 Nov 2015 9:30:23pm
The terrible image of the drowned toddler Aylun Kurdi was published around the world initially with misleading advice that his family was fleeing from violence in Syria.
Angela Merkel responded with compassion and a knee jerk reaction; just after lecturing the Greeks during their debt crisis about the importance of obeying rules she ignored the rules implicit in the Dublin protocol and urged Hungary to wave migrants through to Germany, without processing them first.
Shortly after it was revealed Aylun's family had been livingsafely in Turkey for 3 years but his father wanted to go to a more affluent society to have his teeth fixed. Is it right to risk the lives of your family for a "better" life? Later still, 3 people on the boat claimed the father was driving the boat; he was the people smuggler.
Feelings, including those of compassion can be unreliable. It is wise to think before we act. The Syrian Archbishop of Aleppo recently rebuked the west for providing incentives for Syrians to desert their country instead of fighting for it. He advised mass desertions would create a vacuum that would be filled by ISIL.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:13:17pm
Stopping drowned asylum seekers washing up on our shores or having to be fished out of the oceans around Australia is only one of the several reasons for the policy, GreyBags. It is certainly not the only one. The main reason for the policy is to control the selection and entry of foreign nationals into Australia. The fact that Royal Australian Navy personnel are no longer pulling bloated corpses out of the water may be a fringe benefit to the aforementioned main goal, but it is a benefit and one of the goals of the policy suite.
Reply Alert moderator
GreyBags:
03 Nov 2015 6:00:48pm
Right wingers hiding behind the respect we hold for our armed forces personnel who put their lives on the line is another standard practice.
Almost all of the trauma suffered by our soldiers, sailors and airmen would be non-existent except for the policies of violent right wingers. The PTSD suffered from wars they are sent to by right wingers that are based on faulty premises or outright lies and having to deal with the victims who died, or watched people die in those war or died while they were fleeing is horrible.
How dare you use the honour of the Royal Australian Navy to cover your brutality. Stand up for yourself instead of hiding behind them or draping yourself in a flag. It is you, not Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
03 Nov 2015 6:34:03pm
I'm concerned with the drownings, Greybag.
But I'm even more concerned about the people with foolish ideologies who lure the boats in the first place. The drownings are a symptom. Opinions like theirs are the cause.
Vent about it all you like, but here is the truth: Abbott's policies have turned back the boats and saved left-wingers from their culpability in further drownings. How about some gratitude?
Reply Alert moderator
FreddyK:
03 Nov 2015 1:28:41pm
Sorry Mungo, we live in a parliamentary democracy where political parties put forward policies to the people and then get elected on the basis of those policies. The LNP
was elected with a mandate to stop the boats and that is what they have done. If the ALP is not happy I suggest that they run on the platform of opening
up the borders. If they succeed then they will have the mandate of the people and they can manage the flow of refugees. Otherwise, I suggest that bury your head in the sand
because things ain't gonna change.
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 4:01:43pm
Firstly, Abbott scraped in (based on voter numbers) and due to the situation in the senate, clearly never had a "mandate".
I don't speak for labor but I can guarantee you that there has been absolutely no proposal for open borders from anyone, even the Greens have not proposed that. This lie has been repeated a lot by the Loyal LNP fanclub but it is hysteria driven deception.
This will change....the head burying is reserved for anti-science denialist's who seem to be the same group as the anti-refugee crowd anyway. Ironic comment really.
Reply Alert moderator
damon:
03 Nov 2015 5:41:05pm
"there has been absolutely no proposal for open borders from anyone"
Then what are you actually proposing, because all of the feel-good schemes actually end up with - open borders.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
03 Nov 2015 9:10:41pm
It is equally reasonable to say that The logical end of LNP policy of closing the borders is machine-gunning asylum seekers in the water, because that is huge inevitable out one of tough at all costs. And in spite of all the BSD from the government, you are cowards who do not have the guts to admit this and address the consequences. I think this is what gets me most - the sheer blinding hypocrisy of you all.
Reply Alert moderator
steve3:
03 Nov 2015 1:30:51pm
There is no alternative to mandatory detention.
Even though far better than where they came from it is still horrible. That is why it works. That is why we do not have the current crisis that Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden have. A crisis that is rapidly becoming permanent.
Every time any other policy is used you get a flood of immigrants. Every time. No exceptions.
Mungo has learned zero from the immigration debacle of the Rudd-Gillard years. His rusted on left wing ideology is impervious to reality.
Keep writing them Mungo.
I'm sure it makes you feel better sitting down at a keyboard and poring out your angst.
And is saves you the trouble of doing anything practical about the problem.
Reply Alert moderator
Hamish:
03 Nov 2015 1:31:17pm
Why don't these journos and do-gooders admit the flood of people coming our way and in Europe are after the welfare money Oh we are a democracy. What happens when every democracy is taken over by stealth. Even welfare recipients have a vote!
Reply Alert moderator
prison:
03 Nov 2015 4:03:21pm
well it is completely your choice if you wish to be scared by the unknown, or use empathy and human compassion to take a chance on people.....
by saying "do-gooders" as a derogatory term, are we therefore supporting those who do bad?
Reply Alert moderator
purgatory:
03 Nov 2015 2:05:33pm
This morning our Immigration Minister Dutton stated the government was maintaining its tough stance towards asylum seekers as a 'matter of National Security' to protect our borders. He did not elucidate further.
Whether the persons arriving on 'leaky boats' are 'genuine' asylum seekers escaping violence, or those labelled by the government as economic migrants, none are carrying weapons to conduct an assault/attack on Australian's nor have any expressed the intention to do so. The occasional person who may come to Australia to cause mischief is hardly going to risk his/her life on a dangerous sea voyage as this would defeat the purpose of coming. Maintaining Borders against a few thousand unarmed people is not a matter of National Security but Customs policing.
The major problems caused by asylum seekers held in detention by the Australian government appear to be more been related to the extreme lengths of time taken to process claims and associated mental problems caused by this (although secrecy restrictions limit knowledge). Surely if they were processed faster, those failing refugee status, if refusing to leave, can then be incarcerated in prisons like Australian criminals until extradition can be arranged. This is not a matter of 'National Security' as it is not a threat against the whole nation.
If Minister Dutton was referring to 'standard of living', a few thousand people wanting to work (economic migrants) are hardly going to threaten National Economic Security. If he is referring to 'community safety' (?extremist violence?) by the occasional individual it is a domestic policing matter not National Security. Maybe he should explain how asylum seekers/economic migrants pose a threat to our 'National Security'.
Turnbull left Dutton as Minister for a reason, and clearly hasn't told Dutton to change the remit in place since now Treasurer, Morrison was Immigration Minister.
Turnbull does not appear as a worm for turning on this issue, as he did on SSM and an ETS to become Liberal leader.
Reply Alert moderator
Jerry Cornelius:
03 Nov 2015 7:05:30pm
He was maintaining his policy position, but I thought the visit to the refugee camp had affected him. It must certainly have put Australia's refugee arrivals in a different perspective for him.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 7:23:21pm
If someone is a terrorist or child sex offender (both have been found among asylum seekers or refugees) then why should the federal government allow it to get to a domestic policing matter, purgatory? One of the tasks of the federal government and a demand of the voters is to keep these kinds of people out of Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 7:29:51pm
purgatory: Government policy is to minimise the number of people arriving unlawfully in Australia. Offshore processing and resettlement elsewhere is simply the implementation of a policy that states no one who arrives unlawfully in Australia will be resettled in Australia.
The moment Australia resettles unlawful entrants then it is demonstrating that its current policies have ended and that all unlawful entrants are guaranteed resettlement. This will be welcome news to millions of people in war torn and impoverished nations. As just one nation not far away, Bangladesh (population 157 million) is poverty stricken with many of its citizens longing for a new life elsewhere.
Reply Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:
03 Nov 2015 2:12:21pm
Quote: ... our former prime minister admitted that his policy on asylum seekers - on stopping the boats - was never really about saving lives at sea; this was useful politically, but it was a side issue ...
Mungo, if it is not too much trouble, could you actually provide the words which constitute this claimed admission.
I only ask because your side has a bit of a habit of verballing people.
All the best.
Reply Alert moderator
Jane2:
03 Nov 2015 3:06:44pm
Lets put things in perspective here. If you lived in a town of 150 people and you had 700 people plonked on your doorstep with minimal support, how long would you be willing, let alone able, to support them?
This is what is happening in Germany at the moment. The country just physically can not handle this many people arriving at this pace. They have had over 700,000 arrive in the last 8 months! Their kids no longer have school camps as all have been taken over to house "refugees", school halls have been claimed also.
Norway today announced it is sending anyone who arrives straight back home as they can not handle it. This means even the overly generous nordic states are saying "sorry, were full".
If strong borders are not introduced I suspect we will see a rise in fascism as already people in "wealthy" nations are getting fed up with the mass migration. No nation can physically handle migration at the level we are seeing at the moment without severely impacting the living standards of its own citizens.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 7:17:50pm
Jane2: What we are currently witnessing are the limits welfare states can endure. The high levels of taxation and other revenue has enabled many nations to provide significant social and welfare benefits to their own citizens. However if a large number of unemployed refugees is hooked into this system then the numbers to sustain lead to the collapse of what are very fragile systems. Refugees simply end up loving these systems to death.
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
03 Nov 2015 3:09:56pm
As usual Tony was delivering his Nonsense Lecture to an audience of conservative mates but I really, really want to see Turnbull to stand up against such people in this country.... First step is to get rid of Dutton, then completely review the Coalition policy on asylum seekers, modifying it towards the more humanitarian side of the spectrum.....
When will that happen?..... ZZZzzz ...wake me up when it does!
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 5:14:22pm
Alpo , I want you , yes you and all that think like you to open your home to a family of asylum seekers , yes a family , I want you to keep them , feed and take care of them until they can stand alone for themselves and then do it again and again , be the humanitarian you cry for , it's your turn to put up your hand and ALL that agree with you . Start a list of the progressives here who will be willing to it.
Reply Alert moderator
Jerry Cornelius:
03 Nov 2015 6:16:30pm
Himself, the government provides almost no support for certain classes of immigrants and thousands of generous Australians provide accomodation, household goods, English language training and generally assist thousands of refugees in their first year or two to integrate into Australian society.
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 7:19:26pm
Jerry , yup , so my asking all those who support a bigger influx of immigrants , refugees on humanitarian grounds to put up or shut up , house them , as other generous Aussies do , do all the things you have mentioned , no politics , no name calling , just get in and do it , progressives it's time to be progressive .
Reply Alert moderator
Jerry Cornelius:
03 Nov 2015 8:17:51pm
I can't disagree with any of that. People who think we can keep increasing our influx of immigrants forever should explain where all the houses are going to come from and stop name calling and politics. I would point out though that the influx of immigrants is about 120,000 per year while there are only a few thousand refugees detained offshore that managed to get here by boat over the past five or six years. And even in a bad year we only ever had s few thousand turn up so it didn't make a big difference to the overall influx or housing.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 6:25:26pm
Rudd and Gillard modified Labor policy "towards the more humanitarian side of the spectrum", Alpo. How do you think that worked out for them?
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 7:08:58pm
Alpo, at least you are a realist. The pragmatic electorate know what is best for themselves What you suggest will never happen. The electorate fully understand that the current policy works for them. For those opposed to those policies then the only honest response is to vote Greens. Oddly enough the policy of the Greens which will enable millions to migrate to Australia will largely benefit the well to do with cheap labour, the demise of regulated wage rates and the end of welfare payments.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 3:25:58pm
There are 3 main problems with rewarding people for arriving by boat:
1. people drown;
2. countries have no control over the number; and
3. countries have no control over their composition.
We know people drown, and in significant number. Dismantling the Pacific Solution cost more than 1200 lives. Many more are dying crossing into Europe.
Greece saw 48,000 people arrive by boat in 5 days. If this were sustained, it would be 3.5 million migrants a year, to just one European entry point. This is a staggering number. This is what happens when people get rewarded for making the crossing, and when there are no deterrents, like mandatory detention,. Numbers just snowball, because the supply is unlimited, and because the more friends and family who have migrated, the greater the pull factor.
Countries have no control over the racial composition of those arriving by boat. Countries have no control over the cultural composition of those arriving by boat, or their willingness to assimilate. And, countries have no control over the gender, demographics, or health of those arriving by boat. Those headed to Europe by boat are 73% male. Those headed to Australia by boat during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years were 87% male.
Arguments can be made for racial and cultural blindness when it comes to humanitarian charity. But, directing humanitarian charity at a stream which rewards 3 times as many males as females, as Europe is doing, or at 7 times as many males as females, as Australia did, is much harder to justify. There are fairer alternatives. But deterrents which stop the boats are needed in order to enact them. This is the reality.
Reply Alert moderator
KG:
03 Nov 2015 3:59:47pm
W.A will be receiving 1,000 refugee families. And all of them have been found a house to live in. Can someone please also really quickly find 1,000 houses for the current homeless who are probably not having a great life either and have been on years long waiting lists.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:27:31pm
Talk of humbug and sanctimonious humbug at that, it seems Mungo has got confused over where the cart and horse should be even if carts are not being toted around at Flemington.
Blind Freddy would know that controlling border entries does a number of things and eliminating a product for people smugglers to market does mean a lot less people would be risking their lives at sea if not losing them.
Certainly having control of borders is and has always been the primary goal, saving lives at sea being one of the benefits and no doubt a most important one.
Reply Alert moderator
Eric Quang:
03 Nov 2015 4:29:44pm
It is self evident that the asylum and their supporters don't have a problem, they are the problem who should all be deported asp because of their trouble making attitudes which includes their desire to sponge off the Australian tax payer.
Reply Alert moderator
Grey:
03 Nov 2015 4:32:10pm
" Abbott as the exception; after all, he is a Pom "
Is the hatred for Tony Abbott so extreme within the ABC that an article author is even allowed to submit an article with untruths?
Reply Alert moderator
Himself:
03 Nov 2015 4:49:47pm
After all he is Pom , what else would you expect , mungo writes , says it all really doesn't it , how sad is this person.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 5:19:13pm
The conspiracy theory that Abbott is a secret dual-citizen seems to be a pet obsession among the asylum seeker advocate crowd, Grey. I personally have no objection to them putting this conspiracy theory in the articles and other propaganda that they write as few people (other than their follow theory believers) give much credibility to people who believe these theories. Some others may want these kinds of claims stopped (you would appear to fall into that category), but I fully support them undermining themselves in this way.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
03 Nov 2015 5:19:38pm
Untruth is mandatory at the ABC, and enabled by oppressive censorship.
Racism is also acceptable, but only as long as it's Anglophobic or anti-Australian.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
03 Nov 2015 7:32:20pm
Allowed?
It's mandatory.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 4:41:00pm
Mungo's comments would make a lot of sense if the following assumptions were valid: only a small and finite number of people will make a boat journey to Australia; and, most of those coming will be able to find employment or set up businesses. Evidence however is lacking to support either assumption. Evidence is however there to support the contrary of these assumptions. The huge waves entering Europe not to mention our experience when the ALP lifted deterrents demonstrate that increasing numbers will come when deterrents are put in place. Research into employment also demonstrates that refugees with little English and skills will have significant difficulties, compounded if there are large numbers.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 5:06:22pm
So many here demand evidence of impropriety, despite being aware that the provision of same can get you in very hot water.
That the government was more transparent under Howard, who got the same results, doesn't seem to give pause for thought to the false dichotomy crowd.
For people who purport to champion press freedom, allowing one journo in there in two years draws no ire whatsoever.
It's hypocrisy.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 7:46:23pm
How many journalists applied to travel to Nauru and were rejected? According to Radio New Zealand, no journalist applied to travel to Nauru in 2014, from any country.
Reply Alert moderator
graazt:
03 Nov 2015 9:26:06pm
What, after Nauru set the record for the world's most expensive visa on January the 8th of that year?
Non-refundable for rejected applications at that.
How many applied in 2015?
What's your point?
Reply Alert moderator
GMGM:
03 Nov 2015 5:16:30pm
The left would rather kill people (deaths at sea) than admit that they are wrong.
Reply Alert moderator
Geoff:
03 Nov 2015 5:35:07pm
Think about it: if Labor hadn't had an 'open door' policy, there wouldn't be asylum seekers or the subsequent detention centres. Under the current policy put in place by Tony Abbott, the centres have been a roaring success in turning off the tap of illegal immigrants. Detention centres are not supposed to be holiday camps.They are there to deter. Don't forget, Australia is second to none in taking on displaced peoples on a pro-rata base. We do more than our fair share. It's the mobile phone traffic back from detention camps to asylum seeking relatives and friends which stop the boats. Go Australia! You are a world leader in this arena. Agree?
Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:
03 Nov 2015 7:30:58pm
Think about it: Labor NEVER had an "open door policy", neither are they considering introducing it in the future....
What they are planning, however, is to double our annual intake of refugees if elected, increase our financial contribution to the UNHCR and engage in a regional coordination to address the issue of asylum seekers. Please provide your criticism of those policies.
As for Abbott's policies, they have been a total disaster: closing our borders to asylum seekers coming by boat just diverts them somewhere else. A dead person on your doorstep is as dead as a dead person out of sight. Asylum seekers are a problem that needs an international solution: closing your eyes, covering your ears and shouting lalalala does not help.
Reply Alert moderator
reaver:
03 Nov 2015 8:13:02pm
Certainly, Alpo.
The current number of resettlement places is determined by the available resources, things like specialist medical services such as torture counselling services. There is no evidence that Labor has provided for any increase in these resources to go along with their increase in the resettlement numbers. The same can, of course, be said of the current government's decision to take an extra 12,000 Syrians refugees.
Australia already wastes vast amounts of money by giving it to ineffectual United Nations bodies. Why throw more good money after the bad?
Any future "regional coordination to address the issue of asylum seekers" will have the same result as every other time that it has been attempted- the other "regional partners" having no intention of resettling any refugees and expecting Australia to resettle them all.
Reply Alert moderator
Coogara:
03 Nov 2015 8:18:24pm
Alpo: Regional coordination is little more than rhetoric. ASEAN nations for example have an agreement about the elimination of haze from forest fires. At the moment we have had the worst haze in history, killing many, closing schools and airports across Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The best regional advice came from SBY -"ada gula ada semut" - very roughly applied means -if you entice people then they will come.
As for diverting, it is up to other nations to police their own borders. If in the case of Germany which opened up its borders , thousands died then they have to bear that responsibility.
Reply Alert moderator
Zoltar:
03 Nov 2015 8:24:11pm
Or in other words:
Labor is planning to double Australia's annual intake of refugees, and to increase our financial contribution to the UNHCR, both of which will be paid for with debt, that our children will repay, by being less profligate at throwing money at foreigners than we have been. Not content with this intergenerational theft of compassion, Labor will engage in a regional solution for asylum seekers, which will see Australia own not just its own asylum seeker influx, but the influx of other countries as well.
Reply Alert moderator
Peter:
03 Nov 2015 9:24:08pm
No.
Reply Alert moderator
steve kanthan:
03 Nov 2015 7:41:15pm
To win cheap political points, Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton with the support of the thugs in labour party are punishing the innocent refugee victims. If we do not afford the same rights as we had to come to this country, to those refugees that came by boat or any other means, we should abandon the refugee convention and withdraw our commitment to meet this convention requirements.
Locking up refugees are not about saving lives in high seas. It is about racing to the gutters to immersing itself in sh** so that political points can be scored to be popular. It started with Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and finished off with Tony Abbott. Unfortunately, the Australian population at large has been brain washed in thinking these refugees are criminals.
The bigger issue as to why this refugee crisis is happening needs an in depth discussion. I have written previously and ask them to have a "Drum" discussion on the topic.
I came from a war torn country and made my living in Australia. I know why and what causes these refugee problems. It should be understood by the West that Democracy applies only to rich western nations. DEMOCRACY DOES NOT APPLY TO POORER NATIONS. WEST SHOULD PULL THEIR FINGERS OUT AND GET OUT OF THOSE COUNTRIES.
So West should stop this concept of regime change and bring democracy to tribal countries. The day the West stop meddling in countries other than theirs, the peace will return and there will be no more refugees.
Reply Alert moderator
Red:
03 Nov 2015 7:46:00pm
'...thus the government is redoubling to its efforts to get them out of the way. Cambodia, the Philippines, Kyrgyzstan - anywhere, as long as they are out of the immediate neighbourhood.'
If all these asylum seekers are seeking is escape from a well founder fear of persecution, then what's wrong with send them to these countries? Sure their unemployment welfare systems are not as robust, but they will not suffer the persecution they claim to be fleeing. Are you saying, Mungo, that these societies could not cope with new found diversity? But Australians are constantly told diversity is great for their nation.
And, in the case of Kyrgyzstan, Muslim refugees will not be required to assimilate with infidels.
Reply Alert moderator
Batch:
03 Nov 2015 8:04:11pm
Love your work, Mungo, and thanks for reminding us about this appalling matter and the hope that the regime change might bring.
It's funny that as I read your hopeful account, I must scroll past a portrait of Dame Edna, advertising Tim Mayfield's opinion piece: Goodbye knights, hello possums. Goodbye, I hope: a sad, inhumane and seemingly savage system that's moved to the Edna-like sublime and ridiculous.
We have a counterproductive, secretive, expensive, cruel, inhumane and just plain stupid edifice - grown and tinkered with over many years. Something new and innovative must be done now; right now.
Reply Alert moderator
VoterBentleigh:
03 Nov 2015 8:52:45pm
As you say, Mungo, Mr Abbott's speech showed the hidden agenda behind the his policy. Not one member of the Coalition has come out and condemned Mr Abbott's comments (some have openly praised him),which means there will be no change under Mr Turnbull, since the consenting silence clearly indicates that the Coalition policy is to prevent what it perceives as the destruction of the privileged, developed, "Western civilisation" by the "non-Western" world.
If Australia really wants to persuade others that it has a political and cultural system and civilizing values that are worth preserving, then perhaps the best way to persuade others of this is to treat people of other nations, especially those who seek our assistance, with a modicum of human decency.
Reply Alert moderator
Steve:
03 Nov 2015 9:11:34pm
They are not "asking for assistance". If I decide to ask a foreign government for assistance I would send them a letter and wait for response. In fact this is how I came to Australia - I filled out an application for visa and mailed it to Australian consulate.
No, these people are invading Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Add a comment.
Please read the House Rules, FAQ and ABC Online Terms of Use before submitting your comment.