Two boats carrying asylum seekers have capsized on their way to Australia in a week. Around 90 people have drowned; adding to the distressing total of those who have lost their lives trying to reach our country over the past decade.
Yesterday the House of Representatives debated a Bill moved by Independent MP Rob Oakshott. If passed, it would enable Australia to once again process asylum seekers offshore and give the Immigration Minister power to decide where those offshore processing facilities will be.
Yesterday, parliament was a somber place and there were moments where we saw the very best aspects of our elected representatives on display.
There were impressive and moving speeches from both sides of the isle. Parliamentarians were compassionate, obviously distressed at the plight of those who have lost their lives and visibly anxious to see a resolution. As the Prime Minister said – the eyes of the nation were on the Parliament yesterday and its members clearly wanted to live up to those expectations.
They still might. But it is looking increasingly unlikely.
The Bill has now passed the lower house but is set for defeat in the Senate today. Some concessions and efforts to negotiate have been made by the Government, but so far they have not been enough to win the support of either Greens or the Opposition. And without that support – the last 24 hours of debate, however well meaning, will amount to nothing.
Parliamentary and community consensus is that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. Too many lives have been lost already – but so far Labor, the Coalition and the Greens have not been able to find enough common ground to move the country forward.
JULIA Gillard has made a last ditch plea for senators to pass a bill to allow offshore processing, amid another possible asylum boat drama off the coast of Indonesia.
But the upper house of parliament is set to scuttle the bill today, with the Coalition and the Greens refusing to back the bill that would allow the government’s Malaysia Solution.
“I don’t care if someone sitting in the Senate is from the Greens, Nationals or the Coalition,” the Prime Minister told the Seven Network.
“I don’t care if they are pink, red, blue, whatever. I care whether people are acting in their conscience – I care if they are acting to stop people drowning at sea.
“The bill before the Senate today is a genuine compromise and it is the only bill that can pass today.”
Here’s what some people are saying about the debate:
If you need a re-cap on where everyone stands, earlier this week Mamamia broke down the basic positions of each party:
Where do each of the parties stand?
The Labor Government announced last year that they had struck a deal with Malaysia, where Australia would send 800 asylum seekers who arrive on unauthorised boats to be processed in Malaysia and that in return Australia would accept 4000 people who had already assessed as legitimate refugees, from Malaysia.
Tony Abbott’s Opposition claims that the Malaysia idea will not be a sufficient deterrent to people risking their lives on boats. They have adopted Labor’s previous position (a position Labor has since walked away from) that Australia should not send asylum seekers for processing in a country that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. The Coalition’s policy is to re-open the detention centre on Nauru that operated under the Howard Government.
The Greens are dead set against offshore processing, no matter where it takes place. They want all asylum seekers who come to Australia to be processed and assessed on our own territory.
But the Government is the Government, why can’t they implement their own policy?
A High Court decision last year invalidated existing legislation that permitted offshore processing. For the Government to fully implement their Malaysia plan, they need to legislate around that High Court decision – so that offshore processing is an option again.
The problem is, the Coalition (while supporting the principle of offshore processing), do not support the Malaysia solution and as a result they refuse to support the Government’s efforts to legislate in the Parliament. The Government can’t look elsewhere for support because ultimately the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate and oppose offshore processing full stop.
How is offshore processing going to stop people risking their lives on boats anyway?
This is where we leave the comfortable realm of fact and re-enter the murky world of discussion and debate. There are a range of views that exist about offshore processing and its merits. At the very least, we can say that proponents of offshore processing (both the Government and the Opposition) claim it deters people from traveling to Australia without authorisation, in order to seek asylum.
To borrow the words of the Prime Minister, it is about ‘breaking the business model’ of people smugglers. If the product being ‘sold’ is “seeking asylum when physically in Australia gives you a better chance of being granted that asylum” – that is undermined if Australia won’t consider your application onshore.
What do you think should happen next? Should the Government offer more concessions to the Opposition, to try and win their support for this Bill? Should the Coalition be more willing to negotiate given that ultimately, they do support offshore processing? Is offshore processing the answer?
Comments
114 Comments so far
After having put much thought into the boat people issue . I believe there is an easy solution , which would be of great benefit to our country . I propose we implement an exchange policy .For every boat person that attempts to enter our country illegally.In return we should send them an aboriginal . I feel it would envoke an immediate reaction from the Indonesian government . It would make them accountable and they ensure no more boats left their shore . I doubt the Indonesians would agree but its definately my idea of FAIR TRADING !!!!
loading...
Oh Steven, I don’t think you put much thought into that at all.
loading...
I am an immigrant. Why are the illegal immigrants more important than my friends who are hard working irish immigrants who wish to settle in australia, they have a proven work history . Why should I accept people who have gold chains which represent wealth in many countries ,and have lost their documents .yeh rght . So many peaple in Australia today are pissed off with these people, the only people that are repressed in Aust are anglo aussies
loading...
This my take on the issue: http://visual.ly/australias-boat-people
loading...
Some suggestions:
1. No passport, no refugee status. Anyone coming here from Indonesia must have had a passport as you can’t get on a plane without it but they tend to get lost at sea as it’s much harder to assess claims without genuine proof of identify. For instance, it’s very easy without a passport to claim to be an Afghan when you are really Pakistani and fleeing from a crap economic situation rather than being persecuted in Afghanisan for being Hazari.
2. No social security – you get a bed in a migrant hostel and meals and that’s it so the only way you can make money here is to get a job.
3. Temporary protection visas – if you are a refugee you get to stay here for as long as your home country is unsafe but once things improve (and they do in many cases) you are back home again and don’t get to bring your family out.
Or if all we are really worried about is deaths at sea rather than controlling who comes into the country, why not charter jets in Indonesia and fly people here direct? It wouldn’t cost all that much and would reduce the number of deaths to zero.
As long as Australia is seen as somewhere that will let you in with a very low rejection rate, give you generous social security and let your family join you, then tens of millions of people will rightly see us as their best chance of a much better life and come here. And hundreds will die getting here.
loading...
Wow. Yeah, because if you’re fleeing a war torn country at the last minute you probably have all your documents in order and packed in your lovely briefcase ready to board the leaky boat. And I’m sure there are just jobs coming out of the ears of every small suburb the refugees are relocated to. Amazingly short sighted, Guest. Look into the issue further and try to put themselves in their shoes.
loading...
Jen – yes, I do think that it IS possible, in the vast majority of cases, to have the foresight to have your passport or other identity documents handy if you’re living in uncertainty and considering fleeing. I think you’re the one being amazingly naive to be honest. At least Guest is making some valid suggestions.
loading...
“in the vast majority of cases”
What is your source for this?
loading...
I thought I dealt with this before but just to make it clear: in most cases they are coming from Indonesia. It is not possible to get to Indonesia by land (in fact you can’t get further than India by land) therefore they have at some stage flown. I don’t know if you have ever boarded an international flight but I can assure you that it is not possible without a passport. It’s not a matter of being organised but due to airline regulations. If you doubt me, at some stage travel overseas by plane and turn up at the airport without a passport and see how you go getting on the flight.
But somewhow between Indonesia and Australia the passports disappear. But this is not just my theory, it’s documented fact that the people smugglers advise them either to leave their passports in Indonesia or to drop them overboard before they get to Australia.
loading...
wow you are brave for saying this. unless you’re ” pro refugees” , you automatically get scolded for being heartless on this site. I’ve given up trying.
loading...
My 11-year-old reminded me of these lines in our national anthem when we were discussing the asylum seeker issue:
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
Of COURSE, it’s more complicated than this. But it gave me food for thought.
loading...
I think your 11 year old should be our PM!
loading...
This article is a definite worthwhile read…http://t.co/u7hgOuv
loading...
I would make our pollies forgo their 6 week holiday and actually do some problem solving and work this out sensibly.
loading...
Firstly I’d get rid of Christmas Island, it’s too close to the Indonesia coastline and is a magnet to the people smugglers. Darwin is quite a but further on and one would think that the extra distance involved would deter the boats from avoiding Christmas Island to make for the Australian coastline.
I’m sure that the Americans would take it off our hands in a heartbeat, it would be an ideal location for an American base so they can keep their eyes on China and the Asia subcontinent.
Then the boat people who turn up will be America’s problem, they can arrange their passage to the American mainland.
What good is Christmas Island to Australia, it just causes us problems.
loading...
People are obviously willing to invest considerable time and risk into coming to our country using people smugglers. Is it possible for us to undercut the smuggler’s business model?
I have a plan:
Have contact points in the countries from where the boats usually launch, providing a refugee status assessment for a very low price.
If the refugees are deemed acceptable (as the vast majority are) then fly them in
Give them a HECS style loan for their ticket and maybe their first year’s housing, if necessary. They can pay it back when they start earning. Or we can foot the bill, as a gift of good faith and to encourage affection towards their new home.
Advertise the hell out of our new plan. Make sure the people smugglers are seen as a foolish, dangerous, expensive choice.
If there is a safer, cheaper option, hopefully the people smugglers will be forced out of business.
I take the second verse of the National Anthem very seriously. “For those who’ve come across the sea, we’ve boundless plains to share.” I have been to Afghanistan. I’ve seen the conditions in some of the harshest areas. If any one of the people I met there wanted to come here, to work and live and make a better life for them and their family, then I welcome them with open arms. It is just an accident of birth that our roles are not reversed.
loading...
I to have visited some of the worlds poorer areas that is why I do not wish to become a third world country in australia, this will happen if we allow the pollies to dictate out outcome
loading...
Stop taking so long to process claims for a start. Why does it need to be such an expensive protracted process? If the New Zealand Government was able to process all of the refugees from the Tampa within six months then why on earth does the Australian Govt need years to do pretty much the same thing. And while I am at it, its pretty hypocritical of the Opposition to be banging on about Malaysia not being a signatory to the convention when its obviously more than happy that unaccompanied children are being held in immigration camps in Australia,surely thats not acceptable to any refugee convention anywhere.
loading...
Oops typo. Of course NZ didnt take all the refugees from the Tampa. I meant to say its quota!
loading...
If they are not from Australia then they shouldn’t be allowed into Australia unless they legally apply for a visa.
loading...
It is legal to seek asylum.
All asylum seekers DO apply for a visa – some before they get here and some when they reach our shores.
Once again, it is not illegal to seek asylum. (Sorry for the repetition, but many people fail to understand this basic point.)
loading...
Not sure what the solution is but wouldn’t mind a few facts being a bit more public… stuff along the lines of:
* There are about 120,000 people who immigrate to Australia each year (give / take 10,000 or so) of which about 12,000 are refugees.
* The biggest group of people in Australia illegally / past visas are western European backpackers (Poms, Irish, Dutch etc)
* The spike in immigration a few years ago when the numbers got up to 300,000 or so also included very large numbers of Australians who had been out of the country for more than 12 months and were hence counted as emmegrating on the way out and immigrants on the way back in. There were a lot of professionals who came home from placed like Dubai, New York, London etc as a result of GFC. This number also had a lot of people who were here for more than 12 months on 457 work visas – again as they were here for more than 12 months they get counted in immigration numbers. The ‘real’ immigrants peaked at about 130,000 as part of this number of 300,000 or so. My source for this is a presentation I was at give by Bernard Salt.
* For a ‘Government to Govern’ under a Westminster system they need to have be able to survive a ‘No Confidence Motion’ on the floor of the House of Representatives. So far there has not even been the numbers to put such a test to a vote – let alone have it voted on. It is quite rare in Australia for a Government to also have full control of the Senate without needing the minor parties to support their proposed laws. John Howard had this in his last term and was prob the biggest reason he was able to bring in Work Choices… also the biggest reason for his loss.
* It is common enough for a government to have legislation fail to pass in the Senate. So common in fact that one of the reasons for an election to be held early is when a law that has passed the House of Reps twice also twice fails to pass in the Senate – this allows the PM to ask the GG to dissolve both house and for an election to held
* Remember you, me and all of us voted in both the House of Reps and the Senate we currently have. This how we dealt out our votes and the result of which Tony Abbot said he would ‘Sell his arse’ to form a Government – seem no one wanted to buy it!
* Can someone please tell me if we have processing back in Nauru…. what happens once these guys are processed? At the moment about 80-90% of the people going to Christmas Island are found to be refugees…. so then what? To me its Christmas Island in another place.
* The concept behind Malaysia is that we send 800 people there… take 4000 in return who have already found to be refugees… looking at those 800 they will never be allowed to enter Australia under the arrangement. SOOO what you need is for 800 people sitting in Indonesia knowing this to be the case willing to pay out their money, get on a boat knowing they will be taken to Malaysia and never given the opportunity to get here.
* Yes, Howards policies did work at the time but I think that time has passed now – things do move on. We can also go back to a fixed currency, huge tarrifs on imports and shops closed on Sundays as well I guess.
* Libs are hanging their hat on the Refugee Convention… with Nauru only signed last year but it was OK to send people there under Howard…. offshore processing is against the Convention and by the way… .by the Libs logic they would not be willing to send boat people to to the USA as they haven’t signed it either.
* In my professional life I used a lawyer named Vinh… he was mid 30′s and came to Australia on a boat in the 70′s… not speaking a word of English but got into law at Melb Uni about 11 years after arriving…. a guy working on my house is Ayob, an Afgan who came here on a boat about 8 years ago… via Nauru. If even half of the guys who get here by boat are anything like Vinh and Ayob, quite frankly we need them.
* So we take about 12,000 refugees per year…. 8 years to fill the MCG – a stadium that when full empties in about 15 minutes or so.
loading...
Big Fella, this is the point I was attempting to make earlier, but in doing so was branded a racist and an “ignorant bigot”. 80-90% of the boat arrivals on Nauru were found to be refugees. So 10-20% were found not to be refugees. This is simply what I was trying to say before, that not every arrival is genuine. That is why we have a screening process. Many people involved in this debate start with the attitude that every single one of the arrivals is a refugee and should just be let in straight away. This is all I am saying.
loading...
Lisa – I haven’t read all the way down yet and when I do I will go and recheck the statistics on how many asylum seekers at Nauru were recognised as genuine refugees. I have tried to base everything that I have said on official statistics of the UNHCR and other reputable sources and if I’ve made a mistake I’m more than happy to correct and clarify.
You can surely agree that even at 80-90% being found to be genuine refugees – well that is the vast majority wouldn’t you say? And yes, a very comprehensive and robust screening process exists based on the very clear definitions of what it takes to be assessed as a refugee (i.e. in fear of death/persecution not simply because they had a hard or bad life etc..) So when that screening process shows the vast majority of asylum seekers that were DETAINED IN HORRENDOUS CONDITIONS in Nauru (and sorry to be shouty and type in capitals but its so this point isn’t missed, because another whole story is what the conditions in Nauru were like and for how long people suffered them under our watch.. moving on..) then surely it seems counterproductive, wasteful and inhumane to insist on it.
I do want to say one thing though – I am exposed to many that are seeking asylum (mostly plane arrivals though) and you are very right in saying that every arrival is NOT a genuine refugee. Dare I say I have met many that I could easily call economic migrants and surprisingly these people’s applications are rejected and most have to return. However, there are thousands more who ARE, pure and simple – they come from many different backgrounds and seek asylum here because that’s the only ‘choice’ available to them. So, no I don’t agree that every single asylum seeker is a refugee, I don’t agree that every person who seeks asylum should be granted refugee status and will leave it to the very robust process and clear guidelines to decide on this. But in no way can we use that as a basis for arguing this issue of how to respond to the regional and global issue of asylum seekers. Its simply a diversion from the real debate and also seeks to vilify the 80-90% you stated yourself to bring in the question of the small minority who are not genuine.
loading...
I’ve actually heard a percentage much lower than the 80-90% mentioned. Something around 40%. There are of course lies, damn lies and statistics, which can be manipulated anyway you like. At the end of the day if the 80-90% was correct, its still 80-90% of people who have put their lives at risk, to keep the indonesians happy and some incredibly rich.
The boats need to be stopped, simple as that. But processing of genuine asylum seekers needs to be made a whole more accessible.
We also need to remember there are people in refugee camps all around the world who would kill for the chance at the life they could live here. At the end of the day this arguement should not be about accepting refugees, it should be about the way they get here.
I also think Joe Hockey should be the spokes person on this issue for the opposition- he seems to actually give a shit about the people and not the politices- for him they luckily seem to align though I will admit.
loading...
Yes, you should have read all the way down. At no point have I villified the approved asylum seekers!
loading...
“Many people involved in this debate start with the attitude that every single one of the arrivals is a refugee and should just be let in straight away.”
I’ve read most of the comments here and I always follow any story on refugees posted on this site. I cannot remember one single comment where the poster was saying, “Let every single asylum seeker in without checking them.” What is being debated here is the process by which this is done and the location in which it will occur.
Lisa, you have complained loudly on this thread about being called racist and a bigot and I agree that name calling is not helpful. However when you use large generalisations like “these boat people” and then go on to brand the whole group as selfish and arrogant, you do leave yourself open to criticism.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but don’t expect people to take you seriously if you continue to make big generalisations with no facts to back up your assertions.
loading...
when I mentioned that some may be coming here for financial reasons, I was immediately shut down and told I needed to get some compassion. I have compassion for genuine refugees, but I also believe many come here purely for economic reasons . This is of course my opinion, which I am entitled to.
loading...
Great article. Thanks for the information and starting an interesting, worthwhile debate! Good to see some well informed, articulate MM commentators posting great comments too (Jemie etc).
loading...
I don’t know what the solution is but GetUp! is running a petition to get the government to agree to take in more refugees.
“Currently, Australia makes available a very small number of humanitarian visas through official channels in our region. In the 10 months to April this year, Australia granted only 97 refugee visas out of Indonesia. A further 1126 were made available through processing centres in Malaysia, but 95% of those went to Burmese refugees. So for those fleeing other troubled countries, including Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, their chances of receiving refuge are slim. Many are left with little choice but to risk their lives on leaky boats.
That’s why incrementally doubling Australia’s intake of UN-approved refugees, particularly from countries in our region–like Indonesia and Malaysia–will help make the business model of people smugglers redundant.”
I have signed the petition which you can find here:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/refugees/new-solution/a-new-approach
loading...
The Howard policies worked. When they were changed we got the current disaster. Any fool can see that the simple solution is to reinstate the previous policy exactly as it was. Simple. Why won’t it happen? Only because of the arrogance of this failed Prime Minister who should be utterly ashamed.
loading...
First point. I am not a fool.
Second. Nor are half the commentators that are busy pointing out (with fact and evidence) that the Howard solution was a product of its time. And that time has past.
Thirdly. Maybe I am arrogant but I have never found an insult a compelling argument designed to change my mind.
loading...
I stand corrected….
loading...
Yes it’s like Siev X never happened and history shows that the Pacific Solution was such a resounding success. Sigh.
loading...
I know the Greens are being lambasted for being obstructonist but their amendments in the Senate today are very practical and pragmatic.
However, I think the best solution will be a bipartisan approach – similar to after the Vietnam War. Set up & fund processing centres in Indonesia & Malaysia (there are only small cohort of UNHCR officers processing crazy numbers of claims) and increase our intake. This will save lives. It has in the past.
If Australia had not increase refugee intake and provided extra funding for a better resourced UNHCR with greater transparency THEN more Vietnamese refugees would have gotten on boats to make that journey to Australia leading to unnecessary deaths. Why Australia cannot come to the same bipartisan solution, in what is a very similar situation with Afghani refugees, is beyond me. It is truly depressing that we had a smarter, more humane, progressive and effective strategy 30 years ago.
loading...
One thing I know is as distasteful as off shore processing is it is better then hundreds of people drowning in rickety boats.
The Malaysia solution may sound mean but if it stops people jumping on rickety boats I think it is a plus. Australia is too isolated to make this option a good one. No point comparing to Europe as we are isolated by treacherous seas. the point is to stop people arriving at all via boat so the process with be more of a ideology the real practice. Why arrive by boat if you know you will be rejected? Planes people. They are much safer.
Now increasing refugee intake in general sounds great. Better support and more humane conditions sound great
loading...
I hate the idea of off shore processing and wish that we as a nation could have some more compassion for our fellow human beings. Let’s be less short sighted and look at the potential contribution these people can make to our society in the future. I work with doctors of Vietnamese origin whose parents were ‘boat people’ , they boarded those boats to give their families a better life and they worked hard when they got here doing menial work so their kids would have a future. I feel lucky to have been born in Australia and to never know the circumstance that would make me feel like paying all that I had and getting on a leaky boat was the only option for a life for my family that I had. I cannot fathom needing to make a decision like that from the comfort of my first world life.
loading...
I’ve been doing a little research into the history of this issue in Australia and this is what I found.
In the late 1970′s the government estimated 5600 Vietnamese refugees were emigrating every month. During the 1977 federal election campaign, six boats carrying Vietnamese asylum seekers arrived in one day.
After re-election, the Fraser government changed its refugee policy. (This was partly due to international pressures from America & other countries). By increasing the formal refugee program desperate asylum seekers were dissuaded from taking to rickety fishing boats in an attempt to reach Australia. This policy – increasing the refugee intake to reduce unauthorised immigration – was effective.
While prior governments had dismantled the White Australia Policy, it was under the Fraser Government that immigration became multiracial. Some 200,000 Asian migrants came to Australia between 1975 and 1982 – of whom 56,000 were Vietnamese refugees, among them around 2000 “boatpeople” who arrived without documents via sea voyages. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was created and extensive assistance given to resettlement and multiculturalism.
The Vietnamese refugees have integrated very well into our country, so I think this is an excellent model and is a proven method we have used in the past.
If we care about saving lives this is the answer IMHO (in my humble opinion).
loading...
We can not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about human beings…Malaysia is not the answer, we cannot send people to a country that is not in their minds answerable to anyones humane conventions. They are not “Boat People” but desperate people trying to give their families a life.We put them in whar is essentially a prison camp and dehumanise and demoralise them.
Surely if they can be legally processed here, be allowed to work in the community and contribute productively to our society then they would not be a burden or so resented by so many bigoted people. I cannot understand the fear we have of these people…so many more people arrive illegally by overstaying their travel visas and dissappearing.
We forget that it is not illegal to seek asylum…We need to speed up the processing, surely it cannot take so long..if they are not genuine refuges by all means deny them residence but what we are doing and allowing to be done to these people is not humane.
Forget the political point scoring just make a decision already…How would it be to walk a mile in the shoes of these people who often have so much that they could be contributing to our already multicutural country..
loading...
Why is this issue only Australia’s responsibility? I’m sick and tired of these boat people. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not coldhearted – if they were genuine refugees, I’d welcome them with open arms. But they are not. They are not fleeing persecution by the time they get on a boat – they are economic refugees! If they were genuine refugees, they would be grateful to get to the first safe haven, but as J-1 pointed out, they pass through several safe havens to get here. Their arrogance is astounding. Why don’t they apply to come to Australia, LEGALLY, from the safe haven they are in, rather than jumping into a boat because they are too arrogant to go through the process legally? I have no sympathy whatsoever – they know the risks involved in getting on a leaky boat in Indonesia. It’s sad, yes, but they take the risk in the first place – they are selfish because they put their entire familes at risk.
loading...
Further, Caz Gibson points out that this is a worldwide problem. Since that is the case, how about all the other first-world countries join in and take their fair share of refugees, rather than sitting back and criticising Australia on their stance, and stop having the attidue that this is Australia’s problem to fix.
loading...
Gahhhh!! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Please please read up on the FACTS before expressing your opinion, otherwise you will be painted with the racist brush when you are just misinformed.
There are lots of great previous articles on this topic on mamamia or you can look up the comprehensive mythbusters on the ASRC website.
Then come back and engage in informed debate.
loading...
I do apologise, one of my comments was not very clear – I can clearly see that it looks like I am saying that all people arriving by boats are economic refugees. That is very unclear. I know there are genuine ones, but there are also some that aren’t genuine. Apologies for how that bit came across.
loading...
I took these statistics from a post by Jemie on another thread.
Asylum seekers that came to Australia in 2011 was 11,510
By comparison:
South Africa 171,702
Canada 51,025
Greece 47,099
USA: 74,020
France 51,910
Germany 45,740
Italy 34,120
Sweden 29,650
Ecuador 49,889
and so on….
Also interesting to note:
Of the 10.55 million refugees (under UNHCR’s mandate), the largest numbers are being hosted by Pakistan (1,900,621), Iran (1,073,366),
Syria (1,005,472), Germany (594,269), Jordan (450,915)
I think that if you are going to be so provocative you need to keep up with the conversation.
loading...
Jumping in to help: here are the populations of these countries as a comparison, before the “But what about per head of population?” questions arised:
South Africa 171,702 (pop. 48m)
Canada 51,025 (35m)
Greece 47,099 (11m)
USA: 74,020 (313m)
France 51,910 (65m)
Germany 45,740 (81m)
Italy 34,120 (60m)
Sweden 29,650 (9.5m)
Ecuador 49,889 (15m)
loading...
Great research Leftie, BUT look at the state of South Africa, Pakistan, and Iran? Not exactly crimeless countries that are run in a fantastic way. I welcome boat people but before it gets to 500,000 a year something needs to be done otherwise we will end up being a pushover. I want to go and live in Germany. I may just fly in and seek asylum as my current living situation is crap. I know what they’d say!
loading...
Sally, I grew up in South Africa so please trust me when I say that it was crime-ridden well before people starting seeking asylum there.
loading...
Great figures…and yes Australia seems to take a small amount compared to others. But have a look at what Australia’s population is to start with compared to those other countries and you’ll find when applied as a ratio to current population we are taking more than our fair share.
I have no objection to helping those in genuine need. Some of these people’s stories tear at my heart. But I do object to anyone not playing by the rules(i.e. economic refugees) and don’t wish to welcome that culture into my country. I am not a racist by any means. My own father migrated to this country through legitimate means and worked hard from a state of absolute poverty without government handouts to where he is today.Australia is a great country because of our values and our compassion. I would hate to see that compromised. If we want to continue to take the genuine refugees then it’s time we take a tough stance on those who arrive here illegally without genuine cause and deter those who want to rort the system.
Oh yeah….just a side note. I work full time in child care. We have economic boat refugees (by their own admission) who have been here a month, get free child care (paid by my tax) and are paid more in centrelink payments (also my tax) than I actually get paid each week. I just wonder how they can afford all that gold jewellry they are wearing. If I sound bitter, it’s because clearly we have a broken system. I am a low income earner yet I support two world vision children. I am hardly unwilling to help those in need or am uncompassionate. But come on!!!! How do you fix this?
loading...
Gahhhhh!! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!!
Please look up the FACTS before stating your opinion on “these boat people”…. Otherwise you’ll be painted with the racist brush when I think you are just misinformed.
There are great previous articles on mamamia and I highly recommend the very simple to detailed myth busters by the ASRC. Please read them and come back and comment. Note they are all referenced in detail to the most credible sources so no fear of inaccurate stats/data.
Please look this up:
http://www.asrc.org.au/learn-more/ and for a detailed summary: http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/myths-facts-solutions-info-apr-2011.pdf
loading...
And you know this for sure Lisa? i.e. they are ‘economic’ refugees?
I don’t know about you but I’d have to be pretty desperate and (most likely) fleeing persecution to get on an overcrowded boat to an unknown country and risk the death of my family. I will get you wrong – your post comes across as coldhearted and unsympathetic. Australia receives a fraction, a FRACTION, of the world’s refugees each year and other “first world” countries do take their “fair share” of refugees. We are a huge country and right now, one of the most prosperous countries in the world. We can afford to support these people and have a moral duty to do so.
What right do we have to go and fight in someone else’s country and then turn around and deny those who are affected by those wars the opportunity to live free from persecution?
If the politicians didn’t have to pander to attitudes like your own, we might see this whole, sorry mess sorted out.
Step back, think about how lucky we are here in Australia and put yourself in their shoes – imagine what choices you would make in the same situation.
loading...
Ummm Janey… Politications do not “pander” to attitudes llike mine. They tend to pander to attitudes like yours and many others on this forum – that we should blindly accept that everyone arriving on a boat is a genuine refugee. Not everyone is a genuine refugee seeking persecution, that is why there is a screening process. Australian citizens seem to think that we should automatically let everyone in without screening them first. If we wanted to move to another country, we would have to go through a rigorous screening process and rightly so. Why should Australia not have a screening process? Many so-called asylum seekers are proven not to be genuine and are deported. Why Janey, do you think that there should not be a screening process to determine whether every single person arriving by boat is genuine?
loading...
I’m not sure if I’ve missed something, but where was it suggested that Australia shouldn’t have a screening process? You are right in saying that every person who arrives by boat or plane (as the vast majority do) should undergo a screening process to asses whether they are A. a genuine refugee and B. a security threat. This doesn’t need to happen offshore or in a detention centre.
loading...
“Politicians tend to pander to attitudes like yours and many others on this forum – that we should blindly accept that everyone arriving on a boat is a genuine refugee”
HAHHAHAHHAAH
Yeah sure Lisa! Clearly that is what the politicians do with their detention centres, ‘stop the boats’ slogans and offshore processing in inhumane conditions.
Seriously you are just embarrassing yourself by displaying such ignorance.
loading...
I wasn’t going to validate your ridiculous comment with an answer, but I simply could not sit by and let yet ANOTHER ignorant bigot get away with making stupid comments like yours.
Firstly, taking on refugees is NOT only Australia’s responsibility. There are over 10 million refugees worldwide, and Australia takes on LESS than 1% of them.
Secondly, how do you know they’re not genuine refugees? Do you make the assessments? What is that claim based on? In fact, most asylum seekers ARE found to be genuine.
Thirdly, yes, asylum seekers pass through various transit points to get to Australia but they are by no means “safe havens”. Arriving by boat is also LEGAL. Seeking asylum and protection is also LEGAL.
And finally, to call them “arrogant” and “selfish” is a testament to how little you know about the world situation, what little compassion you have, and what a privileged life you have lived yourself.
Stop getting your facts from Today Tonight.
loading...
Lisa is entitled to her opinion, as I am mine. From information I’ve seen there are various safe places where refugees could seek asylum before boarding a boat to come here. Australians are educated and are beginning to realise that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
loading...
Thank you Andrew. We are all entitled to our own opinion without being insulted by people who disagree with our opinion. Just because my opinion differs from Jemie, Janey et al, does not make me a bigot or a racist. I have already stated that I have no issue with genuine refugees – what I do take issue with is those who pass through a number of safe havens and then hop on a boat in Indonesia because they blatantly refuse to seek asylum through the proper channels. This does not make me a bigot or a racist and to say that I am is insulting. I have not attacked you because your opinions differ from mine. Please show me the same courtesy. I am fully aware, without being shown, the figures for other countries accepting refugees. What I have taken issue with is the verbalisation of the international community of “what is Australia going to do about this?” and I have read these sort of comments in various online newspapers. Oh, and by the way, for those of you who have had the hide to accuse me of being a bigot and a racist simply because my views differ from yours does not make you the better person.
loading...
Lisa I don’t believe you should be called an “ignorant bigot” or your comments “stupid”. I disagree with the previous poster’s comments here. But a lot of what you have said is your opinion, is based on inaccurate information rather than fact. In a place where the topic is being discussed and debated, the first step is to clear up the myths and make comments based on facts.
I honestly feel that if more people were aware of the full extent of the facts of the matter, they would soften their attitudes a lot more… I have to say that at least you are engaging in the debate here. I have so many friends who simply believe what they believe (based on inaccurate information) and would not even consider discussing it or hearing the other side.., that’s more depressing to me to be honest.
loading...
Nobody would have an issue with your opinion if it was informed and based on facts. Sprouting blatant nonsense and things that are completely untrue and calling refugees ‘selfish, arrogant’ etc is frustrating to many of us that have refugee friends who are nothing like that.
loading...
Have your opinion Andrew but it holds NO value unless backed up by reliable evidence and facts. Where is this ‘information’ you speak of?
loading...
And where is your “reliable evidence and facts” Lucy?? Come forth and show us. How can a reasonable debate take place here when people like yourself get so worked up over other people who take a different stance to yours? We all have our own views and opinions and this should be respected, not ridiculed. Not a very mature attitude on your behalf.
loading...
I don’t watch Today Tonight – Guest. Why don’t you use your real name when you insult me instead of hiding behind “Guest”. You and several others may want to read the comment guidelines about respectful debate and not insulting people who happen to have a different opinion
loading...
I’ve copied this link from another thread. The lists shows the countries which are signatories to the UNHCR refugee convention, and clearly there are quite a few countries which would be closer to where the refugees are fleeing from than Australia. Work it out.
http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html
loading...
Name those countries which are closer.
And if you can’t name them, please advise how the asylum seekers are supposed to know which places are closer.
loading...
Please see link above.
loading...
Please *read* my comment above. You linked to a long list of countries, with no indication as to which are closer than Australia for the people seeking asylum. I ams asking you which of those countries are closer than Australia for the people seeking asylum.
loading...
Andrew, I am confused about the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that because there are other countries that refugees theoretically could go to, that they are not genuine refugees?
loading...
Lisa66, the point I am making is that if there are other safe countries in which the refugees could seek asylum, without having to put themselves at risk by getting on an unsafe boat to reach Australia.
loading...
Oh FFS!!! People who say such ignorant nonsense like this make me MAD!
You know NOTHING about these people and their desperation so how DARE you suggest they are selfish and arrogant. It is easy for you to say this from the comfort of your Australian life free from fear of persecution, torture, violence and death.
Anyway your facts are COMPLETELY wrong ! Why don’t you go educate yourself on the REAL facts (like over 90% off asylum seekers coming on boats are genuine refugees). Have you ever seen the conditions people live in these so called ‘safe havens’ as you suggest?! If they were so amazing and safe do you think they would risk their lives coming on a boat?
SERIOUSLY! I am ASHAMED people like you exist in Australia.
loading...
I’m pretty sure Lucy that each post put on here is not required to be based on FACTS. Some people to have an opinion about asylum seekers as the government are opening up our country to thousands of foreigners that aren’t screened LIKE immigrants who apply correctly (NOT LEGAL, so don’t anyone tell me I am saying that asylum seekers are doing it illeagally) with the CORRECT paper work, emplyment and points system. I guess too, that some people have parents and grandparents that have worked their WHOLE lives and live on 300-400 a week pensions; then see refugees (and it is NOT their fault I KNOW) get supllied with phones, allowances, free board in WA homes and air conditioned, entertained areas in Northam detention centre. (WA) I KNOW it is a detention centre, but it’s a roof and supplies that homeless people DO NOT have. I was walking home from work yesterday and saw a man of probably about 70 asleep under a shop verandah shivering. I cried. I often see him wandering around the shops asking for money and I always say no. Next time I’m giving him some. I just think we CANNOT provide for everyone. YES open our country uo, but help our OWN people before 1000′s of asylum seekers.
loading...
Please see previous article on refugees on some intelligent postings on homelessness.
It is not the same issue and has its own level of complexity. It was ruled out of the conversation some time back.
loading...
Lucy – “What is your source for this?”
loading...
I don’t know what your inverted commas are meant to imply Andrew? Here are some example sources for the fact that approx 90% of asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees..
During the Rudd Government approximately 90–95 per cent of assessments completed on
Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted.
For example, of the 1254 claims
assessed on Christmas Island between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2010, only 110 people were
assessed as not being refugees.
36. These figures suggest that 1144 (approximately 91 per cent) of those claims were successful.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to questions on notice, Immigration portfolio, Additional Budget Estimates, 9 February 2010, Questions 30 and 32
the final protection visa grant rate for 2009–10 for people from Afghanistan (the majority of
whom would have arrived by boat) was 99.7 per cent (this figure does not include those boat
arrivals with a negative RSA outcome who would not have been able to lodge an application for a
protection visa). Grant rates to people from Iraq, Iran and Burma, many of whom would also have
arrived by boat, were also high, ranging from 96 to 98 per cent.
Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA), Myths and Facts about refugees and asylum seekers, April 2010, p. 3
http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/myths-facts-solutions-info-apr-2011.pdf
loading...
The Libs are still moaning that Julia didnt want to keep their policy. Well thats because it was their policy and it too was flawed. She is trying to make her own policy work and we wont know if it will work or not until its given a chance. But in typical spoilt whinging child fashion Tony Abbott wont allow that because he wants it to be his way or the highway. And people keep dying.
For Gids sake let Ms Gillard do her job. And if it fails then you can all say I told you so. Until then give the woman a chance to try and make it work.
loading...
Afterall, she is the Prime Minister.
loading...
If the priority of the ALP and LNP was saving human lives then they would stop seizing and sinking the boats that they arrive on because that policy has encouraged the people who arrange the trips to use throwaway boats. And they would stop arresting the people who crew the boats because that has resulted in the people who make the money sending (or even in some cases kidnapping people) who have very little experience. Both of these combined result in a much higher probability that there will be a disaster at sea.
But preservation of human life is not the aim of ALP or LNP policies – its to hide the problem of refugees out of sight. Their solutions is for the refugees to suffer for years (no medical/education services or even allowed to work and often persecuted by local authorities) or die in the privacy of internment camps in Indonesia or Malaysia which we don’t see on the news at night and we can pretend either doesn’t happen or isn’t any of our responsibility.
loading...
Chris – you have hit the nail on the head with exactly why rickety boats, manned by 16 year old Indonesian fishermen are sinking on the way to Australia.
loading...
Offshore processing. Thanks for this enduring legacy, Mr Howard.
Expensive and miserable piece of sophistry designed to wriggle out from our obligations to refugees under international law. If the refugees don’t reach our territory, then our obligations don’t kick in. So, we find a solution vastly more expensive than just letting them in.
On the one hand, we’ve got people dying on boats because they’re desperate to find a place where they can work and make a life.
On the other hand, we’ve got Gina Rinehart successfully petitioning the Gillard government to bring in overseas workers to work her mines due to an insufficient domestic labour force.
This makes no sense whatsoever. It’s irrational economically and disgraceful on a humanitarian level. Shame, Australia, shame.
My other concern with processing in Malaysia is the potential for corruption of the approval process; it has a good chance to become ‘cash for visa’. I don’t know about the level of institutional corruption of Malaysia, but if it’s similar to the other south-east Asian countries that I’ve visited then corruption will be a given.
Genuine refugees seem unlikely to have a great deal of money, if they were genuinely persecuted in their home country.
How’s that going to work?
My pipe dream immigration solution:
Instead of just being detained, asylum seekers go into a kibbutz like facility in Australia while their status is reviewed. They get paid for their work during this time. The kibbutz’s output gets sold.
This concept may look a little ugly/rednecked, or like a labour camp on first inspection but I believe it would generate better outcomes.
1. The refugees earn money and gain skills which will be very useful to them whether their claim for asylum is accepted or denied.
2. Paid work gives people a sense of purpose and the sense of some control over their destiny. Much better than festering in confinement.
3. It’s an easier sell to the Australian public that the refugees are productive and have good potential to be productive members of society. Further, the refugee facilities would be lower cost because their output generates revenue.
Jamila, I know that you’ve got Julia and Tony’s ears, if you could cut and paste this into an email and ping it over, I’d be most appreciative.
I won’t hold my breath on the implementation.
loading...
Trog, I really like your idea. Mine is somewhat similar, but I looked at creating ‘workgroups’ who can be sent to help farmers tend crops etc, or help for an event. There are plenty of industries screaming for employees, and a solution like this could definitely benefit the refugees, and society.
loading...
I think any idea that identifies refugees as a potential resource (such as those you list), rather than an expensive imposition could move all this stuff away from being a political contest and get the whole refugee process running efficiently and compassionately.
I should clarify ‘refugees as a resource’, not as a resource for exploitation, but as people who will be beneficial additions to the country’s populace.
loading...
My solution would be to have stacks of off-shore processing points operated by Australian government staff in countries that are the 1st and second countries of asylum (note that Australia is often the 3rd or 4th place of asylum). There is no sense in having a processing point in, say, Afghanistan – people who are fleeing a country because their government is unable or unwilling to provide them protection (a brief paraphrase of the UN definition of ‘refugee’) will be unlikely to feel safe coming to an Australian point for processing in their country of origin. When these people flee through Indonesia, Malaysia etc, I suggest having places there that are staffed by the Australian government (so no issues with non UN signatories doing the processing or holding) to process their claims and then transport them SAFELY (by plane or sea-worthy boat) to Australia.
The government could even tender the transport service out to private providers who could compete to provide these services at a cheaper cost than the people smugglers. I think the way to stop the people smugglers is economic – offer a safer service for less cost.
loading...
I have thought a similar thing j-1
Why can’t we set up processing centres in the last port before they get on the boats?
Also pay the governments of those countries per boat of those who try and by pass the system, that they stop.
I understand that it is not illegal to seek asylum and that these people are desperate but I do have a problem that they get on a boat with the sole intention to jump the queues. There are plenty of people that have done the right thing, they have gone the proper channels to apply for transfer to Australia and then these people get on boats, in countries that they are not in danger in any more and want to get ahead of those who have taken the correct steps.
I think if we have more processing options in the countries they are leaving from and we speed up the process without putting our security in danger, then the people who do the right thing get in first and those who jump the queue get taken back to a processing centre and they have to wait their turn.
loading...
I find it hard to accept any policy which is designed to be a deterrent to people seeking asylum. Surely a boat sinking and 90 people drowning is the ultimate deterrent yet people were willing to get on a similar boat soon after.
We cannot assume that the “messages” that either party wants to send will outweigh the desperation that asylum seekers feel when faced with few alternatives, all of which are bad.
We accept that there are dangerous regimes in the world and that people live in intolerable circumstances. We express strong condemnation of dictators who massacre their own citizens.
We accept that as a wealthy nation we have an aid obligation to less fortunate countries and we assist in humanitarian efforts. Both the government and the Australian people make compassionate donations.
For some reason when people remove themselves from these dangerous, intolerable conditions our compassion goes out the window. We condemn asylum seekers and look for deterrents.
I’d like all of the parties to have a discussion about how we can offer asylum and help ensure that refugees are given the opportunity to become contributing members of our society as previous generations have done. Forcing asylum seekers to live in Indonesia or Malaysia doesn’t remove the problem of displaced people, it just shifts them onto others who have fewer resources.
There is no simple answer to such a complex problem but ongoing rhetoric around “stopping the boats” and “breaking the business model” is not a good starting point for the discussion.
loading...
Here are 5 key steps that Australia ought to take if it is serious about addressing these issues.
1. Provide alternative safe and legal pathways
It has been long-standing Australian government policy to prevent any person from travelling to Australia in order to lodge a claim for refugee status. This is true whether they attempt to enter authorised or unauthorised, by boat or by plane.
Australia has put in place a number of offshore immigration restriction processes that include interceptions, interdictions and airport turnarounds that effectively create an offshore border for Australia. While ostensibly implemented to improve Australia’s border security and management, they also make it very difficult for anyone fleeing persecution from gaining entry to Australia in order to lodge a protection application.
If Australia were serious about preventing deaths at sea, the government would begin by providing alternative safe and legal pathways for asylum seekers to get to Australia to lodge an application for a protection visa. As Professor James Hathaway, one of the world’s leading experts in international refugee law, has previously stated,
This whole human-smuggling thing is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If you could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in with a boat, people would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on.
With only 1% of the world’s refugees having access to resettlement, Australia’s ‘migration wall’ has driven asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers who offer the only alternative to navigating these barriers to entry.
While every country has a right to ensure its borders are protected and to control immigration flows, as a signatory to the Refugee Convention Australia acknowledges it has a responsibility to provide adequate access for asylum seekers to find effective and durable protection.
2. Equitably share the international refugee burden
Australia partakes in a refugee resettlement program with countries of first asylum in order to help share the international refugee burden. However, this program is miniscule compared to the burden held by most of the developed and developing world. In particular, Australia’s resettlement from Indonesia and Malaysia, where almost all asylum seekers transit before arriving in Australia by boat, is very poor.
By significantly increasing our resettlement program, Australia can reduce the pressures that cause asylum seekers to flee such countries in the first place. Furthermore, when Australia demonstrates that it is willing to meet its own obligations to the international refugee issue, it places itself in a position to pressure other nations in the region to do more. By shirking our own responsibilities, Australia undermines the entire international and regional refugee protection agenda.
3. Invest in a serious regional protection framework
Australia spends tens of millions of dollars on punitive measures against asylum seekers in the region, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. Detention centres in Indonesia are funded by Australia despite regular reports of asylum seekers and refugees being maltreated. For example, in 2009, Australia funded the $8 million refurbishment of the Tanjung Pinang detention centre, where Australian trained guards have previously used electric weapons, tasers and stun guns on asylum seekers.
In Malaysia, a country where asylum seekers and refugees are caned and generally maltreated, Australia has also spent millions of dollars to help beef up ‘border security’. In October 2010, for example, Australia provided $1 million worth of hardware, including patrol boats and night vision equipment to Malaysia’s maritime enforcement agency to help crack down on the people smuggling trade. Malaysian human rights campaigner, Irene Fernandez, says this support implicates the Australian government in Malaysia’s maltreatment of asylum seekers. Australia, she says, “is pushing its problem further away from itself.”
Instead of investing tens of millions of dollars in detention centers and providing combat equipment to our regional neighbors who already have a dismal human rights record, Australia should be investing in these countries to encourage them to pursue better human rights standards in their treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
By investing in capacity building, Australia could take the lead in developing genuine burden sharing arrangements within the region that managed asylum seeker flows equitably and within a human rights framework.
4. Place the welfare of asylum seekers first
While both major political parties claim to speak in the name of welfare concerns for asylum seekers who undertake risky boat journeys to Australia, this is clearly not their prime concern. If it were, Australia would cease mandatory and indefinite detention, a policy well documented and formally acknowledged to cause long term physical and mental suffering to asylum seekers (including numerous suicides). Furthermore, if deaths at sea were a prime concern, Australia would be focussing its attention on ensuring asylum seekers arrive here safely, not that they cease to arrival here at all.
If the Australian government’s prime concern was deaths at sea, it would do all it could to ensure the seaworthiness of boats on route to Australia. One immediate action the government can take is to remove its harsh people smuggling sentencing laws along with the policy of confiscating asylum seeker boats. These policies only incentivise people smugglers to utilise vessels that are unseaworthy, overcrowded and manned by inexperienced, uninformed and often desperate and underage Indonesians, altogether increasing the risk of a tragedy at sea.
Ultimately though, as Professor James Hathaway argues, allegedly humanitarian steps taken to shut down escape routes for asylum seekers are “unlawful and paternalistic”. Placing the human rights’ needs of refugees first, Hathaway points out that:
It is the refugee’s right – not the prerogative of any state or humanitarian agency – to decide when the risks of staying put are greater than the risks of setting sail. Until and unless the abuse that causes refugees to flee in the first place is ended, the only real answer is to provide safe alternatives to unsafe routes of escape.
5. Recognise that there is no ‘solution’.
Australia must recognise that asylum seekers and refugees are an inevitable part of a world where war and oppression exist. In such a global environment, there are no final ‘solutions’, only effective and ineffective methods of managing what is an ongoing problem.
Greater attention on the endemic issues of war and oppression in refugee producing countries must be a part of this effective management strategy, particularly in those parts of the world where Australia has a direct involvement such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
If Australia is not willing to take these steps and shoulder its international and regional responsibilities, we should certainly not seek to shift the blame for deaths at sea onto people smugglers, those who advocate for more compassionate and just policies and indeed, as has sadly been the case, onto asylum seekers themselves. Australia is in no position to plead hardship when the number of asylum seekers we receive is miniscule compared to other developing countries.
In the interim, Australia should bear its onshore protection obligations gracefully and with compassion, recognising that people smuggling is both inevitable and – sadly – critical to ensuring the right of refugees to seek out durable protection in any way they can.
Which one of us, if confronted with a desperate need to flee but facing seemingly impossible barriers, would not make the same choice?
loading...
When I read your last comment I was reminded of those poor people in the World Trade Centre who jumped from windows when the fires were at their backs. When faced with unthinkable choices desperate people do desperate things even if the chances of making it are infinitesimal. I agree with your ideas above and thank you for adding your thoughts.
loading...
Too many words. Couldn’t concentrate for that long. Got bored.
The question posed was “Do you have a solution”? The answer seems to be “No”. Please correct me if I have not summed this up correctly?
loading...
Generation X – I’m sorry that an issue as complex as this doesn’t have a quick and easy solution for you. That’s just not how life works. If you want reality, then its multifaceted and not black and white. This is not some feel good movie, where a hero waltzes in makes an inspiring speech and saves the day.
Also once you become more aware of world politics and international relations you will understand how complex and multi layered issues are and you’ll not be interested in ‘solutions’ that come in the form of quick 6 pm news sound bites.
Having said that, there are very real and easy solutions to many of the issues i.e. abolishing mandatory detention that are not being implemented.
*Sigh*…
loading...
Wasn’t saying the issue wasn’t complex. Read your highlights. Just sggesting that this is probably not the place for a 2,000 word essay that leads to the conclusion that there was no solution (I am still assuming).
*head on desk but only for a short moment*. Much prefer your other posts which were more to the point.
loading...
If someone had a solution which could be summed up in 140 characters that would be awesome. It’s a complex issue which needs more words than TL;DR.
loading...
lol
loading...
This is why slogans like “stop the boats” keep being used.
They appeal to voters with short attention spans who see the world in black and white.
loading...
Did not say the issue wasn’t complex. In fact, did not mention my opinion at all. Just suggested that the posting was too long for this website.
So based on zero facts you have jumped to a supercilious and erroneous conclusion. You must be A Current Affair watcher.
loading...
Nope, I just made an observation that short, punchy statements appeal to a lot of voters more than long involved analysis….that’s why they get used when they don’t mean anything.
I’m not sure why that makes you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I watch A Current Affair.
loading...
Cute
loading...
This is a world-wide problem that will keep growing as the number of refugees increases. The countries they’re fleeing from have societies that have broken down – people and their families are persecuted, murdered, and the living conditions are squalid and incapable of sustaining a safe environment for children….. In fact, waging war amongst children is child abuse……..suggesting that these countries “get their act together” is well-meaning but who’d listen ? ………Australia simply doesn’t have a strong voice internationally – huge unprotected coastline – tiny population………don’t expect people who’ve been crushed and brutalised to know about world history, politics, refugee “solutions” or Australian Prime Ministers – they’re too focussed on surviving one day at a time……..people smugglers know that some people have a little bit of cash from selling their valuables – there are other terrified people who have no cash so the “opportunity” to board those filthy, derelict vessels is denied to them………….Those Indonesians who are racist simply don’t want displaced people from Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc “cluttering up” their country – they’re happy to pass on the problem to any other country that shows compassion ……..refugee camps are usually disgusting, disease-ridden places where children die every day, so – are Australians kind, compassionate people ?…………I guess what I’m coming to is a suggestion that Australia creates an improved “model” that could be copied by the rest of the world…………….more refugee centres in Northern Australia perhaps (away from the whingers) so that processing can be sped up and people are treated with kindness – they’re more likely to become happy, productive citizens……….that’s not a quick solution but a viable one…………..for now – (in the absence of realistic, prompt help from the Indonesians ) station an aircraft carrier in those waters to pick up and transport the “boat people” before any more of them die – it’s called the “humanitarian solution”.
loading...
It’s quite revealing the common theme of not being sure what the answer is….. I guess this is the importance of having a good solid government that is proactive and able to make compassionate, sensible and largely bipartisan decisions that were then implemented and accepted graciously by its people. Yes in my crazy little utopia I would like less political bickering and more action on this issue.
loading...
Prior to Malaysia, Julia was shopping around for off shore processing hosts to any country that would talk to her (including Papua New Guinea and East Timor), so obviously the refusal to go the logical path of Nauru was pure pride and pigheaded refusal to accept that Howard had a solution all along (despite labors venom against him on the issue at the time). For labor to now, hundreds of deaths later, to suggest the lnp are the stumbling block is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Julia, the solution was there all along. You dismantled it. Swallow pride and admit you were wrong. Simple.
loading...
I believe you can look up very easily all the many informed (non politicised) reasons why Nauru and the ‘pacific solution’ were inhumane, wasteful and did not and would not work.
But just thought to highlight one small point since so many people are concerned about the cost of this to the tax payer (and stripping the rights of homeless etc..)
FACT: Nauru and Manus solution cost the Howard government $1 billion over five years. (and this is money they were spending outside of the millions that was spent to set up and maintain the horrendous detention system of the time were children were locked up for years amongst others…)
FACT: After years of cruel punishment on Nauru, all but 45 of the 1,637 asylum seekers incarcerated in Nauru who were found to be refugees gained residence in Australia or New Zealand.
The reasons why ‘the boats stopped’ in that period were varied and not all had to do with the fact that they were being sent to Nauru, again much information is available on this, but just wanted to reiterate that it was ridiculously costly, inhumane and almost all were found to be genuine refugees.
loading...
Jemie, your assertion that all but 45 of the 1637 asylum seekers were granted residence in Australia or NZ is utterly wrong. Around 60% were granted asylum in Aust. or NZ – google the facts!
Labor’s alternative option of sending them to Malaysia will be just as inhumane and just as costly.
Gillard’s main motivation in pursuing the ridiculous Malaysia Solution – Solution (?!) – is to save face. Absolutely not a jot of compassion in this.
loading...
I have no answers BUT I’m appalled by radio ads for immigration lawyers spruiking their services to cut red tape on visa applications and extensions. All the voiceover actors in the ads have British or other faintly European accents. They want to stay for ‘the lifestyle.’ No one is talking about packing THEM off to Malaysia.
loading...
YEP! I live in Manly which is packed with English and Europeans on tourist visas many who I’ve overheard talking about these lawyers or just staying on cause they ‘won’t catch us’. ARGH!
loading...
Cut foreign aid to Indonesia until they deal with these people smuggler scum from their end.
loading...
Very basically, the government and the opposition both propose offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive by boat. The opposition also want to include a clause which says that they can only be sent for processing to countries which are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention.
How can anyone defend the government’s position? It is inhumane to consider offshore processing in a country which is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention – refugees in those countries have no legal protections and are often treated atrociously! I’m with Mia: “No way”
I have come to think that the government is desperately trying to win back “those” votes before the next election. What a ridiculous tactic – sell out your principles to stay in government! There are many government MPs who do not support this but can’t vote against it because of Labor Party voting rules.
I hope that the opposition put forward an amendment in the Senate today to include the clause on countries which are UN Refugee Convention signatories.
In the words of the Dalai Lama: “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.”
This is what I wrote about this on Tuesday as a comment to the “Refugees – why won’t Abbott negotiate” article:
The ‘Malaysia Solution” is inhumane. The proposal to send 800 asylum seekers to the refugee camps in Malaysia where they will be treated “better” (ie differently) to others in the camps is just like putting a massive “Kick Me” sign on their back. How is the Australian government going to ensure that these special refugees are being treated as they would be in Australia?
Remember how much Labor (in opposition) fought against the onshore detention centres until they were closed down in the early 2000s? Many of them have now been reopened by this government.
It is hypocritical of them to claim the high moral ground in this argument!
I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to fix this. However, I do think that we could and should accept more UNHCR processed refugees from Malaysian refugee camps.
loading...
I really actually have no idea. But I feel incredibly lucky and guilty to be born in a place people are willing to die trying to get to.
Who cares about “out of control borders” think about the courage it would have taken to get on a rickety old boat in a hope of a better life.
loading...
I think the bigger issue here is not which asylum seeker policy is the best – they all have good and bad points, whether they be Labor’s, The Coalitions’s or The Greens – to me, the big issue here is the Government is not being allowed to govern…both the Coalition and The Greens are being stupidly recalcitrant – they both seem to expect the Government to compromise, while refusing to change their own positions…regardless of whether they think the Government policy is right or wrong, I think it’s time to let the Government do it’s job and stop blocking them.
loading...
not really a govt if they can’t get the numbers though is it.
loading...
The Labor and Coalition policies are both predicated on offshore processing, with the difference being primarily the detail. The Greens policy stridently opposes offshore processing in principle. I’m not sure how the Greens policy could be reconciled with either of the other policies.
I agree that all players need to be more cooperative than this and it should not have gone this far before they even mentioned working together on a solution. However, I do not understand why politicians are not developing policy based on the expertise of those who have worked with asylum seekers and refugees and those who have worked in Dept. of Immigration – they are pandering to the xenophobic fear that is being whipped up, fear of being inundated by boats carrying terrorists and illegal immigrants, rather than developing sound policy based on the experience of those in the field and policy which complies with our obligations under the convention.
loading...
YES! THIS:
“However, I do not understand why politicians are not developing policy based on the expertise of those who have worked with asylum seekers and refugees and those who have worked in Dept. of Immigration – they are pandering to the xenophobic fear that is being whipped up, fear of being inundated by boats carrying terrorists and illegal immigrants, rather than developing sound policy based on the experience of those in the field and policy which complies with our obligations under the convention.”
Very very true..
loading...
Don’t know if I’m an idealist or crazy. I think globally we need to put more effort into fixing these countries in the first place so people don’t feel the need to flee.
loading...
Absolutely – this is the too hard part of the debate few are interested in. What role do we play globally in creating the push factors and conditions for people to want to flee? I’m not suggesting Australian government politics have caused every bit of upheaval in the world and are behind all hardships and displaced people, however we have played a role. The number of Iraqi asylum seekers soared after the coalition’s illegal invasion of Iraq. No WMDs there, completely false basis for going to war and huge public opposition back here. We need to accept the reality of the current geopolitical and global disturbances we have hands in creating and not be suprised about why people are wanting to flee for a better life
loading...
I posted this on the previous thread yesterday:
I feel strongly that we need to offer onshore processing outside of the detention centres using a more humane model, perhaps based on Sweden.
The accommodation provided by the Swedish Migration Board for asylum seekers (‘accommodation centres’) is often spread out between various residential areas in municipalities and mainly consists of self-catering apartments. Organised activities are offered to asylum seekers aged between 18 and 64. These consist mainly of Swedish lessons, but also lessons in English and IT, for example. The aim of these organised activities is to contribute to a meaningful existence during the waiting period and ultimately to facilitate becoming established in Sweden if the asylum seeker is granted a residence permit, or to facilitate a return if his or her application is rejected. Critically, asylum seekers also have the opportunity to work from the first day after their arrival.
I believe that the party whose policy will most closely resemble this is the Greens. Having said that, I think that we do need to address the problem of people smuggling and I’m not sure how to go about that – I don’t think any party is. What are the disincentives for people smuggling? Longer prison sentences? NZ is now doing 20 yr prison sentences and up to $500,000 fines for those who support people smugglers.
Also the Bali Process should be strengthened to improve intelligence gathering and sharing, law enforcement and public education.
loading...
* Talk about humanitarian protection not border protection
* Show leadership in the region. Assist our neighbours to better support and protect refugees and asylum seekers.
* Do not even consider Nauru, Malaysia or temporary protection visas. *We’ve tried two of those and ruined lives and caused the loss of others. Temporary protection visas don’t allow family reunion, so wives and children take boat journeys to be with husbands / fathers.
* Be honest that no Govt will ‘smash the people smuggling model’, people will flee as long as there is persecution.
loading...
Mine is a little simplistic & there are probably many reasons against it, if the bulk of assylum seekers are getting on boats in Indonesia could we join with the Indonesian government & create processing facilities there? Then they would not be getting on these God forsaken vessels?
loading...
Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention which is why it is a bad idea. Ditto Malaysia.
loading...
Agreed, but I can see the point. If the asylum seekers are already *in* Indonesia, we wouldn’t be sending them there, surely?
loading...