Gillard talked the talk on refugees, walks with a limp

Brad of Bentleigh says:

07:45am | 07/07/10

I tend to agree, Eric. I also find it astonishing that the likes of the author are willing to “wait and see” if this policy is Pacific Solution v2.0.
The hypocracy is amazing from the left… if it was JWH announcing this, they’d be howling at the moon… queen Joolya does it, neary a whimper.

mid says:

08:18am | 07/07/10

“This purpose was advocacy for political prisoners - those who were jailed purely for their views.” I might add “or the political views of others”, in which case in talking about the asylum seeker issue they are operating well within their charter.

iansand says:

08:40am | 07/07/10

Eric - There is an outside chance that your mindless characterisation as “far left” of everything with which you disagree is the problem.  It makes you look one dimensional, putting things as politely as I can.

Alex P says:

08:49am | 07/07/10

Hi Eric, Amnesty International still works hard to advocate for political prisoners. However, we broadened our mandate becuase sadly there will always be political prisoners when basic human rights are not respected.

Seeking asylum is one of those basic human rights, and one that isn’t always properly respected in Australia. Amnesty International Australia could hardly be a credible organisation if we just called for governments in far off lands to respect human rights, while we ignored what was happening in our own backyard.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:53am | 07/07/10

Iansand :  Not at all Ian , Eric’s view on Amnesty is one shared by more people than you may think . When it comes to monetary support , Amnesty are right there in the thick of the loony left social set with their hands extended for the cash flowing from the heart bleeders like lava from a volcano.
Gillard is in desperation mode , expect anything from here on , she has announced tis policy on the back of two phone calls . This has the echo of the BER school buildings program reverberating around it , a total lack of management.

mid says:

09:11am | 07/07/10

“loony left social set” Do you think that helps or hinders your argument?

Phil says:

09:56am | 07/07/10

Eric

What I love about Tony Abbott’s new plan is that entities like Amnesty International and the Bleeding Hearts Foundation, Unions NSW and the ALP can sponsor their own refugees into Australia, pay for their food, clothing and shelter.

Therefore rather than you and I coughing up our billions for this cause, allthose wanting to help others can do so. Its simple really, get on a flight to Indonesia, pick your new live in and pay the appropriate fees, fly then here and wella. your new flat mate is here to stay.

Having said the above, I personally beleive that Australia could take more genuine refugees in its just I have an issue with queue jumpers or country shoppers. I would have no issue selecting more say 5,000 more per annum from camps who are found to be genuine and bringing them here with a specific role in mind, be that country population, farming hands, etc. This is more humane. I would also send anyone back who flies here or arrives by boat illegally, tbut thats my view.

As for Joolya’s policy it will never see the light of day. Its simply ME TOO just like that last bloke. Joolya is as boring as her predecessor. As Piers wrote, same pig just new lipstick. (The pig being the ALP for those that think I hate women)

Jon says:

09:56am | 07/07/10

I use to but member years ago. Gita Sahgal a highly respected lifelong human rights activist and head of Amnesty’s gender unit, questioned the human rights group’s links to Islamic radicals, it suspended her. Now she fears for her safety.

For some deluded reason elements in the left see support for Islamists as a way for destroying capitalism, but thing that will be destroyed is the left. As they were in Iran, after supporting the religious nut jobs, during the Islamic revolution.

Tara says:

09:58am | 07/07/10

They aren’t illegal immigrants. It is legal to seek asylym.

Doh says:

10:00am | 07/07/10

I agree wholeheartedly Eric.

I am a former Amnesty International patron but ceased my regular contribution after hearing of their dreadful treatment of Gita Sahgal.

Double standards and hypocrisy, shame A.I.

Hamish says:

01:16pm | 07/07/10

So true Eric. I said exactly this last time we had a post from an Amnesty shill.

They’re now just another unrepresentative, unelected NGO with no responsibility other than trying to maximise their share of the global middle-class hand-wringing dollar.

I mean seriously, how does housing people who turn up in boats from Indonesia uninvited in slightly more comfortable accomodation that they’ve become accustomed to qualify us for Amnesty scrutiny? Especially considering we can’t possibly accomodate all of the 15 million+ real refugees worldwide let alone the country shoppers and ex-Tamil terrorists who aren’t even included in those numbers.

I would have though someone like Iran, Cuba, China, or North Korea would probably warrant more attention, but hey there’s nothing a self-hating white middle-class westerner is more willing to pay for than being told they’re evil.

Carl Palmer says:

02:19pm | 07/07/10

@ Phil says: 09:56am | 07/07/10

I agree wholeheartedly.  I’ve made this point before re onshore / off shore processing. I would support a 100% increase on our intake of those people who are in genuine need and who assigned to a life of misery, starvation, abuse in the various camps around the world.

These poor souls are just as disadvantaged, persecuted etc etc . In fact, these people are far more unlikely to be given asylum in Australia than those who have had the means to make it to our shores.

Julia,

Dan says:

02:54pm | 07/07/10

Tara, don’t bother. Numerous people, such as myself, have pointed it out, however conservatives continue to conveniently ignore that fact.

PaulB, those countries which the asylum seekers pass are not legally obligated to accept refugees. We are.

Eric says:

06:23pm | 07/07/10

Wrong again, Dan and Tara.

Sixty per cent of Afghani boat people are determined by the Refugee Tribunal not to be genuine refugees. Therefore, the majority of them are, in fact, illegal immigrants.

ffred says:

11:04pm | 07/07/10

Eric , non criminal asylum seekers are imprisoned without having committed a crime and may , under the law in Australia, be detained and deprived of their liberty indefinitely. Immigration detainees don’t receive a sentence with an end date. It’s the uncertainty that kills them softly. I am relieved that Amnesty is engaging in a major social justice issue on home turf because refugees who have fled persecution and made it across our border need justice. Thankfully many young Australians recognise human rights abuses and will support Amnesty and work for a more humane treatment of vulnerable people. Onya, Alex!

Super D says:

08:24am | 07/07/10

It’s called governing by thought bubble.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:41am | 07/07/10

Stevie :  Correct !  One call to the N.Z.  Prime Minister , one call to an obscure Timor bureaucrat and Gillard announces Labor’s border protection policy. !  A political quick fix for the election .  Subsequent comments from N.Z.‘s Prime Minister and Timor’s Hose Horta reveal a luke warm response to Gillard’s assumption based announcement.
This backflip from Gillard is full vindication of John Howard’s pacific solution and reveals the desperation now rife in Labor ranks. Pehaps an apology to John Howard for Labor’s villification of his strong border protection policy will be forthcoming but i won’t bank on it.  It is clear now , that ” meetooism ” will be the echoing cry heard throughout political corridors over the next 4 weeks.

T.Chong says:

08:57am | 07/07/10

Stevie, SuperD and Wayne- decry Gillard and her policies how you will, (thats what this site is for, all good ), but guys, no matter what you say, yous know that Gillard is setting up an electoral victory.
As for “metooism"the ex member for Benelong first championed that idea (along with core and non core promises) way back in ‘96.
It worked then for the LNP. and its working now for Labor.
The Gillard team has learnt its lessons.

DD Ball says:

09:04am | 07/07/10

This is as bad as anything Rudd did. No planning, except she has known for all the years she opposed the Pacific Solution that that was what was best on offer. at least 170 people died so she could have a political advantage. I note she dismissed the number dead as being not much in the scheme of things. That is ALP compassion.
Amnesty lost their way long before they began supporting those who advocate terror. Advocacy groups exist because people need a voice .. but they get corrupted by those wishing to exploit that voice. I regret the money I gave them.

Joan says:

09:20am | 07/07/10

Yes Gillard shows a total lack of diplomatic skills with barely a twitter to East Timor leaders she publicly turns East Timor into a haven for refugees

Roja says:

10:37am | 07/07/10

@Wayne.  Is Ramos Horta an obscure Timor Diplomat?  He seemed to know all about it on lateline.

As for the Pacific Solution being ‘ideal’ well Nauru is over 3,000 km’s to the East - while East Timor is in the area they intercept the boats.  If this processing can be established it seems far more logical and safe to tow any boats there.  Not to mention much cheaper than paying Navy personnel to ferry them there, while improving security as our armed forces remain in the area. 

Sounds to me like y’all getting a bit nervous.

jk says:

11:26am | 07/07/10

So when TA spontaneously announced his policy of paid maternity leave without consulting his party was that a whiteboard, brainstorming exercise?  Or is this criticism just another example of people with incredibly selective memories?

MarK says:

11:37am | 07/07/10

Wow Chong wow.

“Stevie, SuperD and Wayne- decry Gillard and her policies how you will, (thats what this site is for, all good ), but guys, no matter what you say, yous know that Gillard is setting up an electoral victory.”

So you are all for whatever it takes.

You accept that you can trash you beliefs for a victory.

You accept that spin, lies and backflips are fine as long as it brings power.

You are prepared to blindly follow “your” side no matter what and “lurch” to whatever view they take however hypocritical and perverse?

It really must sad being you. I truly feel sorry for you.

T.Chong says:

11:57am | 07/07/10

MarK 11:37- this is nothing to do with me, my wants or belief.
I’m commenting on the ALP tactics, which appear to be working.
No use having a go at me about ALP strategies to win the election.

PaulB says:

02:02pm | 07/07/10

No Tara, the seeking of asylum ceases once you’ve passed through the second or third country on the way to your CHOICE of destination.

MarK says:

02:26pm | 07/07/10

Keep telling yourself that Chong.

Whatever it takes comrade. How intellectually boring it must be for you.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

02:36pm | 07/07/10

Roja :  Horta made it very clear that he had very little knowledge of the matter and he seemed very cautious indeed , on any suggestion that the matter was cut and dried.
Roja , you mentioned the cost being less to site the detention centre in Timor .  Rather difficult to push that line as the facilities already exist on
Nauru .  The fact that the army is currently in Timor keeping the peace intact is another reason that Timor is a bad choice . Timor is an unstable region , hardly the place to set up a refugee processing and detention centre.
Gillard is ready to waste millions of dollars on a stupid duplication of infrastructure and while there are dills supporting her stupidity , we will see a lot more of the BER type of outcome.

Doh says:

02:45pm | 07/07/10

@MarK

I don’t know if you have noticed but Chong’s comments seem to lack the conviction they once held when Rudd was in charge.

Must be a battle of conscience going on between the ears.

Roja says:

04:55pm | 07/07/10

@Wayne - I wasn’t talking about infrastructure.  I was talking about the cost of having our navy taxi asylum seekers to Naura some 3,000 km’s away from where they are being intercepted - as compared to East Timor which is actually in the area.  It would be much safer transporting the boats to a nearby port - which makes a mockery of any claims by Abbott that stopping the boats for humanitarian reasons. 

Not to mention my original point, that our Navy remains in the area to perform it’s primary function (which is not as a taxi service)

Face facts the real reason Howard chose Nauru was because it is not a signatory to the UN policy on refugee’s - which makes it easier to leave them there (although most made it here anyway). 

Like I said elsewhere, neither side offers a good solution in my books and never have.  I’m with Malcolm Fraser in that this should be a bi-partisan issue.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:34pm | 07/07/10

Roja :  I have taken on board your comment on Naval cost related to greater travel distance where Nauru is concerned , but that differrence is far outweighed by the costs of duplicating infrastructure in Timor .
The distance factor would fade in the long term as a stronger policy on border control was implemented.  However the whole matter becomes academic after Ramos Horta’s announcement that he did not fancy the idea of Timor being turned into a prison and processing centre for illegal entrants to Australia. There have been further rumblings from Timorese politicians who also have grave concerns over the issue.
Roja , there is no chance of the illegal arrivals becoming a bi-partisan matter .  Can you imagine what a relaxed border control measure outcome would be. ?  Australia could never be geared up to deal with the resulting avalanche of boats arriving on our shores.  There are real concerns in the Australian community about the increasing arrivals , health , criminal element , terrorist infiltration , taxpayer funded welfare ,
jobs taken by refugees whilst Australians remain unemployed . These are just a few of those concerns .  This country can not afford to relax border control , Rudd did , and now we are paying the price .
Yes , there are humanitarian concerns and i’m sure the genuine cases would be processed and addressed accordingly .

Roja says:

02:55pm | 08/07/10

@Wayne - where do the refugee’s predominantly come from?  Iraq & Afghanistan (from two wars Howard led us into, not that I was against either - just stating the facts) and Sri Lanka (where the civil war happened after Howard was deposed).

While you commend Howard for his brilliant approach to boat people, just remember we are now wearing the consequences of his decisions and also a bloody civil war in Sri Lanka.  The constant claims that labor policy created the massive influx is great spin.  I won’t deny it was a small factor on why people chose this destination, but to say it’s the cause is the same head in the sand approach that Pauline Hanson pioneered.  I had hoped Australia was a bit more sophisticated than that.  I certainly do not believe the election of Abbott will make any real difference to the boat numbers. 

As for “there is no chance of the illegal arrivals becoming a bi-partisan matter .  Can you imagine what a relaxed border control measure outcome would be. ?” and your ensuing xenophobic rant.  Can you explain the logic flow from “bi-partisan approach” to “relaxed border controls”.  You seem to not understand that bi-partisan infers “political neutrality to achieve the best outcome for this country”.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:35pm | 08/07/10

Roja :  First let me address your assertion that Australia is wearing the
consequences of John Howard’s decision to commit troops to Iraq and Afghanistan . Whether he had committed Australia’s participation or not , the boat people were always going to try the illegal entry tack via criminals who organise them into lucrative groups at unbelievable costs. Most of us agreed with the Howard govt.‘s decision to join with U.N. forces in both countries , Iraq -WMD information supplied to ASIO ,
Afghanistan - United Nations request for help in suppressing organised worldwide terrorism.
The Rudd/Gillard govt. lifted the strong border protection which was in place under the Howard govt. , and the news of that easing of control swept like wild fire to both Iraq and Afghanistan . The criminal element organising people smuggling grabbed the opportunity and the result was a heightened influx of boats.
I’m well aware what political bi-partisanship is Roja : what i am trying to point out to you is that there is not a snowflake’s chance in hell of the matter becoming bi-partisan , when Labor pushes a soft approach and the Coalition a hard approach. ( Gillard has moved to adopt a harder stance for electoral reasons since we started this debate )
I don’t deal in xenophobia Roja , just facts , xenophobia is an hysterical
term coined by Bob Brown to galvanise the loony left to vote Green , don’t get yourself tangled in with that bunch of space wasters . You have far too much intellect which may be misplaced if you go down that path.

Roja says:

02:01am | 09/07/10

Wayne: I did say I was not against the wars, however that’s immaterial - the war happened and there is no point painting a scenario where they would have come anyway - you can never substantiate that claim except in a ‘what if?’ fantasy novel.  We chose to depose a government and create lawlessness, it follows that we now take responsibility for our actions as a nation.  We helped cause the displacement of these people of which there are genuine refugee’s and the non-genuine.  In any group of people there is always an ugly element of idiots that ruin it for the rest - I believe you are describing that element.  To me if someone is attracted to the idea of a lengthy stint of voluntary imprisonment then they are clearly fleeing some serious shit.  This argument I guess boils down to the question - do we want to punish the genuine asylum seekers for the actions of the criminals & potential terrorists?  I personally don’t, but respect that you are willing to. 

As for the facetious “bi-partisanship” jibe, read your earlier post I was responding to.  You state the obvious that bi-partisanship won’t ever actually happen (I was saying that it should, not will), then you jump in to life with open borders as if that would be a consequence.  Start a new paragraph or use a segue if they were not connected comments.

I used the term ‘xenophobic rant’ on your ensuing comments as they normally tend to be more considered, if you are going to be grossly lazy and pull out the “avalanche of boats” line from the One Nation playbook it fully deserves the title ‘xenophobic’ in the fear of foreigners sense.  I don’t believe Bob Brown has patented the word yet.  So until he does, I stand by my use of it.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

12:49pm | 09/07/10

Roja :  So you believe that if Australia had not fought in Iraq and Afghanistan the rest of the countries would not have fought there either. ?  Sounds a little naive to me , the war would have been prosecuted with or without our presence and therefore the illegal boat entrants would have still turned up on our shores.
However that is all history and not the point at all , like it or lump it , the illegal boat people must be stopped , we have enough worry about in our own backyard without taking on another country’s problems.
There was no attempt on my part to be facetious with my bi-partisan comment , it was an answer to your odd line that the * matter * should be bi-partisan , which suggests that both sides should relax border control and let the illegals come.
The xenophobic label is , as you are well aware , a slur hung on all who disagree with Bob Brown’s bleeding heart approach to dealing with boat people and you use it in your own argument to debase my point of view . I have to say it does not add points to your skills in debate Roja.

Roja says:

12:59pm | 11/07/10

“So you believe that if Australia had not fought in Iraq and Afghanistan the rest of the countries would not have fought there either? “

WTF - where did you get that conclusion from?  I said nothing of the sort. 

“the war would have been prosecuted with or without our presence and therefore the illegal boat entrants would have still turned up on our shores. “

Another fantasy “what if” scenario.  We were involved, as such we have a responsibility. 

“However that is all history and not the point at all , like it or lump it , the illegal boat people must be stopped , we have enough worry about in our own backyard without taking on another country’s problems.”

1.  The wars aren’t history - they are both still happening.
2.  The boats are already being stopped and processed, this debate is the methods used to do it. 
3.  This country is in great shape, we have plenty of capacity to help people who need it.  Our main problem is the media telling us our country is not in great shape. 

“there was no attempt on my part to be facetious with my bi-partisan comment , it was an answer to your odd line that the * matter * should be bi-partisan , which suggests that both sides should relax border control and let the illegals come.”

Err no Wayne, that is an utterly ridicilous assumption you have made.  Bi-partisan means that both major parties should agree on a that is best for the country (like they did for the wars).  Considering the current environment that would most likely mean off shore processing. 

“The xenophobic label is , as you are well aware , a slur hung on all who disagree with Bob Brown’s bleeding heart approach”

The term you used, “avalanche of boats” was a term coined by Pauline Hanson to inflame hatred of foreigners.  Using it opens your comments up to the correct label of “xenophobic” as in creating a fear of foreigners.  I used the label on those specific comments, not you, because you were lazy in copying and pasting the standard One Nation playbook lines.  As I also said, the word is in the dictionary and I was using it long before I even knew who Bob Brown was.

Richard says:

07:36am | 07/07/10

Rubbish Mark, if there is a main point of difference between the major parties (which evidently isn’t to be found on the assylum seeker issue), then it must surely be their respective economic credentials: one party has a history of delivering surplus after surplus and tax cuts, another party has a track record of being spendthrift wastrels racking up massive deficits and introducing great big new taxes.

So the implied choice facing voters in the upcoming election is simple: would we rather live in a country that resembles Canada or Germany (for example), or will we end up being in the same economic situation that the people of England or Greece currently suffer.

Darryl Price says:

08:08am | 07/07/10

Our borders leak like a sith - like the ones from Star Wars?
Bahahahahaha…..

Jason says:

08:21am | 07/07/10

Mark,
        since 9/11 this has been and always will be an issue to the Australian public.  I want to know who is arriving on our shores and why.  Seeing boat after boat after boat arriving does really concern me.  If we don’t have a policy which sends a strong message to people smugglers, then our shores up north will resemble Sydney Harbour on Boxing Day for the start of the Sydney-Hobart.

Troy says:

11:01am | 07/07/10

Sorry Mark I disagree with you. Border Security is a big issue, and getting bigger every week as more and more arrive. Gillards fluff policy will not work and will never happen. If anyone cares about this countrys future that we will be leaving to our kids and the changing culture that this country is going through at the moment then they have to care about who we let into this country. Since Labor got into power we have gone from 3 boats a year for 6 years to 3 boats a WEEK. 5000% increase in illegal arrivals in the last 3 years, if that is not a major concern I dont what is. I also am sick and tired of being called a Redneck because I believe that we should be able to choose who comes into this country. Anyone who calls someone a Redneck is Racist, and there is no difference between calling someone a Redneck or a Coon, Abo, Wog, Raghead, Gook, Nip, or any other Racist slag word used to describe someone. The sooner the left realise they are Racist everytime they resort to derogatory names to make there point the better.

James1 says:

11:24am | 07/07/10

You have a short historical memory Richard.  Look into the Fraser government, and Mr Howard’s time as treasurer.  I respect Howard as much as the next person, but you need to be honest about these things.  Otherwise, you are just as bad as your blinkered opponents.

Roja says:

02:12pm | 07/07/10

@Mark - I agree that my vote will be decided on more important issues, since neither side has ever offered a quality solution - this should be a bi-partisan issue like the two wars we are currently involved in. 

@Jason / Troy - So you have a problem with boat arrivals, what about the 90% arriving by plane?  Should we tow the planes back to their point of origin? 

@Troy - nobody here called you a redneck. Sure you have a right to be concerned, however calling everyone on the left racist is childish and completely destroyed your argument. 

What I also want to know is where was the outrage when those Olympic athletes sought asylum?  It’s the same thing, they were jumping the queue yet surprisingly not a word from anyone.  It seems morals can be bought off with just the potential to win a sporting event.

Troy says:

04:24pm | 07/07/10

Roja, you missed the point altogether. I dont have any problem with people flying here and claiming asylum, as they will have a passport and ID comfirming who they are and they can be processed as to there refugee status. As far as I can see, no one here has a problem with refugees at all, so long as they are genuine refugees. The problem is that the boat people coming here pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers to get here, they either fly to Indoesia with there passports and then suddenly lose them on the way to Australia, or they cross through several safe countries before they get to Indoesia (all of which they can claim refugee status) but they choose to spend thousands of dollars to get here and throw away any ID to make it as hard as possiable for us to deport them. That a far cry from being a genuine refugee. If the come by plane which would only cost them about $1500.00 and they are found not to be a refugee, then they are deported.

Aimee says:

07:06pm | 07/07/10

How about voting for another party besides the big 2 (LIB - the Liberal Party or ALP - Another Liberal Party).  Only when Australians start using their votes wisely and take advantage of the preferential voting system will we see real change, real debate and real democracy in Australia!

Jason says:

07:59pm | 07/07/10

Roja
You simply miss the point again.  I was stating that the boats were an issue to the voters unlike what Mark was saying.  Reading my post I don’t remember saying that planes weren’t an issue.  Everyone who flies in by plane is photographed and fingerprinted.  I’m not sure this is the case when they make it to land unnoticed….

Roja says:

03:14pm | 08/07/10

@Jason, fair cop - I re-read your post and agree I got it wrong.  If I could retract my earlier post I would do so.

You have every right to be concerned about the security implications of people entering this country without being intercepted.  I’m not sure how common that is though, I guess it would be best described as one of the “Known Unkowns”.

TrueOz says:

08:05am | 07/07/10

Richard,

People who are enterprising and courageous enough to risk life, limb and everything that they own in order to leave an impoverished, war torn nation for a better life in Australia should be both welcomed and actively assisted – not discouraged from coming here.

The type of spirit and courage that is required to take the very severe risks associated with becoming a boat person is perhaps indicative of the general character of these people, and I suspect that we need more immigrants just like this – not less. Perhaps you should speak with a boat person sometime and get to grips with what is required just to get on board a boat and make the trip. I can guarantee that the experience will be most illuminating for you.

Are these people fortune seekers? We can only hope so. The courage and persistence that they have shown just to get here should place them in good stead to make a success of life in Australia, like so many who have come before. I welcome these people and wish that more of my fellow countrymen would do the same.

Sophie says:

08:30am | 07/07/10

Hi Richard, I would say you draw the line at the agreed Refugee Conventiion. If a person meets the criteria for being a refugee they’re in and need protection, if they don’t and they have gone through a complete assesment -  they’re back to their homeland.

iansand says:

08:33am | 07/07/10

This is a false dichotomy.  Refugees become so to seek a better life.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

08:51am | 07/07/10

Precisely Richard and as I’ve said elsewhere look at what has happened in England as a result of their previous Labour Government’s very generous immigration policy.  We have not taken in such large numbers of immigrants and we should ensure that we do not because, if we do, it will be almost impossible to reverse.  Ramos Horta says he does not want his country to become an “island prison” well, neither do we want ours to become an “island prison”, even if at present it is not.  The point is, we should not want to go down that path at all and separating the genuine from the fake is very important.

Alan Pevie says:

09:05am | 07/07/10

Australians do not want to stop genuine asylum seekers. The point everyone seems to miss is that the people who who choose to come here by boat are paying large sums of money to smugglers instead of paying their money to an airline and going through the correct immigration procedures in country of origin. Alan Pevie Rostrevor SA

marley says:

09:57am | 07/07/10

The issue isn’t where you draw the line between an asylum seeker and a fortune seeker, it’s where you draw the line between a refugee and a fortune seeker.  Asylum seekers have a right to make their claim for protection, but only refugees have a right to receive it.

And the line between a refugee and a fortune seeker is drawn at the UN Convention definition of a refugee - a person with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”  This does not include people who have been displaced by natural disaster, people whose economic situation is dire, nor does it necessarily include people displaced by war or civil insurrection.  The key is the word “persecution.”  Not poverty. Not danger. Persecution.

Whether someone arrives via a camp under the offshore resettlement program, or whether he flies to Malaysia, skips over to Indonesia and then hops on a boat, is irrelevant to whether he or she is a refugee. All that matters is whether he meets the definition.  If he does, he has rights. If he doesn’t, he has none and it is entirely within our prerogative to deport him.

Garry Longbottom says:

10:39am | 07/07/10

I agree, I can’t think of any international treating regarding the handling of fortune seekers.

Troy says:

11:27am | 07/07/10

TrueOz so by your analogy people who break the Laws of our country are the people we want to live here? Makes sense I guess seeing Australia was a prison camp originally. It may not be against the law to apply for refugee status, but it is against the Law to come he by boat. If these people where truly refugees then they would be able to apply like everyone else that doesnt have thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers, or they could catch a Qantas plane and just land at our airports with all the documents to prove that they are truly refugees. But by your reckoning we would rather have people come here that willfully break our laws because they would make good citizens. Somehow I think your moral compass is screwed up.

TrueOz says:

12:41pm | 07/07/10

@Troy

I’ll admit that my compass is far more pragmatic than it is moral. I’d much rather have someone arrive here who was prepared to roll the dice and take huge personal risks, rather than just sit on their arse whilst waiting for violence and death to arrive on their doorstep - waiting for a Canberra bureaucrat to put a rubber stamp on a piece of paper. If I was living under the conditions that those people are, I can assure you that I’d be doing whatever I had to in order to bypass bureaucracy and get on that boat. Any person of courage, initiative and resourcefulness would do the same thing.

Ryan says:

12:58pm | 07/07/10

@TrueOz : that is the most offensive comment in regards to refugees in camps around the world I have EVER heard. How dare you make such an offensive assumption about those people supposedly “just siting on their arse whilst waiting for violence and death to arrive on their doorstep”.
You know NOTHING of their circumstances, you know NOTHING of their financial situation and you know LESS THAN NOTHING of what opportunities they have to leverage their “initiative and resourcefulness”.

Clearly you believe that these supposed “assylum seekers” on boats with wads of cash in their pockets are equal to those genuine refugees stripped of everything except their lives in a desperate situation hoping for a “fair go”, I can tell you that there is not even the closest comparison.

Troy says:

01:10pm | 07/07/10

TrueOz, I understand your analogy of welcoming people who are prepared have a go in life, and if I was in the same situation and I heard Australia was welcoming anyone who could make it there by boat, I proabably would have a crack at getting here to with all the benifits Australia has to offer anyone who is classed as a refugee. That right there is the problem with the currant policys. Anyone who make it here can get access to all the benifts we offer, but how many genuine refugees are missing out on what we have to offer, because boat people who have access to money and can get to a safe country are taking there spots. Also how many people have died trying to get here (about 150) in the last three years? Those deaths are a direct result of KRudds policy opening the door to people smugglers. As I said I understand where you are coming from, but I dont agree with it.

TrueOz says:

01:22pm | 07/07/10

@Ryan

You’re missing my (pragmatic) point. I agree with what you say about people stuck in hopeless situations being unable to do anything more than what they are doing. There are other people who could do more, and for whatever reason choose not to. Boat people (by means fair or foul) find a way to make their journey to Australia.

Life isn’t fair, especially for the desperately poor and displaced. The unfairness of it all does not in any way diminish the risks assumed by boat people, nor does it make their claims as refugees any less urgent or compelling.

I’m glad that you appear to be one of those people who at least agrees that legitimate refugees have a right to come here seeking refuge. We appear to agree about something more important than a persons’ method of arrival.

TrueOz says:

10:53pm | 07/07/10

@Troy

Thanks mate. I’m so pleased to see some more people who agree that legitimate refugees have a very real claim to coming here and having their applications for refuge considered. What you say about KRudd is true - what a bloody imbecile! Unfortunately, his policies were developed by our illustrious PM, who is now tring hard to present herself as a compassionate hardliner (how oxymoronic). I wish I could say that Tiny Abbott represented a better alternative - but that’s just a wish!

Press says:

03:56pm | 11/07/10

True Oz, interesting points, not all I can agree with, but you’ve got Ryan bang to rights.

He’s pretty much claimed the Most Easily Offended Poster title hereabouts. His postings are so often empty hot air,  that he’s easily and often shot down, poor precious. That’s when he turns on a bit of Caps Lock tanty.

Must be quite exhaussssssting for the poor little feller, really.

ALLAN says:

07:23am | 07/07/10

Gillard
Had Change the location & called it New
Wake up Australia She is copying the LIB’s
Bring back K Rudd Less B.S. 
Labour is on the nose

Brewster says:

08:11am | 07/07/10

Dead to me, it constantly amazes me that people can look at one party and cite their obvious self interest, but yet believe to their inner core that the opposition party are generous, serving, thoughtful, warm hearted with nary a fault worth mentioning.

Wake up and smell the coffee, there is only a small handful of politicians in your lifetime that are not self serving. I would offer as evidence of one of the best as former deputy PM John Anderson. This man is an excellent example of a serving, generous, thoughtful member of the political community who was in the parliament for what he could give not get.

marley says:

10:12am | 07/07/10

Rob, I think you have misunderstood what Julia is proposing. 

She is not proposing that East Timor process these people for refugee status in Australia.  She is proposing that an Australian processing center be set up in East Timor.  The East Timorese would agree to the establishment of the center,  IOM would probably manage it, and Australia would provide financing for the operations of the camp, for food, education and medical care.  The East Timorese would benefit from employment in the camp, and no doubt from generous additonal financial aid.  But, it would be Australian immigration assessing the cases and making the decisions.

The fact that East Timor is a signatory to the Convention is irrelevant.  The Convention mandates that asylum seekers must have access to a refugee determination process, and also that those who are found to be refugees must be granted protection.  It doesn’t say a whole lot about time.  Processing takes as long as it takes, whether it’s in Woomera or Baxter, or in East Timor or Nauru.  If there are a hundred people, with documents, it will be quick;  if 2000, without documents, it will be slow.  Nothing to do with whether or not East Timor has signed the Convention.

So tell me, how is this in principle any different from the Pacific Solution?

Ben Gia says:

10:46am | 07/07/10

Have you forgotten that Gillard has only had very short conversations with East Timor and New Zealand? How could this policy have been properly fleshed out, so how can it be a “good” policy?

Nothing Labor has done so far makes me believe that this will be any more successful than their previous policies, and as such I have a hard time believing that it will actually be successful.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:12pm | 07/07/10

marley says:10:12am; I never said East Timor would have to process our refugees. what I meant was that East Timor being a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention would need to follow the UN Conventions within its jurisdiction whether Australia sets up a processing centre there or not. Where Nauru is not a signatory and that is why Howard put his processing centre there and out of the watchful eye of the UN. And hence Julia Gillard regional proposal is very different from Howards go it alone Pacific Solution.

marley says:

09:11am | 08/07/10

@rob - I’m sorry,  Rob, but you’re dreaming if you think this proposal is any different to the Pacific Solution.  If it goes through (which I can’t imagine it will) there will have to be a change in the Timor Leste laws to exempt them from any responsibility for the asylum seekers. Otherwise, Timor Leste, not Australia, would be obligated to grant them all asylum.

So Timor Leste would have no more say in the processing than did Nauru.  The UNHCR would no doubt monitor the goings on, but the decisions would still be made by Aussie (and presumably) NZ immigration, not by the UNHCR.  Time frames would be those set by the immigration services of those two nations.

And for all those undocumented arrivals found not to be refugees, well, they’ll be sitting there for years while Australia tries to figure out some way to deport them.  It’s just Baxter and Nauru all over again.  And every bit as cynical.

Richard Ure says:

10:49am | 07/07/10

How are our sea borders compromised if every single person arriving by sea is subject to official ( and suspicious) scrutiny. Surely such a person’s arrival is more carefully examined than on of the millions of a people seeking a tourist or student visa off-shore and probably on-line?

Aitch B says:

01:09pm | 07/07/10

@Richard.

Um….. those seeking a student or tourist visa have some bona fides like passport, social security number, etc. So called ‘boat people’ tend not to have any at all!

Daily Magnet says:

09:16am | 07/07/10

The protracted articulation is not dissimilar to someone who is new to the language giving a speech in English - Julia is finding it hard to get translators who speak Vuvuzela so she’s going it alone. It was that or a sinus scrape.

It’s part of the Alice in Wonderland image upgrade - less Red Witch (y’know - “off with his head!”) and more spacey ‘White Queen’ - “let me unearth a solution to everything” (just don’t looks at the toads going into the brew).

Nicole says:

08:43am | 07/07/10

Your perception of an immigrant is distorted, please do some research. Google would be a good start.

Timmo says:

10:30am | 07/07/10

Claire, Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to put you down there, you may have thought I was. It was about the anthem and the ideals put there, which are good, but at the end of the day don’t necessarily give the results the verse states so nicely to every one of the peoples. In the real world it’s not really like that for many, but it suits and raises the passions of the people and creates Patriotism.

There are many of them with very nice sentiments, every country has them and they have the same problems of not being able to produce what they say in verse. You are obviously more Patriotic than me and good on you for it.

Andrew says:

12:19pm | 07/07/10

That’s why no-one sings the second verse.

Davo says:

02:03pm | 07/07/10

Clare you muppet. I’m not an immigrant - I was born here in Australia. If (as you seem to suggest) it is only indiginous Australians that are not immigrants, tell me is an aboriginal with an irish great grandfather an immigrant too? Or does aboriginal blood wash away and purify the unclean blood of the marauding invaders’ blood when it is all mixed together?

Get off your high horse. Every nation has the right to choose who it accepts as immigrants. We Australians, through the political process, are making that choice now. If you don’t like the end result of the decision of the ignorant and uninformed in our electorate come election time, you might have to become an emmigrant and seek a more inclusive society to become a part of. We all have our choices to make and our crosses to bare!

mid says:

09:03am | 07/07/10

Wow, drawing a bit of a long bow going from asylum seekers to multi-culturalism aren’t we?

I would say that Australia is a pretty good example of that, apart from the few blips on the radar such as Cronulla etc… but I would personally put those down to misguided nationalism before I would call it an issue inherent to multi-cultural society.

Whether you like it or not, we are a multi-cultural country. Get over it.

Timmo says:

10:15am | 07/07/10

L. I think you can claim to be “indigenous’ if you were born in a particular place and either can prove or claim to have a spiritual connection with the land. I read some years ago re this law and I believe that it is in law in Australia. For Instance I am an Indigenous Person in my region and can claim spiritual connection with the land that I grew up in and explored both a child and adult.

I grew up along a Beautiful Mangrove River teeming with fish and the ocean with seafoods. I had my own trails through the bush and made friends with all of the native creatures. I could hunt fish and gather. I carried a Knife wherever I went and wasn’t considered a criminal or possible attacker of anyone. I used to whittle away.  I too felt and talked to the Spirits in special places that no one else knew of. In my town springs would run out of the clay banks on which the town sits and one could drink the pure water at the Blacksmiths cooling pond and they would bring the horses into town in those days. Snakes would be in town, Goannas and their lizard families and the Birds everywhere. You could talk to them every day. We used to dig up and eat the local Yam which was pure white, and they would grow throughout the bush in most places. I don’t think they’re there anymore probably have a building on top of where they were, now.

That is all gone now. Shame, really.

But with these things you don’t need a piece of paper to say, and no law can stop your claim to be indigenous if you like, but not Aboriginal, the Original People unless you are one of them and have connection through their tribal and spiritual and family systems. But Indigenous people can be of any race or skin pigment i believe. But you could check on it with the Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs I am sure as they would have the legislation which was formulated.

There are things that are unwritten and there are no external laws that can control them. After all, “Who is giving the Permission to Whom. These are the true laws not the false ones that are forced on us every day. Anyway good luck you indigenous person, you!.

5th Generation Hey, that’s good enough for me if that’s good enough for you. At what point can you claim. Well, from the earliest Ancestor I should imagine as also the Aboriginals will claim from the 1st Peoples, you also can claim and to make it more, if you have Deja vu,then this may be past life connection, as we may have had. We may return to our loved ones in this lifetime, and have symbols we bring with us on re entry also.

I think Multi Culturalism has worked very well in Australia and New Zealand for instance. Some think not and that’s their thought, idea and that’s ok. Generally it’s good here for everybody really, but where trouble arises in Australia is that peoples from other countries must see that Australians are very close to their country and traditions, and will fight to protect them and will win. So the best way is become similar to everyone else but still maintain the family traditions and culture within it all. Then acceptance may be more guaranteed.Religious Zealotism is the biggest danger at the moment and if it is allowed to grow in Australia could cause a Civil Religious type war here. I can never see Australians for instance, moving completely away from their traditions and becoming a religious state. Australians love their country and are very patriotic and will not let it go to some religious fundamentalist group no matter who they are.

But in Australia since the 2nd World War peoples from many European countries and from many others have come here to escape persecution and build a better life for their families, and because of that we now have great food and lovely mixed culture. In Marriages also the barriers are being broken down which will strengthen by the outcrossing of the Genetics. If we all stop and look around then we may see truly, and that would be better. I have many friends and family from a number of races and we get together and have friendship and peace. Anyway best wishes and good luck and don’t worry, worry just makes us sick. It has no value. Starve it to death.

James1 says:

11:37am | 07/07/10

Timmo is spot on.  I hardly even notice how different Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese and Chinese are any more.  They are just Australians with a different cultural background to me.  Thus, I would say that up to now, multiculturalism is working in Australia.  The only thing that will stop it working is if people like L insist that Italians, Greeks, Jews, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians, Timorese, Afghans, Indians, Sri Lankans, and all the other cultures here abandon their culture to adopt “Australian culture”, whatever that means.

On the increased prevalence of mixed marriages, even my gran accepted that I wanted a mixed marriage - Catholic and Protestant…

sighrius says:

11:39am | 07/07/10

“Besides, I’m 5th gen Australian, at what point can my family claim to be “indigenous”..? 6th Gen?? 50th Gen?? “

well - when your family has been here for 40,000 years, youre getting close. im 6th generation myself, and dont claim to be indigenous, but i do claim to be australian, as i recognise anyone else who is born here to be, or who takes an oath of citizenship.  if multi culturalism doesnt work, that would be the fault of the first fleet, a little over 200 years ago, when they imposed their culture upon the oriuginal inhabitants.

Clare says:

09:34am | 07/07/10

Which bit is dreaming Timmo? I didn’t write that verse in the anthem. If it is pie in the sky now, then lets change it. Refugees are immigrants, just ones who didn’t have the luxury of going to an embassy and applying to come. and for those who say the Aboriginal people also immigrated….well are we talking 60,000 years + ago….much more than even 7 generations.

Richard Ure says:

11:13am | 07/07/10

Clare is correct. Perhaps a debate about change to the wording of the national anthem might lift this discussion to a higher plane beyond the personal ambitions of Tony and Julia.

As if.

Hermano says:

09:45am | 07/07/10

Wouldn’t exactly be history-making: Frank Forde served as PM for 8 days in 1945.

Mayday says:

09:43am | 07/07/10

Hope this is tongue in cheek Andrew.
Please do not refer to our PM, a grown woman as a girl!

Richard Ure says:

11:02am | 07/07/10

Adam,
Please explain. 95% of the asylum seekers incarcerated in Nauru finished up here anyway. What exactly did that achieve other than reduce the pool of funds for JWH’s next tax cut and trash our reputation for being the fair go people? Oh, I remember: he conned the faithful.

AdamC says:

11:58am | 07/07/10

Um, Richard, I specifically said you don’t need exotic offshore processing centres (such as Nauru) to reduce boar arrivals. When you add an ‘n’, an apostrophe and a ‘t’ to ‘do’ it becomes ‘don’t’, which is actually the opposite of ‘do’.

I don’t (there it is again!) really approve of offshore detention, it is unnecessary and mean. Maybe you could send an email to Jools telling her that, given she has made it the centrepiece of her asylum policy. Unless it is actually you who have been conned, Richard.

The Coalition policy is better than Labor’s policy because it does not grant permanent residency to boat arrivals, while Labor’s does. With the permanent residency carrot available, no East Timor stick will deter arrivals.

Troy says:

12:23pm | 07/07/10

Richard Ure, Actually figure is about 70% of boat people that when to Naru got resettled back in Australia. But in 6 years that figure was about 600 people. This year alone we have had 3500 boat arrive and if you include the 5500 last year and 4000 the year before thats 13000 boat people that have come in just 3 years and we are still getting 3 boats a week. Howards policys stopped the boats coming and people risking there lives to get here, and Labors policys have cause over 150 deaths and over 13000 people trying to win the lotto by making it to Australia. There is obviously a big problem no matter who you support.

Hamish says:

12:59pm | 07/07/10

You’re right AdamC, it was the temporary protection visas which deterred boat arrivals, not the off-shore processing. As I understand, the offshore processing simply made it easier to deport the failed candidates.

I also think Abbott’s plan to deter boat-people from chucking away their passports, etc, is a great one. Should really speed up the process and will help make Australia safer.

Just an aside, I find it bizarre we are now expected to accept Tamil refugees after the war is over. I mean, WTF, why would you leave after the war finishes when you’ve had 30 years of war to claim asylum. I could posit an explanation, but I don’t want to be completely vilified for telling the truth, a la Wilson Tuckey.

Troy says:

12:27pm | 07/07/10

Good Point Trey, Why do we need another one in East Timor, when we already have one and Naru would only be to happy to reopen it.

Dash says:

01:40pm | 07/07/10

Yeah but guys the Character from Kath and Kim said it wasn’t a “Pacific” solution so she can’t reopen that one! It’s an “Indian Ocean” solution now. That’s so much more exotic don’t you think?

Timmo says:

01:11pm | 07/07/10

Why not encourage East Timor to help. After all, Australia helped them become an independent nation, and has also invested quite a lot of money to help them get on their feet a little better. They’re had a very difficult time of it since becoming independent so if helping Australia for a while helps their economy by creating Jobs for their people, then that’s good.

I think Nauru were payed and supported by the Howard Regime when they were in a similar position.

But many of the people who are detained will have to be allowed to come to Australia eventually and some will be sent home if illegal.

As long as East Timor has the right thing done by them throughout the whole process, then it may be of benefit. After all East Timor is an independent Nation and not controlled by Australia.

Seano says:

05:50pm | 07/07/10

Finished like a fox considering the current polls. You know you conservatives better come up with some policies because wishful thinking isn’t going to do it.

Doh says:

03:07pm | 07/07/10

@Gman:

“Not only was she disrespectful in arriving 35 minutes late, it then took her 35 minutes to actually get to the first policy announcement.”

A certain German dictator used exactly the same tactic when making public announcements.

Richard Ure says:

11:28am | 07/07/10

Good point Sickemrex. Why is it that voters in the least populated states, WA and Queensland exercised about this issue? Probably because they have never met a refugee.

And as refugees are tiny percentage of the migrant and student intake why are even people in the allegedly overcrowded main city suburbs concerned? Would the absence of every single one of the refugees make a discernible difference to the issues they complain about?

Dash says:

11:55am | 07/07/10

Good point Sickemrex! I think that the record foreign debt, the consecutive budget defecits, the lie about providing childcare facilities, the rorting of the school schemes fund, the insulation disaster, the $4.5billion hole in the current budget due to the tax backdown, the lie about not touching the private health rebate, the lack of delivery on more affordable housing, the removal of tax incentives for people to save for their retirement, the waste of taxpayers money on the NBN, the Laptops not delivered,  the increasing interest rates, the lie about grocery choice, and the failure of fuelwatch are all more important issues and all reason enough not to trust or return this joke of a government! People should get their “knickers in a twist” over this governments incompetence and be more fearful about the way they’re running the country.

Ryan says:

12:50pm | 07/07/10

I seriously doubt this issue is about refugees, although there are many that would like to “muddy the waters” of this issue by attaching it to the refugee crisis.
This issue is about giving people with the money to buy an air ticket to Indonesia then buy a trip on a boat to get here and effectively remove the chance of some poor refugee in another country who doesn’t have this wad of cash to buy an air ticket and a boat ride.

The people who aren’t being very compassionate are those that are happy for this to happen. Your compassion should be placed squarely with those who literally have nothing except patience and hope for a better life not with these queue jumping migrants with wads of cash to buy their way in, but I guess if you don’t see these people in these camps face to face you don’t care about them.

I think the Judeo-Christian value system you speak of is alive and well, there are a many who have the compassion enough to see the subsequent result of what these people are doing to real refugees in camps around the world. I think that the people who see this result also have a strong sense of “a fair go for all” not just those who are rich enough to pay their way in.

Daryl says:

12:31pm | 07/07/10

Agree 100% Jim. The other question of course is what are the details of this “deal” she’s done with East Timor? Anyone in the media thought of asking that question. They wont deliver anyway since no action will be required ‘till after the election.

James1 says:

11:40am | 07/07/10

Because the elite consensus that underwrote the bipartisan approach has collapsed, and both major parties are happy to use the issue to win elections.

Mike Ferguson says:

12:33pm | 07/07/10

Because since the dark of Pauline Hanson and John Howard the politics of this nation have been hold hostage by a minority of low economic status voters in a handful of marginal seats in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, south east Queensland and a few regional seats.  The disproportionate power these “Howard battlers”, driven by deep seated resentments, irrational fears and irresponsible media who prey on their fear, anger and confusion to generate easy advertising dollars is now arguably bringing the entire two party system to the brink of collapse.

jollyjoker says:

11:08am | 07/07/10

“Tony Abbott has a policy that is tried and tested, he has an actual solution with an INTENTION of implementing it..”

yes TPV tried and tested, thats why they were abolished in the first place, because they were shown to be cruel and inhumane. and “turning the boats around” is a policy?

lol - good one.  how does that work in the real world? they follow them home? get real.

both leaders are chasing the scared xenophobic voters, like yourself.

Ryan says:

11:34am | 07/07/10

@jollyjoker: I, unlike Labor and its voters have COMPASSION for those refugees sitting in camps around the world waiting patiently to come here because they have no other place to go and have been stripped of everything including their financial means.

Anyone who thinks that allowing these “boat people” with enough money to buy their way into Australia, to be processed as apparent refugees at the expense of those real people in need has no compassion. I guess for those people “out of sight - out of mind” is more important.

You can say what you like about the pacific solution, there were many more refugees that got a chance for a new life in Australia because they weren’t “bumped” by these queue jumpers. There are many who weren’t subjected to the “cruel and inhumane” treatment from people smugglers and many who didn’t die in the oceans. TPV’s have the ability to put a stop on the people smuggling trade because why would you pay thousands for a boat ride and a temporary visa whereas today there is almost a 100% guarantee of a visa and permanent residency given by people smugglers.

Accuse me of xenophobic behavior, hell accuse me of being racist, I don’t give a rats what your opinion of me is, what I care about is the welfare of those sitting in refugee camps with absolutely nothing, those who really need our help, not those buying a free ride into Australia.

Elize says:

11:51am | 07/07/10

Thank you Ryan, and no you don’t come off as a racist or a xenophobic behaviour, this is what most Australians would agree on and is agreed on by people like us. Why are we letting in those jumping in where real refugees waiting in camps in war torn countries in Africa, or Asia or South America. They’re LARGELY IGNORED. We should intake real refugees who don’t have any financial support and is currently as I type waiting at camps for weeks, months, years to come here and start a better life, not let these illegal immigrants throwing cash around to jump ahead.

Nicole says:

11:52am | 07/07/10

@Ryan, what you have posted has been my argument for so long, but very few people want to know about it. Hear hear, well said.

Daryl says:

12:06pm | 07/07/10

Jolly Joker, “I’ll turn the boats around” is a direct quote from Labor’s election campaign in ‘07. It came out of Rudd’s mouth and Gillard was shadow immigration minister and bagged the policy she now embraces - lol - good one! Presumably that’s the same Labor you now defend? And the same Labor that has failed to deliver, or created a wasteful mess time and time again. People have very short memories and they are being manipulated by the Labor media spin machine!

Troy says:

12:54pm | 07/07/10

jollyjoker it has nothing to do with being scared or xenophobic and in fact I resent the implication that anyone who doesnt agree with you is xenophobic. If anything the Howard Government policys where much more humane than Labor, as how many people died tried to get to Australia under Howard? So far the body count under Labor is more than 150 deaths of people who have drowned trying to get to here, yet people like you think the open door policy is being Humanitarian.

Aitch B says:

12:57pm | 07/07/10

Spot on, Daryl. Gillard now brazenly calls “turning the boats around” a LNP “slogan” whe she herself sat there nodding away behind SuperKev when he said exactly the same thing in the ‘07 election campaign!

Troy says:

01:21pm | 07/07/10

Well Said Ryan, Its funny how people talk of being compassionate to the boat people, and how Gillard and Rudds policys are Compassionate and Humane, yet its these very policys that have killed 150+ boat people trying to get here in the last 3 years, and the very policys that deny truly desperate refugees a place in Australia.

Clare says:

01:36pm | 07/07/10

In reply to Ryan…I think your argument is a bit of a smokescreen…the numbers of migrants are not effected by refugee numbers….not unless the electorate gets stirred up and tries to force the gov to do this. There are migration quotas, and they are independent of refugee numbers. The really interesting number is that 90% of illegal immigrants come by PLANE!!!!!! Why or why do people keep on believing these lies about boat people?

Nicole says:

02:01pm | 07/07/10

@Clair, there are approximately 13000 refugees accepted in to Australia each year. When these queue jumpers pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers to gain entry here illegally, those who have been waiting for years in camps are pushed back. Why are queue jumpers given preference to genuine asylum seekers? Why don’t you have a problem with that? As for the planes, those who overstay their visas are easier to eventually identify and send back. It’s a known fact that 3/4 of these boat people have flow to Malaysia or Indonesia to come here by boat, therefore they would have to have a passport, so why when they arrive here they have no ID? They are nothing more than economical queue jumpers.

neil says:

11:38am | 07/07/10

I also embrace change that is exactly why I don’t care about climate change.

Krista says:

12:20pm | 07/07/10

It worries me to Old Girl, but while there are so many ignorant sceptic’s, nothing will be done. It worries more than both of us, as the polls show it worries much of Australia.

6c legs says:

12:33pm | 07/07/10

Good on ya for mentioning the elephant in the room, the supposedly long dead “White Australia Policy” ... (oh how the libs i know long for it’s return)

Hell, why don’t we just shoot anyone trying to arrive on our shores in a leaky boat!
That, would sure"stop the boats”
Fancy the woman trying to address the need to pay people smugglers - the gall of her!
.../sarc!

very disappointed that the author failed to mention East Timor being a signatory to the UNs Refugee Convention.
I hope that none of the detractors EVER need another country to shelter them.

Troy says:

01:41pm | 07/07/10

Oldgirl dont worry to much about Global Warming, as the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years. Yes the climate is changing as it always has as part of the earths natural cycle, but all those prediction of the world being doomed have failed and I sure all the new prediction by the Alarmist like Al Gore will be false to. In fact even the euro countries are turning away from the Global Warming scam that they so heavily bought into just a couple of years ago.

MarK says:

12:36pm | 07/07/10

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/east-timor-mp-against-asylum-processing/story-e6frfllr-1225888856552

ahahahaha

oh dear

Krista says:

12:23pm | 07/07/10

Well its a relief to know our next PM is clever. Yes Julia will be our next elected PM.

cec says:

01:44pm | 07/07/10

Greens = Labor

Troy says:

01:45pm | 07/07/10

Well Neil, you have just voted for Labor. I am sure Gillard will send you a thankyou card.

BB says:

02:01pm | 07/07/10

Ohhh suuure the great Bob Brown’s solution to this whole problem would be to let everybody in with open arms, no ID required, no proof of refugee status, free everything. The Greens are a disgrace.

Paris44 says:

07:42pm | 07/07/10

I don’t agree the greens are a disgrace. Bob Brown articulates the facts well and with compassion / humanity. The assylum seekers fleeing Afganistan are fleeing from a war that our country is involved in. We are at war in their country but it’s safe for them to remain there?  Australians need to get in touch with reality. The number of assylum seekers arriving by boat is small in comparison to world movements. Why don’t we start a witch hunt for all the 50,000 odd visa overstayers and put them in a leaky boat back to where they came from? We are living in the lucky country but our leaders are making a mockery of us on the world stage. Howard was refused his cricket glory because of his racial prejudice and harsh treatment of assylum seekers. Please can we have a little bit of humanity? I will now vote Green as well and ok the vote goes to labour but that’s better than the alternative.

Nigel Catchlove says:

12:52pm | 07/07/10

She’ll only disappoint me on days ending with the letter ‘y’.

Nicole says:

02:08pm | 07/07/10

Hahahaha Nigel. That’s gold.

nosthow says:

05:07pm | 07/07/10

@Nigel Catchlove - your brilliance is only exceeded by your good looks Nigel. But get used to Ms Gillard - she will be your PM for many many years to come ! Oh yeah !!

Absquatulator says:

06:22pm | 07/07/10

Why not simply give Christmas Island to Indonesia which would substantially increase the difficulty of these boats reaching our area of jurisdiction?

Fred says:

10:26am | 08/07/10

Peter, you need better information about the laws that govern our nation state.It’s not an easy read, but the Migration Act 1958 draws into Australian law the UN Refugees   Convention obligations . S36 says : a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for a visa is a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Protocol. The 1994 Migration Regulations codifies this in S 36 and S65.If a person crossing our border, no matter how, says they want our protection as the Hazara victims of the Taliban do, to give an example, then Australia must protect them and assess their claims against the criteria in the Refugees Convention and determine whether they meet or fail to meet the “refugee test”. Most do, and the Minister grants then permanent protection. Good on him, good on us for making them welcome and giving them a new life.
y

fred says:

05:25pm | 12/07/10

Non sense, Trish,
A plane arrival who claims asylum and is found to be a refugee would be counted as an onshore refugee, wouldn’ they? Visa overstayers- about 50 000 of them currently- are illegal because they don’t have a valid visa. They should go or be deported.

It was a Ruddock/Howard government decision to count asylum seekers who are assessed to be refugees against the quota they set for the Humanitarian Program of selected refugees from Africa, Asia etc - currently 6 000 pa. It would be more honest to delink asylum seeker refugees whom we are obliged to protect   from the Humanitarian Program UNHCR confirmed refugees who we chose - don’t have to - resettle. A refugee is by definition legitimate - you can’t have an illegitimate one.