Enforcing the law or fanning the flames?

Al says:

09:31am | 06/11/12

Lucy, sorry but I can’t agree.
If they are unhappy I have no problems with them raising the issues, or even seeking publication via media etc.
However where they go on to destroy the small things that have been provided to them I have no sympathy and want them to be held fully accountable for breaking laws (similar to say a Visa applicant who is in Australia and breaks the law is subject to prosecution under Australian Law).

Bemused says:

09:47am | 06/11/12

They had the answer before they left:  Indefinite detention, and no time advantage above those that fly in.  Choices come with consequences, if you boat here you get Nauru, if you break the law you get court.  Unless the hunger strike can last 5 years they are wasting their time.

Anubis says:

10:15am | 06/11/12

They want an “an untenable wait for certainty about when their applications will be processed” then let them go to any of the UN camps. The people wasting away in these camps for years on end are much more genuinely refugees. To endure the conditions in the camps must show at east some genuine fear of their life.

The sad thing about this is that these cashed up country shoppers that are taking boats to Australia, are depriving this country of the ability to take genuine refugees who may have been in the camps for up to a decade (or more). It is time to close the front door and roll up the welcome mat. Bring back TPV’s and refuse family reunion for the boaties. Under TPv’s, as soon as things are stable in their countries (like Sri Lanka) send them back.

Jay2 says:

10:16am | 06/11/12

@ Lucy, There are plenty of Australians that would perceive they are living in intolerable conditions and have every right to rage against it in the same manner. Of course, they can, but just like the ‘asylum seekers/illegal immigrants’ have found out, there are consequences for those actions when one WILLINGLY breaks the law and so it must remain that way.

Still, this article just proves there are those who, no matter what, will find a way to attempt to justify unacceptable and illegal behaviour.

As far as not eating/drinking, it for me, speaks volumes about democracy in action. I can pretty much bet that when they were living in the “intolerable places” they fled from, they did not choose to do that for obvious reasons. Funny, now life is SOOO intolerable now that they are not in imminent danger in their current environment, but it just so happens that it has to do with a slow application process and hot stuffy tents. Things that make you go hmmmmm….

OzTrucker says:

10:23am | 06/11/12

If they are true refugees living in tents should not be a hardship. Face reality Lucy. They are getting three no doubt nutritionally balanced meals (or they would be if they were not on a hunger strike) they have a roof over their head. They have access to medical care, dental care and legal aid. The best part is they have zero chance of being blown up, persecuted, raped pillaged or murdered. In short they get treated better our homeless and elderly.

To me as soon as anyone starts smashing things they fail the character test and should be returned to their country of origin. They certainly lose any supposed rights they think they have.

Hunger striking is the same as a small child holding its breath. I say let em go. They will want to eat eventually. They are trying to manipulate us. As soon as we give in we lose. Show some spine Bowen. Stick to your policy, err that would be the half assed policy you stole from the LNP and are not using in its entirety.

To paraphrase, this is our country, we will decide who comes here and the manner of their arrival. Labor are finally starting to get that.

I almost choked on my cornflakes when I heard the change to the migration zone position.

iansand says:

10:43am | 06/11/12

I suspect that normally I am seen as a bleeding heart, but even I think this is a daft article.  They do a crime, they face trial and punishment.  That’s it.  There is no more.

Gregg says:

10:44am | 06/11/12

Nauru may be an uncomfortable sort of place with the weather starting to get a bit warmer and sure tents offer only so much relief but places like Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran can be pretty hot at times and then you have Africa where refugees get by on really harsh conditions.
I doubt that these freeloaders or even the staff really know what harsh is.

As for:
” What these people need right now is immediate answers and direction, not another bureaucratic process. “
They have had answers or lets say information given Lucy, not that they may like what they are hearing and some people in fact have elected to return to where they came from so that does say something about their refugee status or claiming asylum.

The direction to them is that there are UNHCR processes that 40M+ people on the planet face and that it is not on that people attempt to circumvent the system by using a people smuggling route, thus you will have to wait to submit an application.
The government cannot say with any certainty how long that may be and I doubt they would want to for the normal UNHCR time could vary enormously with just how many people from refugee camps start applying for resettlement.

That said, what a cock up Kevin created in revoking what we had that was working and led to the flood which we may have only seen the beginnings of.
Some immigration guy in Indonesia was reported in weekend media as laughing at our current attempt to stem the flow, putting numbers at a hundred thousand intent on joining a boat.

Surely Gillard needs to be getting right in the ear of Bang bang and doing more than some horizontal Gangnamming on to the turf.
There has been talk at times of AFP personnel being based in Indonesia and they have certainly been there to help with apprehending terrorists in the past.
A team of twenty or so people on the ground at incoming airports and down along coastal cities would probably go a long way towards identifying the routes and people involved in supporting what is now it would seem a booming industry for Indonesia.
It might even take the smiles of a few more Indonesians in positions of authority who would laugh no more.

It may not be what Julia envisages as engaging with Asia but then she does have some strange views.
As to the people on Nauru, why the hell we have huge $$$ contracts for meals and cleaning I’m buggered if I know and every refugee who goes there ought to be put to work helping to resurrect the more permanent facilities that were used previously as well as doing their own cleaning and food preparation just like in real refugee camps.

rising damp says:

10:47am | 06/11/12

Lucy Kippist states: Conditions in the camps are appalling. Even the Salvation Army’s director of social programs, Major Paul Moulds, has described them as “harsh.” Because, just in case you were wondering, things in Nauru aren’t exactly peachy right now. In fact, they couldn’t be worse.

They could be infinitely worse - Lucy Kippist, please research conditions of UNHCR refugees in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia. And then please write an article comparing conditions in Nauru and conditions in UNHCR refugee camps in Africa and Asia.

And Lucy Kippist, it would also be interesting to know if desperate UNHCR refugees in squalid camps in Africa and Asia have been refusing food and water and performing self harm. After all, do you not think that only those who are being regularly fed and cared for would consider participating in a hunger strike.

And Lucy Kippist, how long do refugees living in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia have to wait before they will be resettled in countries such as Australia.

And Lucy Kippist, what are the chances for resettlement of desperate refugees living in squalor in UNHCR refugee camps, given that all places in Australia’s refugee resettlement program are currently being taken by asylum seekers who pay many thousands of dollars to criminal gangs of people smugglers to take precedence.

And Lucy Kippist, who should take precedence for the scarce places in Australia’s refugee resettlement program, those most in need or those who pay many thousands of dollars to criminal gangs of people smugglers.

biff says:

10:53am | 06/11/12

It’s time to punt these alleged refugees and asylum shoppers. Return them to their former idyll with its carefree lifestyle.

Rob says:

11:06am | 06/11/12

“Refugee advocates claim approximately 300 people have been refusing food and water for five days in protest against what has become an untenable wait for certainty about when their applications will be processed.”

The detention centre on Nauru reopened in August. Assuming that all 300 have been there since the day it was reopened, they have now been there for three months. To call it an ‘untenable wait’ is interesting language, then.

“What these people need right now is immediate answers and direction, not another bureaucratic process.”

Criminal trials are not a ‘bureaucratic process’. To discharge a person from criminal liability for reasons of hardship would also be to excuse any disadvantaged Australian/Nauruan from liability to the criminal process for reasons of hardship.

That would mean anyone from housing commission would automatically be exempt from the criminal process. While hardship is applicable in sentencing, any action to convict is based on the facts of the case, with the background of the individual being accused of the charge being irrelevant to proceedings.

firefly says:

11:31am | 06/11/12

So Lucy, you are pretty much saying these illegals can treat others property & laws with contempt & we should just grin&n bare it? why? We didnt invite these freeloaders to our country. They forced themselves on us & we are forced to waste our Taxes to provide for them when those same taxes should be spent on a needy Australian. These ‘hunger strikes’ are akin to a child holding his breath & stamping his foot until he gets what he wants. It is blackmail & should be viewed with discust.

M. Mouse says:

11:51am | 06/11/12

As far as I know these people are free to leave and return to their country of origin. This government even gives them a few grand to help them on thier way…Unless of course they have a local court case pending?

Meanwhile, if they don’t want thier food, well, when I was little we were told we had to eat what was put in front of us “because of the starving children in Africa”

So how about we swap these people with some starving people in an African refugee camp and help the people who really need it?

franklin says:

11:56am | 06/11/12

Processing of asylum claims by the UNHCR results in a 30% acceptance rate as compared to a 90% acceptance rate in the Australian migration zone. Offshore processing on Nauru under similar criteria would perhaps result a similar low acceptance rate, due to stricter criteria and no access to multiple appeals to the Australian judiciary system.

Previously on Nauru asylum seekers assessed not to be refugees simply refused to cooperate in their return to their countries of origin. Some failed asylum seekers returned only after being given bribes of many thousands of dollars, but many did not cooperate.

To uphold the integrity of the Refugee Convention, for offshore processing to succeed this time around it is necessary to demonstrate explicitly that the consequence of negative assessments for failed asylum seekers is timely return to their countries of origin, even if the failed asylum seekers withhold their cooperation.

Two questions for Ms. Kippist - if asylum seekers are assessed not to be refugees does she not agree that they have an obligation to return to their countries of origin as soon as possible ? And if failed asylum seekers refuse to return to their countries of origin, what does Ms. Kippist propose can be done in such cases ?

Wendy Wett says:

12:19pm | 06/11/12

If they’re not happy on Nauru send them to the UN camp closest to their homeland to wait their turn along with all the others that couldn’t afford the plane and boat trips to jump the queue.

KD says:

12:38pm | 06/11/12

Gee Lucy - if you read these responses you may want to rethink your politically correct, tree-hugging-Greeny, bleeding heart approach!

franklin says:

01:40pm | 06/11/12

A recent survey from the Mapping Social Cohesion 2012 report released on October 26, 2012 by Monash University researcher Andrew Markus found that less than 25% of those surveyed agreed that asylum seekers arriving by boat should be eligible for permanent settlement, while 38% favoured temporary residence only, 26% said that the boats should be turned back, and 9% believed that all boat people should be deported.  Almost 66 per cent said the Labor government was doing a poor job, including 45 per cent who rated Labor’s performance as “very poor”, up from 47 per cent in 2010.

The very negative attitude to boat people of the majority of those surveyed contrasts markedly to a 75% positive response to refugees selected overseas and entering through the humanitarian program.
Refugee advocates would no doubt dismiss the negative attitudes of the majority of the electorate to boat people as populism and attribute it to vilification of asylum seekers by the LNP and the media, but most of us would call that democracy, that the government should act in the interests of the majority. 

Refugee advocates seem incapable of accepting differing points of view on the asylum seeker issue as anything other than wrong, it never seems to occur to them that some issues dont have right or wrong answers, just responses with different outcomes. And the outcome that the majority of the electorate wants is an orderly humanitarian program with allocation of the available places based on need, not financial ability to pay many thousands of dollars to criminal gangs of people smugglers.

Pandora says:

02:00pm | 06/11/12

Charge Chris Bowen with Nauru people damage

Achmed says:

02:18pm | 06/11/12

Just what Australia needs.  Selfish morons who smash and destroy property when they cant get what they want.
Don’t like what is provided by the Aussie taxpayer, we’ll smash and burn it so they will give us something better…...yeah right!!! 

If the detention centre is so bad, get on a boat and go elsewhere.
Send them to a camp in Africa or Syria.  It is gutless to give into their demands.

TracyH says:

02:24pm | 06/11/12

“That said, Nauru is a democracy and part of the obligation to upholding this style of government is ensuring laws are obeyed and also subject to scrutiny in context of the circumstances in which they are being tried.” Wrong. Democracies are sovereign nations - The USA is a democracy, yet has the death penalty. You seem to be confusing ’ democracy ’ with ‘Un signatory’.

XT says:

02:38pm | 06/11/12

Put me on a plane, give me 5 computers, 2 engineers, and a 3 experienced builders and we’ll put the lot of them to work building their own shelters.  Heck they might even learn a trade while they improve their own conditions, but I am willing to bet that when presented with this opportunity it would be snubbed by those on the island.  At the very least they could work for what they are given, and improve conditions, for them and future seekers of assylum

I worked on the design of Christmas Island centre, other than being designed exactly the same way we design local high security prisons, it was on a far more difficult building site than Nauru, and its essentially a high security resort, complete with tennis and basketball courts.  The government spent obscene amounts of money on Christmas Island detention centre.

Even if you send these people home, you’ll be sending them home with some basic skills that might improve their situations (and reduce the chance of them coming back).

bob of the freezing tropics says:

03:22pm | 06/11/12

Sneak in Australias back door, rule 303 should apply.

CC says:

03:43pm | 06/11/12

Tough conditions?  Tell you what, how about we start letting these boats make landfall in the NT and northern tip of WA which is where they would normally hit land.  See how many of them are granted visas by the crocs, mosquitos, and taipans.  Then we’ll talk about harsh conditions.

Utopia Boy says:

05:57pm | 06/11/12

It’s very, very difficult to have sympathy for people who believe they have a right to upset their hosts, regardless of their alleged status as a refugee. BY upset I mean destroy infrastructure, make a god awful mess in the toilets and ablution areas, expect access to internet and phones as if it’s their own house, abuse and physically assault staff, spit and “demand” release while their application is processed.

Ungrateful visitors are the worst kind, wouldn’t you agree? It’s becoming increasingly difficult to have any empathy for so called refugees, particularly if they are complaining about such horrendous conditions as living in a tent.

Surely a tent is much better than the “nothing” they had in their own country. Given they are all genuine refugees, surely they realise this is only a temporary situation, and as soon as their application is processed and approved, they will have a much better life.

Surely they realise they are damned lucky to be alive at all, and a soft government like Australia will probably let them in anyway.

Troublemakers like the ones facing court need not be tried in a Nauru court, but expediently put on a plane / boat / raft / weather balloon and be truly freed.