Prev
Next

The boats can be stopped, if war and hunger are too

Fiona David

by Fiona David

03 Jun 05:55am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

15

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

51

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

123

Filed under: Africa, Boat People, People Smuggling, Refugees, Tony Abbott

115 comments

Tony Abbott wants to stop the boats.  Can we do this?

A chariot awaits Somali refugees. Picture: Fiona David

I was recently in Djibouti, a small country that is very important in the world of people smuggling because of its location.  Djibouti is wedged between Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, some of the most conflict-ridden countries in the world.  In contrast, Djibouti is relatively stable. Importantly it has a long coastline in the Gulf of Aden.  A fishing boat can reach Yemen in under two hours.

Despite its peace, Djibouti is a very poor country.  Women still cart water on their backs. The CIA Fact-book describes the country as “mostly wasteland”.

Prior to 2007, most people wanting to escape the horrors of Somalia (and lesser known continuing civil conflicts in parts of Ethiopians) used to take the boats from Bossaso, Somalia’s major port. 

However, the port was attacked by grenades in 2007 and 25 migrants were killed.  Did this stop the boats? No. This event gave birth to a thriving people smuggling trade in neighbouring Djibouti.

In Djibouti, I visited one of the small towns on the coast that is heavily used by people smugglers. 

I spoke to the equivalent of the local Mayor.  He was overwhelmed by the people smuggling problem and frankly tired of people like me coming to visit him with lots of questions but no answers or assistance to provide. 

He said that in any one day, there might be 500 people (mostly Somalis and Ethiopians) waiting to meet up with smugglers, in his dusty, barren town of 10,000 residents.

He said he has tried everything to deter the migrants leaving on the smugglers boats.  He has even gone so far as to make prospective migrants bury the corpses of other migrants that have washed up on the beaches. 

He said the corpses shock him.  However, even this brutal action does not deter migrants from wanting to leave.  The factors that are pushing them out are stronger than the mere fear of drowning.

Djibouti has a refugee system.  This tiny country of 700,000 people provides protection to some 12,000 registered refugees.  However, the refugee system is failing. 

I spoke to young men who have escaped the horrors of Mogadishu, only to find they are not allowed to register as refugees.  The Djiboutian Government has made an unwritten decision that all young men from Somalia are a security risk. 

These young men are now living on the fringes of society, trying to simultaneously pick up work while also avoiding arrest. They are saving for a trip to Yemen.

Can we stop the boats?  I think we probably can - but there are few important steps along the way.  We will have to bring about world peace, ensure everyone has enough to eat, fix the desperately failing refugee system and end endemic corruption in the law enforcement and migration systems of many countries that are supposed to protect people.

I hope Tony Abbott is up for that challenge.

Most commented

430Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
335Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

115 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:58am | 03/06/10

      There are easier ways to stop the boats, as John Howard proved.

      Many of those “refugees” are not fleeing the crime and chaos of their home countries - they are spreading it to other countries.

      Reply

    • Vic says:

      08:05am | 03/06/10

      Its a pity to see Australian thinking going down the same ignorant path as isolated, insular, narcissist, middle America that has alienated itself from most of the real world quite successfully.

    • Matt says:

      08:48am | 03/06/10

      Eric, that was the first thing I thought!

      Vic, middle America aye. In a world in which North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others are floating around it’s interesting that you go straight to the middle (i.e. not elite) America is insular and bad line.

      Actually it’s quite pathetic and shows an utter lack of rationale.

    • Budz says:

      08:59am | 03/06/10

      Eric, if you know how to live one way, it’s difficult to change straight away.

    • Rick says:

      11:13am | 03/06/10

      Yes Eric, and the main problem is that when they come they are given too much and asked nothing - centrelink and dept. of housing take over.

      This condition (centrelink and govt. housing) would seem undesirable for many australians but for many people (not all, I know, but many) who are used to “carry water on their backs” as Fiona says, it’s more than they ever dreamt of, so comes to the next point: why work? and the subsequent chain reaction resulting in ghetto miliey in the high risers and kids growing up in this environment.

      I would say, leave the doors open, but don’t give them too much, unless they work for it. This will result in hard-working new australians and such attitude transmitted to following generations, instead of the current trend. And Abott has proposed this plan too if I’m correct?

    • Ryan says:

      11:36am | 03/06/10

      @Matt : oh no Matt, of course Middle America is the problem in the world, Vic thinks that Zimbabwe, Sudan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the lot are absolute models, hence we KNOW what the objective is of people like Vic, to turn Australia into Zimbabwe.

    • Darren says:

      01:28pm | 03/06/10

      Eric, John Howard did not stop the boats he just moved them to other poorer countries to be processed and the majority of those that arrived in Nauru and similar locations are all now living in Australia. The only thing Howard did was hide it from us by moving the problem offshore, we still ended up with the people just not the boats.

    • Alyssa KT says:

      01:59pm | 03/06/10

      Darren is correct. Eric, you live in fantasy land. A land Abbott likes you to stay in. Keep lapping up the lies.

    • Blink says:

      02:18pm | 03/06/10

      It might clear up some confusion if people looked at the simple graph of refugees arriving by boat over time.  The low point was when Kevin Rudd softened the laws on border protection…they’ve shot up astronomically since then.  And no, it’s not because of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka.

    • Randal says:

      03:21pm | 03/06/10

      Darren is not correct Alyssa, in fact boat arrivals under the Pacific Solution went from a high of 86 in 1999 (5500 arrivals in 2000) to a total of just 13 boat arrivals (140 people including crew) from 2001 - 2006… effectively putting an end to people smuggling to Australia.

      There was no hiding of the problem off shore, because the off shore holding solved the problem and by 2007 the pacific detention centres were closed as they no longer served a purpose.

      Even the Christmas Island detention centre, now stretched to breaking point, had such few asylum seekers the ALP discussed closing it down all together prior to the 2007 election.

      Of course that was before they softened our migration laws and threw the welcome mat out to the people smugglers and back they have come in droves with 118 boats arriving in the past 2 years with some 5000 asylum seekers risking their lives across the dangerous waters.

      So Eric is correct, Howard stopped the boats and it is Darren and Alyssa who seem to have journeyed to fantasy land as I am afraid to say for the both of you the facts speak clearly and plainly for themselves, regardless of your political persuasion.

    • Eric says:

      07:23pm | 03/06/10

      Indeed, Randal. The history is extremely obvious, and the vast majority of Australians are aware of the success of Howard’s policy against the failure of Rudd’s.

      In fact, I think even the people who plaintively object to the reality, know that they’re wrong. Perhaps they’d be more persuasive if they weren’t so plainly plying falsehoods.

    • Darren says:

      07:59am | 04/06/10

      Randal, the Nauru detention center was closed down in 2008 by the Labour government as Australia was in breach of UN conventions. The remaining refugees that were at the center at the time were moved to Australia and New Zealand. It was not closed due to no longer serving a purpose as you say.

      I think you are mistaken to believe the government immigration policies are entirely to blame for the current influx. People smuggling is a huge business by criminals that lie and cheat. It has more to do with war and famine and being offered arguably false hope to live in a free land.

      I am not in favour of either of our main political parties just facts and for Abbott to state that he will stop the boats is a fantasy. Lets face it, did he write it down?

    • Eric says:

      07:12am | 05/06/10

      Darren, the fact is that Howard did stop the boats, as pointed out by Blink. Tony Abbott can stop them too, simply by reinstating Howard’s successful policies.

      It’s not rocket science.

    • Gary Cox says:

      07:54am | 03/06/10

      Djibouti is a bit of a different situation to Australia. The people seeking refuge there are predominately from the region, therefore they are heading for the closest safe country.

      Whereas refugees/asylum seekers heading for Australia are heading halfway around the world to get here. If we make Australia too tough they’ll go to an easier country, after all they’re travelling large distances already, so it doesn’t really matter where they go.

      I think that boat people should be discouraged, mainly for their own safety. How many people are dying en route to Austalia in unsafe boats? Who knows. Lets toughen boat people rules and try and help the people at the other end through foreign aid and, going and getting them to apply to come before they get on a leaky boat.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      09:02am | 03/06/10

      Or we could be compassionate.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:27am | 03/06/10

      The recent changes to processing is having little effect, which goes to show it’s is not a policy. When people rant on how Howard stopped the boats they seem to forget at the same time G W Bush took out the Taliban and 3 million refugee returned to Afganistan. Yeah right stopped the boats my @$$. over 50% of the pacific solution refugees eventually come to Australia. While the cost of Howard paying off bananna republics at a sky rocketing cost to the tax payer. And know that of some of the forced returns disappeared or were tortured and murdered, I think the gamble on a leaky boat would look like a better option to most.

    • Mitzi says:

      01:22pm | 03/06/10

      Foreign Aid??? Well, we ALL know where that payola ends up, don’t we! And it sure as hell ain’t the poor & the needy!

    • sarah says:

      08:07am | 03/06/10

      harrowing. I nice reminder of the complex human elements in this debate

      Reply

    • Ains says:

      08:23am | 03/06/10

      Fiona’s piece highlights that we need to look beyond our borders to understand why boats end up on our shores: they are the manifestation of systemic human suffering which most of us can’t stand (or be bothered) to look at from the comfort of our Western lives.  Prevention at the site of suffering is more important than a cure for us.

      Reply

    • fred says:

      08:45am | 03/06/10

      spot on Fiona, but more information, please! What is the role of the United Nations High Commisssioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in such poor countries as Djibouti and in countries which have not signed the UN Refugees Convention and Protocol? Is it UNHCR which is not managing well enough the 12,000 registered there?  What funding does the UNHCR have and specifically, what does Australia give them to do a better job both here and in Pakistan and Iran, from where most of our Afghan asylum seekers come? Eric, check some facts about refugee source countries and the situation there.  Gary, last time I checked, Cambodia was the nearest Convention signatory country for our region, and Malaysia and Indonesia, the largest holding pens have no international legal obligation to carry the “burden” of the region’s asylum seekers, many of whom have compelling reasions for fleeing home.If only Pakistan would integrate the Afghans as equal citizens and protect them from persecution! If only Iran would stop persecuting and exploiting Afghans as slave labour, illegal workers without rights. Some room for more effective diplomacy! AND development aid.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:38am | 03/06/10

      I don’t know about Djibouti, but in most non-signatory countries, the UNHCR registers people as refugees, manages the camps (sometimes directly, sometimes through other agencies), ensures that registered refugees get either some kind of living allowance or food and shelter, and advocates for them with the local government and with potential resettlement countries. 

      However, its role is circumscribed by local laws, by funding limitations, by staffing limitations, and by the inability to resettle the majority of refugees.  Most refugees end up in a holding pattern, hoping to return home when things settle down.  Somalia is of course an intractable problem, Afghanistan perhaps less so (several million Afghans have returned home over the last few years).

      In Pakistan, the UNHCR has managed to persuade the Pakistani government to give many refugees temporary residence status, allowing them to live and work without fear of arbitrary arrest, but Pakistan is unlikely to ever agree to grant permanent asylum to several million people.  Same with Iran.  Trying to absorb that many people, with the ensuing social responsibilities, would place just too much pressure on often fragile local economies.

    • Fiona says:

      10:12am | 03/06/10

      hi Fred:  Glad to have piqued your interest in Djibouti.  Djibouti has signed the Refugee Convention - hence there is a government agency that takes the lead on refugee processing / determination issues (‘ONARS’).  ONARS work closely / in partnership with UNHCR.  Of course, ONARS as the government agency is the lead agency in this relationship.  Like any Government agency in this part of the world, it is chronically under-resourced.  UNHCR can advocate / press for change, but it is not the government.  Here is the link to UNHCR Djibouti home page which includes funding stats:
      http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483836.html

    • centurion48 says:

      08:46am | 03/06/10

      Are we more concerned about giving other humans a fair go in life or about the effect it might have on our cosy way of life in Australia, which we have inherited simply by being born in a lucky country.
      Try to imagine yourself having to endure a hopeless existence in a war-torn country with a high probability of a very short, harsh life and an unpleasant death. Would you pursue the slim chance to better your life?
      Foreign aid is mostly a grossly inefficient solution which usually serves to make the corrupt even richer.
      We need to shake off the concept that we are a European society and our transplanted culture is somehow superior or set in stone. I live a comfortable existence in a civilised, peaceful country with huge potential. I am selfishly guarding my piece of paradise but have great difficulty in coming up with reasons why it should not be shared more equitably with the less fortunate. What is a capitalist with a conscience to do?

      Reply

    • Craig Lambie says:

      09:34am | 03/06/10

      Couldn’t agree with you more…..

    • Mel says:

      11:38am | 03/06/10

      With so many people in Australia homeless and starving themselves why should we look outside our own borders to assist when we can’t even do it for people in our own country?

    • Simmo says:

      03:16pm | 04/06/10

      With housing affordability below 10% in almost every city, and with the existing literacy and numeracy rates required to gain employment in even a medial service role, how would anyone seeking assylum find employment to afford to live here?

      BTW, our society is superior, which is why they want to come here… Otherwise, why would they be leaving the inset corruption and poverty that is rife within these societies?

      If you’re so well off, why don’t you feed and house them then?

    • Sacred Cow says:

      09:05am | 03/06/10

      The whole world seems to be in turmoil.  It is now imperitive to think ahead and have a Global Population Policy before it is too late.  People are the problem but yes, start at the source with foreign aid.

      Reply

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:05am | 03/06/10

      I agree , the boats can be stopped and Tony Abbott is the right man to handle the matter through administration of firm border control policy. Australia is , through various agencies , contributing to the welfare of people whose lives are constantly disrupted by hunger and homelessness . The U.N. needs to play a greater part in bringing peace to the war torn countries
      where the people are the pawns in power plays perpetrated by warlords and dictators in the name of power.

      Reply

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:30am | 03/06/10

      pssssft! yeah right, he will use the same smoke screen Howard used, and we the tax payer will be footing the bill for his chest thump greater than thou crap.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:44am | 03/06/10

      Wayne,

      It appears Tony is your man for all seasons. Athlete, man of God, border control expert and bender of the truth unles written down!!
      Oh if only we had ten like Tony, they could fill al the important positions.

      Democracy needs to play a greater part in bringing peace to our country.
      Where the people are the pawns in power plays perpetrated by political parties and mining tycoons.

    • iansand says:

      09:46am | 03/06/10

      You are the last person I would expect to be advocating a greater role for the UN anywhere.  As well as this super refugee thingummy (presumably funded by compulsory levies on members) they could set up a cross-national UN agency to deal with climate change.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:23am | 03/06/10

      Rob r Charteris :  Howard’s policy worked dufus. !  The people would have been quite content to pay the price for effective control .

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:27am | 03/06/10

      John Neve : This is rather unlike you John , usually there are a few words of sense in your posts but this one has nothing to warrant a comment.  You are slipping old mate. !

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:31am | 03/06/10

      iansand :  er mate , what are you on about here. ?  Can’t comment ‘cos i dunno what your beef is.

    • Roja says:

      11:01am | 03/06/10

      You must be right, it’s amazing as soon as Rudd came to power the Sri Lankan refugees started flowing in.  They certainly didn’t when Howard was around, so it must of been the pacific solution that kept them away.  Surely it wouldn’t have anything to do with indiscriminate artillery barrages on civilian centres in the Tamil areas, the horrific conditions of the refugee (read prison) camps they were being held in.  Oh no, it was the Pacific solution that kept them away.  Thank you Phoney Tony for your inability to have a single creative thought of your own, I like so many have missed Howard’s BS playbook so very, very much.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      11:58am | 03/06/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:10:23am; Oh no they didn’t it was a blatant smoke screen. Helped by G W Bush taking out the Taliban in Afgahnistan, 3million refugees returned to Afganistan, While Howard chest beated about how he stopped the boats lol silly lil man he was. A bit like you light weight wayne I mean Jane

    • Darren says:

      01:39pm | 03/06/10

      Wayne, Howards policy did not work. He moved the boats to other Island locations but the majority of the people these boats carrier are here now in Australia so please tell me what worked?

    • John A Neve says:

      02:08pm | 03/06/10

      Wayne,
      I rather thought you’d bite.  In fact Wayne, my post paraphrases your post above and your post in another place.

      The names have ben changed but the words are the same, I am surprised you did not recognise them!!!

    • Ben81 says:

      02:11pm | 03/06/10

      Darren, oh you know, just that few years where a boat arrival was an extremely rare event until we had a change of government.  So what if a lot of the people who came ended up here in the eventually, Howard’s measures sent a message that arriving by boat doesn’t guarantee you entry and in the end stopped most of them from coming at all.  Meanwhile we also took in just as many refugees responsibly, a very high amount per capita compared to the rest of the world.  Turning part of that intake back over to people smugglers is just stupid.  The sad part is that people want to see boats arriving solely for political reasons.

      I was going to reply to Rob, but I’m not going to torture myself by trying to get any sense out of him today.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      05:30pm | 03/06/10

      John Neve :  Oh i recognised the words alright John , but far from paraphrasing , the context in which you have used them is simply a reflection all your own twisted thoughts .

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      05:36pm | 03/06/10

      Darren :  The boats stopped , that’s what worked. !  Rudd removed border control and the boats are flooding in.  Understand. ?

    • Darren says:

      09:01am | 04/06/10

      Wayne, they did not stop. There were boats arriving with people being taken to Nauru and Manu Island right up to the time the Labour government closed Nauru in March 2008 due to Australia breaching UN conventions.

      The influx of illegals since is not due to governement policy as there is a global trend in increased activity. In 2008 illegal boat entries to Italy soared 81% to Malta 50% and I could go on. Do you think the Labour governement policies effected these countries increased intake?

    • Darren says:

      09:02am | 04/06/10

      Ben81, there was not an immediate influx with the change of government, there was only a total of 163 asylum seekers by the end of 2008 a year after Labour came to office and that was only a 10% increase on 2007 figures, so we are comparitively better off then Italy and Malta. 2009 was a different story but as previously stated this is a global trend.

    • Darren says:

      09:27am | 04/06/10

      Wayne, the Opposition’s continual portrayal of Australia as a ‘soft’ touch “has as much potential to attract arrivals as any objective analysis of the reality on the ground”.

    • Ben81 says:

      12:20pm | 04/06/10

      Darren - “2009 was a different story but as previously stated this is a global trend”
      Well then you’ll have no trouble pointing to something proving that our boat arrivals line up with anything like global trends won’t you.  What’s that you’ve shown there, one country that had an influx of refugees from Somalia in 2008, and no source for their previous trends or any reasons for that?  Where’s the relevance?  There were no less so called push factors than at any other time that had anything to do with illegal entry here, in fact in the case of Sri Lanka for example we’re now seeing illegal arrivals over a year after the civil war ended there, and even Labor has indicated that their reasons for entry can’t be as compelling as refugees from other nations, with their suspension of processing. 
      I don’t see any global trends that coincidentally line up with the huge exponential jump in boat arrivals after Rudd’s abolition of TPV’s, denouncement of the Pacific solution, and weakening of his rhetoric on illegal arrivals he had before the election, all things that stopped the boats in the first place!  The boats didn’t immediately stop coming the day after Howard announced things either.  How is it so hard to understand that laws and attitudes of a government towards illegal boat entry just may have an effect on the issue, is it because John Howard was involved that you can’t accept common sense?

      Wait a minute… “Wayne, the Opposition’s continual portrayal of Australia as a ‘soft’ touch “has as much potential to attract arrivals as any objective analysis of the reality on the ground”. “
      So, it can have an effect, but only when it’s the Liberal party “attracting” boats?

      And yes, I can see the article where all your “facts” here have come from too after a quick google, it’s garbage.  It’s entirely based on a few convinent quotes from people talking generally about the issue, inserted into the article as if they’re gospel.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      01:23pm | 04/06/10

      Wayne, would like to lead us to believe that Howard stopped the boats, what he doesn’t want to you know that refugees ballooned to 20 000+ that came through on aeroplanes in that same period of his pacific s solution. Well that worked eh Jayne. The point is you can debate this and you can debate that… you can even chest beat till the cows come home but the fact is there will always be people running for their lives from one despot or another and that will last as long as there are wars being fought. Another fact is the refugees that came after the Vietnam war turn into good australian citizens lets not forget that! with the introduction of TPV under Howard boat arrival went up, not only that they filled with women and children due to the fact they excluded family reunion. Under Rudd the cost of processing is around $80 000.00 per AS, under Howards pacific solution the processing cost rocketed to $350 000.00 per AS with over 50$ ending up in Australia.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      01:46pm | 04/06/10

      Correction in my post above 50$ should have been 50%

    • Craig Lambie says:

      09:28am | 03/06/10

      I agree Fiona.  This is “A” way to stop the boats, and it is a good way.  But I think this is a long term strategy, which involves some serious international intervention in some Governments that just don’t think the way we do, ie. civilised.
      To try to get the Militia style Governments of Africa or the Middle East to turn over a new leaf of being fair to their people and treating them with some sort of rights is easy to say, but near impossible to do.
      We could just sanction to knock off any body we don’t like….. Chiluba… off with his head…Kibaki… off with his head!
      Hardly a solution.
      Now I am not a supporter of immigration or queue jumping, but just thinking aloud here:
      Lets bring them into our country for say 3-4 years, give them a free university education in politics, economics and train some in medical care etc, then send them back to their country with skills and ability to save themselves, educate their brothers and sisters and form a Government that is informed, well trained and less corrupt (Hopefully)
      Another long term strategy.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      12:06pm | 03/06/10

      Your suggestion about providing them with free university education is ridiculous.  What is to stop them choosing to emigrate to another first world country once they have their new found skills?  Further more why should I as a taxpayer fund their education when we have our own children (from low socio-economic areas) missing out on a university education?  You cannot save the world and the quicker you realise this the better.

    • Anna C says:

      12:06pm | 03/06/10

      Your suggestion about providing them with free university education is ridiculous.  What is to stop them choosing to emigrate to another first world country once they have their new found skills?  Further more why should I as a taxpayer fund their education when we have our own children (from low socio-economic areas) missing out on a university education?  You cannot save the world and the quicker you realise this the better.

    • marley says:

      03:20pm | 03/06/10

      No, let’s not bring them to Australia for education.  It’s expensive and pointless, when there are perfectly adequate universities throughout Africa and the Gulf.  If we were of a mind to do so, we could educate five or ten times as many students closer to home, for the money it would cost to bring a handful to Aus.

      But the problem then becomes, when you have an educated elite but no economy, how do they find employment?  Africa has been plagued by trying to provide jobs, usually in the civil service, for an educated middle class, when the economic system is disfunctional.  It’s an invitation to corruption.

    • acker says:

      09:46am | 03/06/10

      Big problem now is most of these countries like Somalia have to many weapons in them and are unsafe. Developed nations do not want to send troops in because they are disadvantaged because they have to be carefull not to injure civilians while those shooting at them use civilians as human sheilds.

      So in the case of Somalia most nations have said “too hard” and to much risk of getting negative media coverage if we become involved.

      Unfortunately I think that will be the decision in more and more of these situations where developed nations are confronted with committing their troops or not committing their troops

      As for just sending money to be distributed between crooks and terrorists in the hope some spills down to the general population, that is a poor option.

      Best option might be commit troops but place some bans or strict conditions on the media that accompanies them.

      Current situation “open media reporting” is hindering help to these people suffering inhumane conditions. And the media reporting is too heavilly concentrating on reporting micro/singular stories and almost totally avoiding the macro/bigger picture stuff.

      Sure there are a lot of times a military operation causes civillian casualties, but in recent times the stories about the casualties and human rights abuses the terrorists/crooks are causing seldom seems to get reported.

      Reply

    • biff says:

      09:56am | 03/06/10

      Why no Thai asylum seekers? Isn’t war or civil unrest a push factor? Thailand has been through a terrible period of civil unrest but no boat people have set sail for Australia.

      Reply

    • Jamie says:

      04:14pm | 03/06/10

      The fact that you name Thailand is a very clear indication that you do not have a true grasp of international issues. Equating the situation in Thailand to the situation in Somalia means you truly have no idea what it’s like in Somalia right now. They do not have equal push factors, the same severity of civil unrest or similar time periods either.

    • AdamC says:

      10:00am | 03/06/10

      Fiona, you mention the ‘push factors’ – chaos in homelands, etc – but conveniently ignore the ‘pull factor’: the prospect of gaining permanent residency in the west. Djibouti is, like Malaysia and Indonesia in our region, merely a transit lounge.

      I, like you, have great sympathy for people who have been displaced by persecution but, unlike you, I can see the risks of encouraging an informal migration channel. Asylum advocates do themselves a disservice by not acknowledging the fact that the asylum system has become an immigration racket in which, for example, criminal gangs encourage asylum seekers to dispose of their identity documents.

      There are millions of refugees in the world. It is ridiculous to have a system in which people gain advantageous outcomes by engaging criminal gangs to convey them to certain third countries. That appears to be the system that many Australians seek to promote!

      Reply

    • Ben81 says:

      02:42pm | 03/06/10

      Ah but it’s less to do with responsible immigration and more to do with politics, Adam.  That’s the problem.  To many people, acknowledging the fact that taking in refugees without encouraging people smuggling is far more sensible than the current situation is an admission that the Liberal party aren’t evil bastards after all, and they’re not gonna budge.

      It’s just sad that responsible control of our borders is even questioned, let alone become a mainstream political issue outside a few noisy minority groups.

    • Andy says:

      10:07am | 03/06/10

      So many ignorant arguments about how we should “give people a fair go” or “be compassionate” and let boat people in, but this argument is total crap.

      Australia already accepts more refugees per capita than any country on the planet except Canada. I have not heard any calls from those who support tougher action on boat people to actually cut Australia’s refugee intake, just that we should not be promoting illegal entry as the best method to get refugee status.

      Every boat arrival who pays thousands to a people smuggler and gets accepted as a genuine refugee bumps down the queue a refugee who didn’t have the money or chose not to engage criminals in an attempt to find a new home and has instead followed proper international protocols and waited their turn.

      Support for accepting boat people is support for the criminals who profit from this trade.

      Support for stopping the boat arrivals is not a call for Australia to accept less refugees, it’s just a call for us to only accept those who use methods that don’t involve the criminal people smugglers.

      Any government that allows the people smuggling to continue has the blood on their hands when boats sink or other tragedies occur.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      11:09am | 03/06/10

      One way that is guaranteed to stop country shoppers passing through numerous safe countries before arriving in Australia by boat is to have the UN change the convention so that no refugee is ever resettled in the country in which he/she lodges their claim. Genuine refugees would not be impacted as they would not care which country they are resettled in.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      08:15pm | 03/06/10

      Those ‘safe countries’ aren’t signatories to the Refugee Convention, so I fail to see how changing the Refugee Convention would help.

    • Noguaranteeofsanity says:

      12:10pm | 03/06/10

      Its called holding yourself to a higher standard.  Considering the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are terrorist groups, who use suicide bombers to attack civilians indiscriminately, there is no question when it comes to their abuses of human rights and crimes against humanity, which are reported almost daily. 

      But do you really want us to sink to their level, sacrifice our own freedoms, law and democracy, just so that we can behave as they do and avoid a few negative reports about civilian deaths?

      While do you think Afghanistan, Iraq or any other country, would welcome our troops, if we were unconcerned about civilian casualties and killing their own citizens indiscriminately, then attempting to cover it up or keep it from the prying eyes of the media?  Because it is not just the media reports of civilian casualties that has meant rules of engagement have been tightened or limits have been placed on how our troops operate, but the reaction of foreign governments, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, who understandably get upset when we kill the very population, we are meant to be saving.

      Finally, considering many refugees are fleeing from war-torn countries, would this not simply add to the number of refugees worldwide, if we simply started sending troops into other third world countries to fight even more wars?  Would that not also make us even more responsible for the plight of these refugees? They are after all, only seeking a safe and stable country, in which they can live their lives, so it seems to me sending in the troops, with even less regard for civilian casualties than we have now, is only going to make things worse and possibly even lead to even greater terrorist recruitment, when western troops ‘accidentally’ kill someones relative or friend.

      Reply

    • B says:

      01:08pm | 03/06/10

      “People are the problem”, “stop the boats”, “Lets toughen boat people rules”..
      All just inhumane band-aid solutions to problems far greater than the terrified people washing up on our shores.

      Migration issues will only increase as seas slowly rise, food and fuel become more scarce, and turmoil continues to divide communities. Fiona and a few other contributors are right: we really do need more far-reaching solutions.

      We either stop the boats with force, care not about the welfare of our fellow humans and continue living our greedy existence, or we open the doors, try to send actual help as responsible global citizens, and get used to some much-needed changes to our “as-seen-on-TV” way of life.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      03:40pm | 03/06/10

      You’re (and to some extent Fiona) are conflating two different things. 

      Refugees are a very specific group of people, who are fleeing persecution, and who have a right to protection should they reach a country which is a signatory to the Convention on Refugees.  People driven out of their homelands by rising seal levels, food scarcity, poverty or societal breakdown, are not refugees within the meaning of the Convention, and do not have the same rights.

      Those boat people who can establish that they are fleeing persecution have a right to protection.  Like it or not, those who left because of extreme poverty in their homeland do not.  Two different situations.  And requiring two different responses.

      The UNHCR itself talks about the problem presented in managing “mixed movements” which comprise both refugees and economic migrants.  Most of the boats in the Med and out of Djibouti fit this pattern.  I suspect our own boat movement is no different. 

      We need to accept our legal and humanitarian obligations towards refugees, that goes without saying.  But what about those folk who aren’t refugees?  Do they get the same treatment as real refugees,  or a condensed version, or a fast trip back home?  Because that’s the question everyone is skating around.

    • B says:

      04:20pm | 04/06/10

      But why is an economic refugee different to one under the threat of persecution? Are you saying it’s OK if they starve to death, but if someone threatens to murder them, that’s different?

    • iansand says:

      01:15pm | 03/06/10

      The problem is that the countrie through which they pass on the way here are not “safe havens” as they have not ratified the Refugee Conventions.  Refugees have no right to remain there.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:26pm | 03/06/10

      Nevertheless, refugees do remain there, safely, for many years.

      Clearly the Refugee Conventions are a meaningless sham. Time to overturn them.

    • Anne says:

      01:35pm | 03/06/10

      More people on the move than ever before in the history of our world - and rapidly diminishing opportunities for them to migrate legally. This is a market and policy failure of spectacular proportions.  Unfortunately it seems that there are no solutions short of the ‘world peace’ variety proposed by Fiona. Where to now?

      Reply

    • CathZor says:

      01:38pm | 03/06/10

      I’m going to be frank. We will never stop the “boats” because Western governments do not want to stop the war and famine in developing nations. By setting up African dictatorships, the West rake in the money from arms dealing, while making sure that developing nations never develop into western democracies where they pose a potential threat.

      Now some facts about boat people:
      Approximately 2000 people came by boat to Australia in 2009. About 95% of asylum seekers arrive by plane. Approximately 50,000 overstay their Visas in Australia every year, many of those continue to work illegally here. So why is everyone so trasfixed on boat people?

      The only reason everyone gets worked up by boat people is because the media knows you will get worked up by it, and they receive more attention from reports about boat people, therefore increasing their already fat pockets.

      The Rudd Government is not solely to blame for the small increase in asylum seekers. (Note that I say “not solely” before the stooges pounce). Refugee numbers have increased everywhere in the world, not just here. 42 million people were displaced last year. Rudd may have viewed the Pacific Solution as a racist publicity stunt , so he canned it. Or maybe he thought the amount of money used to keep 2000 people out, wasn’t worth it. Seeing as we’ll never get straight truth out of him, I don’t know. Was the Pacific Solution a racist publicity stunt? Racist.. that’s objectionable. Publicity stunt? Hell yes it was!

      Ok, I do kinda agree with the term Country Shoppers. These people could settle for crowded Indonesian detention centres, but seems they’d rather more space so they try for the best they can possibly think of: Australia. I think a lot of the problem is people smugglers. They sell lies to refugees that it will be easy to get into Australia, so they can get more money out of them for taking them a longer way. If I had very little education, and someone told me there was a place where I could be free and magical and whatever else, then I would probably try my luck there over a smelly detention centre in Indonesia.

      Reply

    • It's Simmo says:

      03:46pm | 04/06/10

      It’s not about assylum seekers, illegal immigrants or racism. It’s about people being smuggled into the country, by a dangerous boat trip that usually costs them $10s of 000s, and then they get all the benefits by line jumping, and avoiding the screening and process that happens to ensure we aren’t letting people in that are fundamentally against our society… It means that Osama Bin Laden could be living in your suburb - that is if you can afford to live in such a nice suburb…

    • Luke says:

      01:54pm | 03/06/10

      YAY!
      I am now totally ok with more boats coming to our country and i am totally confident that Tony Abbott WONT BE ABLE TO HELP…
      I feel so good that this current government is dont VERY LITTLE to stop it and i wont now give my vote to the opposition…
      Was this your objective?

      Reply

    • Cathz0r says:

      03:52pm | 03/06/10

      what? It is not the role of journalists to make us feel good about ourselves. It’s up to you.

    • Randal says:

      02:58pm | 03/06/10

      Can we stop the boats??

      Well I do not know about Djibouti Fiona, and I am unsure what people paying people smugglers to get to Yemen has to do with Australia… but we can certainly stop them coming to Australia from Indonesia and Malaysia as we have before.

      A return to TPV’s and offshore detention will do the trick, as no one will be paying the smugglers 10,000 US dollars to end up stuck in a detention centre on Nauru, with no guarantee of a place in Australia.

      A fact proven, quite unequivocally by the Howard government.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      08:18pm | 03/06/10

      Did you read the article?  People don’t stop going on boats when they have to bury the bodies of those who went before, but you think that being in a detention centre will stop them?!?

    • Chase says:

      08:54pm | 03/06/10

      *cough*bullshit*cough*

    • Bec says:

      03:05pm | 03/06/10

      Stopping the boats is clearly not the solution to stopping the attempt of smuggled migrants from seeking a better life in Australia or elsewhere. The case Ms David presents in Djibouti makes this clear and the many cases of boats carrying illegal migrants that continue to arrive in Australian waters, attempting to make it to shore, also provide solid evidence of this point.
      Tackling this issue at the ‘tail end’ of the smuggling process is certainly not the answer and the Australian Government cannot expect to fix the ‘problem’ through such efforts. Recognising, acknowledging, understanding and responding to humanitarian and political issues beyond our borders and exercising a degree of compassion for the plight of smuggled migrants might begin to get us somewhere in terms of a solution. In a globalised world, surely we can expect our national political leadership to develop greater perspective, and open mindedness on the real issues behind migrant smuggling beyond the bubble of how it impacts upon Australia. It seems I will continue to be disappointed…

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      03:29pm | 03/06/10

      Yet you are so wrong Bec, as the statistics clearly show that Australia can control it’s own borders with tough migration laws and you only have to look at the clear drops from 2001 to confirm this.

      http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm

      Will this fix the problem of refugees seeking a better life from war torn and impoverished nations, of course not, but what we can do is ensure that special treatment is not given to those with financial means and that is only through tough border protection.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      06:19pm | 03/06/10

      Randal says:03:29pm; Interesting paper and further supports the fact the the 2001 Bush led war in Afghanistan which kicked out the Taliban leading to refugees to return home in drove, the timeline fits just look at the flow chart in that article. Although I don’t see the author mention it I guess that wouldn’t fit with Howard’s chest beating…

      “Even in the peak boat arrival years of the 1970s and 1999–2001, the arrival numbers in Australia were small compared to other destination countries. In 2000, for example, when approximately 3000 ‘boat people’ arrived in Australia, Iran and Pakistan each hosted over a million Afghan refugees. In fact, the burden of assisting the world’s asylum seekers mostly fell, and still falls, to some of the world’s poorest countries.”

      And this bit….

      “In 2008, for example, Pakistan was host to the largest number of refugees worldwide (1.8 million), followed by Syria (1.1 million) and Iran (980 000).”

      Make our measly 6000 since Kev came to power and 14000 under Howard, well you almost have to feel embarrassed by the dribble coming from the Lib supporters

    • Ben81 says:

      12:36pm | 04/06/10

      Is “chest beating” your catchphrase for the day, or just the one you’ve attatched to this issue?  That’s 3 times now.

      I think you’ll find that Afghanistan isn’t the only source of illegal boat arrivals, and the number of arrivals until 2008 speaks for itself, as does the massive jump in arrivals after that time when Rudd had to fiddle with things, not to mention the fact that there were a few hundred in detention instead of thousands (something that only matters when the Liberals are in power it seems).  The fact there were a lot of arrivals before Howard put a stop to them is no secret, Rob.  That’s why he took action.
       
      So we have a small intake compared to some other countries?  Good, lucky us!  We’re taking in as many as we can responsibly can, boats or no boats.
      Quote all the numbers you want, it doesn’t magically make turning over part of our refugee intake to people smugglers a responsible thing to do, or something that a competent government would accept.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      01:52pm | 04/06/10

      Ben81 says:12:36pm; Howard did a lot of chest beating as oppose to you who is just a beater. Howard didn’t stop the boats he just redirected them to an off shore processing plant, most of which came to Australia. What he did do was increase the amount arriving on plane…. ballooning to 20 000+

    • Ben81 says:

      05:15pm | 04/06/10

      Rob r Charteris, “What he did do was increase the amount arriving on plane…. ballooning to 20 000+ “
      More absolute garbage.  Are you referring to refugees who were accepted from camps and applications overseas and then flown here as they should be, or did that many people turn up and then claim asylum seeker status?  (even 2% of them?) How do you expect them to get here, and do you think the aim of Howard or anyone else ever to reduce the number of refugees we take in or something?  Do you understand the simple difference?

      Seriously mate you have to be a troll or something.

    • Gobsmacked says:

      03:13pm | 03/06/10

      I would seriously like to send someone out in a row boat with a sign saying….  sorry we are not home come back in 50 years… Its not that I don’t want refugees coming here its just that hell!! I am sick of hearing about it. Its all aggression, one side blames the other and it seems never to end. If people need our help, why are we whinging about it? If anything happens in this country like the bush fires, we all put our hands in our pockets and help. We are good people, we are Australians!!

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:30pm | 03/06/10

      We aren’t whingeing about people who need our help. We’re objecting to people who don’t need our help, forcing their way onto our generosity, through loopholes in outmoded treaties.

    • Happy LIttle Gumnut says:

      03:39pm | 03/06/10

      Why is this person asking Tony Abbot if he has the solution.  Doesn’t she realise that he is merely the Leader of the Opposition..  Why isn’t she ripping strips off the idiot who is in charge NOW.  The one that the “media” helped get elected.  And nobody believes the people arriving here in boats are even remotely comparable to the people in this story.

      Reply

    • Simmo says:

      03:36pm | 04/06/10

      Maybe she knows the result of the election? ... or this article is a thinnly veiled Labour propaganda piece…

    • Me says:

      03:53pm | 03/06/10

      We could stop the boats by only processing refugee applications from approved UN camps. No point in paying a people smuggler if you won’t get processed when you arrive here.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      11:47pm | 03/06/10

      I just love it when people propose solutions that are totally in breach of international laws we’ve signed up to…

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:55pm | 03/06/10

      Just thought I’d feed into this the problem with expecting the Navy to be able to turn back the boats.

      The Australian Navy still contains personell being treated for Post Traumatic Stress disorder due to the duties they have performed over the last decade and more recently while enforcing. PTSD can cause signficant problems not only for the sufferer but those who care for them also.

      The Australian Navy has recruitment problems at present and struggles the most out of all the defence services to attract and retain personell. Whilst I know of no research, annecdotal evidence and common sense suggest that border protection duties as they currently exists are a large deterrent to recruitment.

      Dramatic images of naval operations in the media have given the issue prominence in the conscious of most Australians. Potential Navy recruits are aware that as part of their duties they may have to use force against non combatants - including women and children. Again news images of armed personel standing next to distraught asylum seekers are prominent in our collective conscious.

      I would argue that current operations and duties have had a detremental affect on the mental health of many Navy personell and a related cost to the Navy financially as well as the public health system which is treating Navy staff and their families for trauma and related injuries.

      I also put forward that it is a present problem for Navy recruitment, becoming increasingly severe and acute for the maratime services.

      Considering this I put forward that not only is “stopping the boats” impossible long term - it is also currently damaging to the Australian Navy.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:32pm | 03/06/10

      HTPM, interesting point.

      We should fund and develop a specialised Coast Guard to protect against illegal immigration and smuggling. The Navy has more important things to do.

    • Graham Stevens says:

      04:45pm | 03/06/10

      The refugee argument and debate is getting extremely tiresome. The so called “refugees” are illegal immigrants who have the means & wherewithal using their local influence & wealth and can afford to pay sums of money equivalent to 20 times a one way airfare to people smuggler’s as a means of by-passing immigration and visa requirements to enter Australia. They do so because they are allowed to get away with it unlike other immigrant groups from anywhere in the world who follow procedure. They come by boat simply because it is impossible to board an aircraft without a passport, visa or legitimate travel documents as anybody who has travelled internationally can attest to.

      To ensure they now can further get away with it and once in Australian waters many illegal’s are destroying their documents and setting fire to their boats so to be rescued and taken on board Australian Territory. Once here they are ably supported by The Refugee Industry made up of immigration lawyers, advocates, do-gooders on all sides of politics and anybody else who can make a dollar at the expense of Australian taxpayers.

      If these same people were to apply to immigrate they would have their application processed in the same manner as overseas students, tourists or genuine immigrants however as they mainly originate from countries where our immigration procedures are stricter and knowing they may be knocked back i.e unable to support themselves or having a sponsor or be placed on a waiting list i.e behind those who applied prior to them, they decide they’ll jump a boat and demand entry, unfortunately an option not available to their fellow, not so wealthy, countrymen who must abide by the rules. And the fools we are in this country, acquiesce accordingly
      We should and do accept genuine refugees such as Africans referred to here and who spend an inordinate time in camps and are genuine in their application unlike the majority of middle east & south asian illegal’s. You’ll note there have been no boats arriving containing Somalis’, Sudanese or Ethiopians

      If as the bleeding hearts are so ready to assure us all that Australians are prepared to accept tens of thousands of refugees, irrespective of procedure and protocol then we should insist the Government simply charter the QE2 or similar, anchor it off the coast of Sri Lanka or Indonesia and invite all aboard who can reach it by a given date and charge them half the smugglers fees to offset the charter cost. The cost of the charter would be further offset by savings in detention centre running costs, internal charter flights and other associated expenses.
      The bleeding hearts would be well satisfied that “we’re doing our bit”, the Refugee Industry would be eliminated in a stroke, the people smugglers put out of business and more importantly the refugees would have a pleasant 7-10 day cruise into Australia which certainly beats risking life & limb on a leaky boat.
      Whilst on board, their medical tests can be conducted, their bona fides investigated, offered English classes, be given instructions on how to apply for benefits, we could have employer representatives conducting job interviews, in fact any number of arrangements can be put into place that are generally not available to tax paying Australian citizens
      When the QE2 docks all those aboard who haven’t met the requirements are on arrival transferred to detention awaiting deportation, the rest are given protection visas and they would all be welcomed into Australia by a flag waving committee of do-gooder bleeding hearts, immigration lawyers, refugee advocates and all their friends, all of whom would be so happy to see these unfortunates safely arrive. Furthermore these same people would gladly assist the Government and satisfy their own conscience by putting up a family in their spare room for a week or so until they get on their feet.

      Reply

    • interloper says:

      05:54pm | 03/06/10

      Graham Stevens,

      You are obviously intimately familiar with the motivations of refugees and those in ‘The Refugee Industry’. It’s a relief to me to find our that these people are not fleeing persecution with any assets they can gather, then giving these to people to stick them on a rickety boat in the hope of reaching Australia. I’m also pleased to find out that the bleeding-hearts are helping because they think it’s a good way of earning a dollar at the extent of Australian tax payers.
      Just before I go ahead and join this crusade against these people, can you just let me know exactly how much time you’ve spent interviewing refugees and their supporters to obtain this information? I wouldn’t want to go off half baked based on assumptions that suit my world view with no hint of empathy or understanding. I’d prefer to leave that to others.

    • Trevor says:

      08:12pm | 03/06/10

      I’ll tell you what’s tiresome, the number of people who appear to be able to ignore the fact that OVER 90% of the people the Howard Government pumped into the Pacific Solution were found to be refugees.

      Yes, that’s right. All those dreadful illegal immigrants we turned back… and then the Howard Government quietly accepted them as refugees and saw to it they got homes - many in Australia, some elsewhere.

      Tonight the 7:30 report had a story about one of the people from the MV Tampa becoming an Australian citizen.  Fled Afghanistan. Paid $4000 to a people smuggler. Ended up on the Tampa.  Spent two years stuck on Nauru.

      AND GOT ACCEPTED AS A REFUGEE. LIKE MOST OF THEM.

    • Tripper Smurf says:

      04:55pm | 03/06/10

      @ biff…. you cant compare Thailand with the wartorn countries listed in the article above or even Sri Lanka where the Tamils are fleeing government persecution… look at the WHOLE facts before simplyfying what is not simple.

      And Howard/Abbot’s Pacific Solution is a joke.  69.3% of all assylm seekers that went to Nauru were sent onto Australia anyways, at ten times the cost of processing them in Australia itself… oh and the comments above in relation to the changes in the international political scene in regards to Afghanistan in 2001 - 2003, and so on do have a HUGE bearing on who they are and why do these refugees attempt to come to our shores.

      Not to mention the whole rationale for this ‘solution’ and the Australian perception of being ‘flooded’ by refugees - the children overboard Tampa Crisis was proven to be a media stunt by the Howard government anyway.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:34pm | 03/06/10

      Nonsense. After Howard implemented the Pacific Solution, boat arrivals dropped to almost nothing.

      Now Rudd’s policy reversal has sent unwanted immigration skyrocketing. You can pretend all you want, but Australians can see what’s happening.

    • Trevor says:

      09:36am | 04/06/10

      @Eric, have you ever heard of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’?

      Go look it up, it’s what you’re doing.

    • Darren says:

      09:58am | 04/06/10

      Eric, your previous statement had the Howard government stopping the boats now they dropped to almost nothing. Keep going mate you will get to the truth with a few more statements.

    • Roja says:

      11:24am | 04/06/10

      @Eric, I pointed to the sky in 2002 and said don’t rain.  Years of drought followed, for which I feel completely responsible.  Well just as responsible as John Howard was for reducing the numbers of boat people anyway. 

      @Trevor - With Eric I think it best if you put it in a sentence for him to understand such a complex concept.

    • James1 says:

      11:32am | 07/06/10

      You get very worked up over a tiny amount of people Eric.

    • Diana says:

      06:40pm | 03/06/10

      Im so sick of the boat people stories…..What about housing for our Aboriginal people????........Are they second class citizens???????.............No they are not, they deserve the right to decent housing, decent medical assistance, a decent education, is so sick of hearing about the poor boat people!!....We need to fix our country up first,  bugger the boat people, lets think of our own people first, these journalists that keep going on and on about how we should be looking after fortune seeking refugees make me puke,,,,,,Rudd promised 750 new houses for our Aboriginal people, so far hes not followed through with any of them, and as far as housing fortune seeking refugees in 5 star Motels, what a bloody debacle, i bet a lot of Aboriginal families would love the chance to stay one night in a 5 star Motel, this is sickening to say the least!!!....Fiona David stop trying to make us feel guilty, do a story on real Australians, stop the crap about refugees, go out west and see how Aboriginals live , or is that beneath you??...Easier to sit back on your computer and have a good old chat about how badly the fortune seeking refugees have it….The government has spent millions on these boat people, while Aboriginal women and children go without the bare essentials,  like health care and education!!

      Reply

    • bob elsbrook says:

      08:11am | 04/06/10

      Oh yes Diana, I have been hoping to find a contribution which reflects my feeling. What is very concerning to me is the way our culture is diminishing and will eventually be lost. I suspect that many of the bleeding hearts here are relatively young and are more idealistic that realistic.
      There are too many internal problems which most Australians don’t or won’t see. Immigration generally is a problem. Signing up for these UN agreements etc. is a political stunt but is too frequently used as an excuse not to be tough, to protect Australia.

    • Darren says:

      10:03am | 04/06/10

      Diana, all good and well, I have no problem discussing the plight of the Australian Aboriginal but this is a discussion about illegal refugees coming to Australia by boat.  Another forum maybe?

    • Realist not Racist says:

      06:43pm | 03/06/10

      Time to revoke the UN Charter for Refugees which blacklmails counries to accept people from cultures and belief systems which do not fit into the Australian democracy.  We should have our own Charter with a limited refugee and immigration programme until there are enough hospital beds, houses for the homeless etc and other infrastruture before accepting people who do not wish to or cannot assimmilate.

      Reply

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:24pm | 03/06/10

      Stop the boats? No problem.

      Just make it mandatory that every “refugee” is required for the first 5 years in Australia to live as a temporary visitor, no closer that 250Km from a capital city. They’d be placed in rural communities in need of development, and given a job in the local workforce. If they are genuine “refugees” they’ll jump at the chance, and work hard to make a better life while integrating into the local community - and if after 5 years they’ve proven their worth, they’re offered citizenship.

      Once the handouts are no longer on offer and they’re denied the opportunity to form insular cultural ghettos, the economic opportunists will seek greener pastures (ie. a softer touch) elsewhere - and the do-gooders won’t have anything to complain about because we’re still providing a safe-haven for those genuinely in need. Win-win.

      Reply

    • whitenoise says:

      10:29pm | 03/06/10

      How about they just suck it up and do the hard yards. That’s how the west was created.

      Reply

    • Jude says:

      06:35am | 04/06/10

      Aid, short-term crisis interventions, deterrence at the borders - a mix of short term and long term strategies are required and seem to be less than successful at the moment. From Australia’s perspective, i’d like to see an increase in the aid budget (perhaps a redirection of the revenue from the mining tax if it ever gets implemented?), and on the diplomatic front, a revamping of regional initiatives such as the Bali process. Any suggestions on where to get insightful media commentaries on people movement and smuggling in the region?

      Reply

    • Laurie says:

      08:02am | 04/06/10

      Rick summed it up nicely, these people show up here and are immediately given cash through Centrelink and government housing ... this is the problem.  We are the promised land where if they make it here they get more than they have ever dreamt of and all without having to work for it.  Add to that the good deal for bringing more children into the world (again from Centrelink) and you can understand why they want to get here.  Meanwhile working Australian’s are footing the bill for all of this, and I am over it I work hard to pay high taxes and I don’t feel anyone who just arrives here has any right to benefit from the Australian taxpayers just because they got into our waters, I pay my way and I am paying full price for my housing ... I say not our problem and agree with Tony Abbott that no one who arrives illegally should get to stay here! 

      The easy fix is intercept these boats, ask them for passports and visa’s, if they don’t have them turn them back exactly how it works if you show up at our airports without the appropriate documentation.  A hard line WILL fix the problem!

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:35am | 07/06/10

      Incorrect Laurie.  If you show up at an airport and claim asylum, you will be processed like all other asylum seekers.

    • Timmo says:

      06:58am | 05/06/10

      I reckon this. Pump all of the water from the ocean and send it into space then that would stop the boat people. As we can see, no oceans, no boat people. Oh no, not a good idea because then we would have to call them walking and climbing people. Then we could whinge about the walking and climbing people smugglers.

      The problem is. How the hell are we going to pump all that water into space. Mmmm, well it might bring on a new industry for us. Professional water pumping companies. Now, could they be taxed. Could there be a quid in it for the government.?. Imagine, all over the world, water pumping companies could be set up. Get rid of those pesky oceans with their boats that are causing so much trouble. I don’t know where we would put all the fish, whales, dolphins, sharks, octopusses, worms and things.

      I know, a million water cannons, firing water and sea creatures through space to the moon. Moon would look good with an ocean wouldn’t it!. Now all the boat people and smugglers could be put into specially designed intergalactic breathing apparatuses and fired with the water. On landing on the moon they could begin to set up new colonies, de-salination plants would employ many, and they could build new cities just like they did in a place called australia in the 1700’s. Now that’s the way to get rid of those pesky people.

      It was successful here, why not there!. Now after the great event, we, the really good people, would be able to have a nice life again without all this blatent interruption to our wonderful way of life. We will be ok for at least another hundred million years which will be the amount of time for the oceans to fill again. We will ban all boat building and independent immigration businesses.

      But people will cry. What will we do for a drink!!!. But don’t worry about that, the lord will provide for us because we are the chosen ones. The good lord will not let us down. But you know that there will be a very large market for bottled water which could be sent back from the moons new oceans after de-salination. A new larger business in bottled water could be set up. God, the mind boggles in thinking about all this new industry.

      Imagination, such a wonderful gift isn’t it.!! Not nice about the dead bodies tho. Let’s create a new planet and everyone can be happy once again, or will they!. Good luck boat people everywhere.

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      09:15am | 05/06/10

      Fiona,
      a saddening story on the plight of somali’s (but I haven’t heard abbott’s plan to stop taking our fair shair of somali refugees, have you??? and just how many somali’s are landing by boat?) people who claim to be afgani or sri lankans who pay their way here with fists full of cash and pass through many other countries before they land here are a totally different matter.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:34am | 07/06/10

      Why?  Because they have money?  If something awful was to happen here, would you expect the poor to be granted asylum before the rich?  Or would you expect the rich to use their access to resources to buy asylum?

    • Kurt says:

      09:55am | 06/06/10

      I’m less concerned by refugees than by the unregulated flood of Kiwis, and therefore Pacific islanders into our country. 2 hours off the plane they head into Centrelink for their family payments and whatever else they can get.  Yes they might pay tax here (if they don’t work for cash with one of their cuz’s) but they take out hundreds more each week for their overblown families! Hell they even get into housing commission houses! There are NO suitability checks, no skills checks or health checks. Nothing except a check that they haven’t been in jail in NZ. Any uneducated, unskilled, unhealthy garbage gets in. They then overcrowd our schools with their thuggish children. My daughter has had death threats by overgrown thuggish agressive Islander females, most of who form into gangs to threaten and intimidate. She is so terrified it is affecting her education. Did you know the largest part of Samoa’a income comes from money sent back from Australia by ex-citizens now NZ citizens working here?
      Hell we might as well absorb NZ, Samoa, Tonga and the rest into Australia so at least we are getting all their taxes!
      Give me a boat load of refugees any day over the flood from NZ! We need to end the Trans Tasman Agreement NOW because we have no control on the number of migrants with a NZ passport! At least with controlled migration and refugee processes, we have some control on who enters and stays.

      Reply

    • Myrtle says:

      04:33pm | 06/06/10

      Why not just let them all in so in turn Australia can become a squalor like where they came from? I think we need to ask ourselves why most of Africa and other parts of the world are third world and stuck in the Stone Age in terms of progress and social order. I’m sorry but these countries suck because the culture there sucks, mostly because of religion or outdated social customs that repress women and children. From my perspective, a country that does not give equal rights to women will never prosper, because they lose all the positive inputs of women. And don’t include oil countries in the Middle East, because despite the wealth of some inhabitants, usually ‘royalty’, most people live in poverty and women are treated like second class citizens and subjected to harsh religious laws. Yes there are a lot of visa overstayers, but at least they were considered worthy of entry in the first place. Yes ‘western’ culture isn’t perfect and Australia has a lot of social problems, however show me any Aussie who has sought asylum elsewhere because life here is intolerable. Yes many people suffer immeasurable pain around the world, but we can’t help them all. Until societies and cultures make attempts to improve themselves, we cannot help them. All we do then is disintegrate our own standard of living.

      Reply

    • Anthony says:

      07:01am | 07/06/10

      The United States spends 663 billion dollars every year on military and wars, and even Australia spends 15 billion.

      If we took away all of the military and spent that budget on foreign aid (food, clean water, infrastructure, etc.) then we would have eradicated a lot of the world’s problems already.

      People wouldn’t need to fight if they had everything.

      Reply

    • Hedda Clark says:

      08:23am | 07/06/10

      John A Neve - Don’t be a smart alec!

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      10:17am | 07/06/10

      So Tony Abbot will order Australian defence and customs personel to fire upon unarmed women and children ? Of course the question is , will those personel obey such an order ? In my opinon niether major party has a solution to this problem .

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 26 May 12 09:22AM

RT @mumbletwits: +1 MT @meadea Adding voice to the boss RT @abcmarkscott: Hereby instruct @Colvinius to make a swift return to good health. (Take care Mark.)

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

0

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

32

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

17

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed