Prev
Next

Why Kevin Rudd is a border protection sceptic

Scott Morrison

by Scott Morrison

22 Mar 05:52am

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Border Protection, Immigration, Kevin Rudd, Politics

60 comments

Earlier this year the Prime Minister sought to justify his stance on climate change by asking three questions of the opposition. Is there a problem, do you think we should do anything about it and are you committed to the solution?

The Navy intercepts another boat off Ashmore Reef. How many will it take before this is declared a problem? Pic: ADF / File

‬‪Last week in parliament I asked these same questions of the Prime Minister in relation to border protection. His answers confirmed something I have long suspected. Kevin Rudd is a border protection sceptic.‬‪

The Rudd Government is now in the nervous nineties on illegal boat arrivals. Julia Gillard used to say another boat arrival, another policy failure. Well 93 boats on Kevin Rudd’s watch and more than 4250 people can’t be wrong.‬‪

Yet Labor’s denial of the problem continues. They seek an international solution, a regional solution, an Indonesian solution, and ignore the most important solution of all,  the Australian solution.

Labor chose to roll back the border protection regime they inherited. No-one forced them to do it. They now need to own up to the consequences.‬‪

If the buck does stop with Kevin Rudd, it hasn’t found him yet. He continues to make excuses to do nothing.  At the end of the day, his heart is just not in it. He should fess up and get it over with.‬‪

People smugglers are now determining Australia’s immigration policy on these issues. Our Prime Minister has become the Larry Emdur of Australian politics,  if the price is right you can come on down.‬‪

Last week we saw that not only could the Rudd Government not make the tough decisions required to stop boats, they couldn’t even make decisions about people who blew them up.‬‪

The decision of the NT coroner on SIEV36 is not just some guy with a theory about what happened. This is the finding of an extensive coronial inquiry. He found that three individuals were ‘part of a plan to cripple the boat’.‬‪

This plan led to the deaths of five people, injured dozens more and put at risk the safety of Australian defence force personnel.‬‪

The Opposition is not asking the Minister for Immigration to make any finding of criminality in these matters in our call for their visas to be revoked. That will be for the NT Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue and the courts to decide.‬‪

The Minister for Immigration’s job is determine under s501 and clause 6c of the Migration Act whether these ‘general acts’ of being ‘part of a plan to cripple the boat’ commend these individuals as persons of good character, deserving of residency in Australia. If they are not, he has the power to cancel their visas today.‬‪

Alternative orders can be issued by the Attorney General to ensure they are available to remain in the country to face any charges or court proceedings.

‬‪The point here is that the immigration and criminal prosecution issues are separate and must be treated accordingly. The Rudd Government has sought to improperly fuse them together to avoid having to make a difficult decision.‬‪

They then held out the pompous threat of prejudicing a court proceeding when no charges have been laid and no proceedings have been commenced. This is just another excuse for not taking action.‬‪

A decision to cancel their visas suggests no further level of guilt than the NT Coroner has already determined in his findings, as a decision to revoke the visas on character grounds would be based only on the findings of the Coroner.‬‪

There are plenty of people wandering around who are not of good character who don’t happen to be convicted of any criminal offence. Our Migration Act provides power to the Minister to refuse such persons visas. He has chosen not to do so.‬‪

The plea to wait for the decision of the courts is yet another excuse from a Government that refuses to make difficult decisions on immigration issues.

The implication of this position is that if they are not convicted then they will keep their visas. Furthermore if they are convicted and face a sentence of less than twelve months they will also remain.‬‪

In each case we will have said you can be part of plan to blow up a boat and that‘s OK with us. Well it’s not OK with the Coalition. If Labor won’t stop the boats, they could at least deal with those found to be part of plan to blow one up.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

244The national policy agenda which nobody voted for
238On the PM's own test, the numbers now favour the Libs
191Abbott's Fatal Austin Powers Moment: One Billion Dollars
183Admitting that you may be a monarchist is tough
170Big breasts are back
170Here's to the funniest movie ever made
120How Labor lost its mandate to govern
117Who needs enemies when you've got a Party Room
114Enough with all the meat eating all ready

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Paul says:

      05:26am | 22/03/10

      Scott you and Rudd can’t even protect us from legal migration levels that are way to high, a lack of housing, a lack of water planning, or in-border protection from big business gouging us every week! (fuel,banking,food). So instead of riding around on your smug smuggling hobby horse tell us what you are going to do for ordinary Australians - some of us have much bigger and broader concerns but you Liberal punchers don’t appear to be listening or interested. Rudd may be a sceptic but you are an attention seeking hypocrite Scott. Going to clean up the ‘illegals’ in Bondi Beach too Scott? Doubt it.

      Reply

    • im says:

      06:51am | 22/03/10

      comrade paul your bias is showing, like the current government could run a chook raffle without loosing the prize.

    • Paul says:

      07:06am | 22/03/10

      @im your bias and brainwashed mind is showing comrade. Rudd can’t protect us from big business gougers just as Howard couldn’t and Abbott cannot. Fact.

      If I wanted copy-cat politicians to go on and on and on about refugees, I would’ve voted Howard back in. I’m ready for a change from Rudd too - but I haven’t heard any big nation building ideas from Krabott (He bites then scurries sideways from issues to the next media feed…!)

      Rudd mightn’t be able to run a chook raffle but Tony needed a celibacy adviser to manage his package while failing to train as a priest. Go figure Liberal robot! May the best Monty Python candidate win!

    • persephone says:

      07:21am | 22/03/10

      I would have thought the NBN was a big nation building idea. And the health plan. And the ETS.  And the stimulus package.

      As for the not being able to run a chook raffle - to be able to deliver new buildings for every school across the nation with a 99.7% success rate is actually a far better strike rate than any private sector organisation would even aim for, let alone achieve.

      And it’s not Tony’s budgie smugglers which worry me, let alone the budgie he’s smuggling. It’s the fact that he seems to get his best ideas from that department.

    • im says:

      07:52am | 22/03/10

      comrade paul the last 5 fed labor governments have left huge debt for other to fix. the hawke keating government real wages dropped 7%. under your mate howard real average wages grew 24%. Under Howard the boats stopped, i wonder how many have lost their lives attempting the journey ub Rudd. you probably beleive the house batts and $900 giveaways and leantoo construction at schools costing $1million saved us from recession ha ha ha.

    • im says:

      07:57am | 22/03/10

      mr p phone i think you might find the NBN suddenly dissapears from view. $43 billion yea right and i suspect your and gillards 97% figure will soon turn out to be more like 50% and very rubbery at that now the senate have deemed to investigate.

    • Paul says:

      09:11am | 22/03/10

      @im dear Liberal robot - are you a bit stupid mate or couldn’t read my post - I’m not that impressed by Rudd and we have ample resources in Australia to pay off this debt we are a long way from bankrupt scaremonger. Neither was I with Howard spending billions on terror… and boat people like I care about that. There are much bigger national issues at hand here like population size and housing affordability. Issues to big for you and Scott to get your heads around!

      @p the download speeds of NBN have been superceded many times by latest technology and Google plans.  (Yes I admit the plan was lightyears ahead of dial-up Johnny) And given that Rudd and Abbott are both in the pockets of the Christian Right censorship people, who could stuff up the information highway more Rudd or Abbott (who has no policy on censorship)?

      May the best Monty Python candidate win.

    • matt says:

      10:37am | 22/03/10

      Great examples of the Rudd government’s policies so far, persephone.

      NBN: Labor mate on $450,000 salary. Still no business plan, costings, or viability study.

      Health “plan”. A two minute sound bite. No details, no State premiers on board. Hospital take over 9 months overdue.

      ETS - non existent. Not a word from Rudd or Wong since the Copenhagen failure for the “greatest moral challenge of our time”.

      Stimulus spending: cheques to dead people and overseas residents. More than 100 homes destroyed by fire, 4 people dead and a massive expensive fix to undo the insulation debacle. The price to shade cloth a playground now exceeding the cost to build 4 new complete 4 bedroom homes.

      Your blogs are becoming increasing desperate and the slurs a little more nasty.

    • im says:

      11:10am | 22/03/10

      dear paul does australia have ample resources to pay of debt, Fed maybe but what about the state debt you lot seem to forget that. QLD for example has a debt of $50 billion!!! with a population of 4 million, no idea about NSW or the rest.

    • Paul says:

      11:48am | 22/03/10

      @im Qld doesn’t have $50 billion worth of whatever in the ground? I would have thought the credit raters or the chinese accountants or wall street,  would have worked out if we were bankrupt yet?  Do you know something international stockmarkets/money lenders don’t? Please tell!

      Plus: How is it that Scott can talk tough and standup to third world people smugglers but he is to scared to stand up to big business gouging working families, pensioners and small businesses? Does Scott need a bigger package? Or does he need his ears cleaned out so he can start listening?

      Or does he just need to stop taking “donations” from big business and to try to work out who he really represents?

    • Ryan says:

      12:25pm | 22/03/10

      @persephone: can you Labor grubs stop attacking Surf Lifesaving Australia. I am sick to death of you pathetic trolls having a go at what a surf lifesaver was wearing. Tell me, what makes volunteer Tony Abbott in surf lifesaving gear so offensive? Does this mean that you Labor grubs find all Surf Lifesaving Australia volunteers offensive based on what they wear. You people are offensive and sickening.

    • Rod Gray says:

      12:27pm | 22/03/10

      Stick to the topic Paul, you are typical of Rudd ideology, don’t address the subject matter, and provide spin and rhetoric.  The subject point from Scott Morrison relates to illegal Immigrants.  Rudd made an election promise to toughen Australia’s boarder protection, he has failed to do so, in fact, more boats than ever before are making their way to our shores.  Australia is now the country of choice for people smugglers.  Their arrivals are not as a result of push factors, as Rudd would have us believe, their arrivals are as a result of the Rudd Labor Govt’s non existent policies.  LABOR MUST GO.

    • Paul says:

      09:57am | 23/03/10

      @ rod gray didn’t address the subject matter eh dufus? I specifically asked Scott what he was going to do about illegals in Bondi mate! But Scott was to busy sprinting for cover! Sook.

      Then some Liberal attack poodle came along (“im”) so I had to Punch him. To scared to debate the broader issues too Rod?

    • persephone says:

      06:30am | 22/03/10

      Why is it that conservatives are the first to trash the tenets of our society - when it suits their political agenda?

      Mr Morrison is doing it with a vengeance here.

      Firstly, one of the most basic priniciples in our legal system is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. There aren’t any shades of grey or caveats to that principle - not ‘innocent unless we’re 100% sure’ let alone ‘innocent unless the coroner suggests they’re guilty of a crime.’

      I know of people walking the streets today who coroners have said without equivocation are guilty of murder - but there’s not enough evidence to convict them, so in the eyes of the law they’re innocent.

      But that’d be OK in Scott’s view, because they’re dinky di Aussies, so the law’s different for them.

      The second tenet that he’s trashing happily here is that of the law of the seas. These are conventions developed over hundreds of years (by the nation which ruled the waves, mostly)  regarding the way boats at sea should be treated.

      The third is our obligations under international treaties. Anyone who arrives in Australia - whether that be our territorial waters or Sydney airport, where most of them do - are entitled to seek, and receive, asylum.

      Mr Morrison can’t come up with a refugee policy which doesn’t breach one or more of these conventions. Neither could the Howard government.

      And he can’t come up with one - and thus avoids discussing - which tackles the majority of asylum seekers, who come here by plane.

      Reply

    • annie says:

      06:48am | 22/03/10

      bugger international treatys, none of these unwelcome visitors from siev36 should be allowed to stay as an example that our borders are not to be taken as an invitation to cross without our say so. hopefully the coalition will bring back temp visas and turn boats back at our sea border. entry by invite only

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:09am | 22/03/10

      Don’t know why I have to respond but he made it clear that the judicial process and immigration process should remain seperate. He never said they should be convicted of “alleged” crimes but that the coroners evidence is enough to revoke thier visas.

      Debate the opinion presented not the one you assume is presented.

    • persephone says:

      07:26am | 22/03/10

      Adam, explain why a coroner’s opinion alone is enough to strip someone of their legal rights.

      I repeat: that overturns the presumption of innocence.

      If there is evidence that these men are a danger, they will be charged with a crime and not be bailed.

      What’s the problem you have with that?

      Annie, we rely on international treaties for our own self defence. We know that we can’t survive a major attack from another country without relying on international aid.

      It’s a bit like sending troops our troops overseas - there’s been very few cases where we’ve done so as a result of a real threat to ourselves. We do it because we’re part of the international community and expect recipricocity.

      We could try the ‘we’re an island’ approach but we’d very quickly find ourselves cap in hand to the international community.

    • annie says:

      08:06am | 22/03/10

      peephone the minister can cancel a visa on information given by the coroner of federal police or other government departments. get your facts into some kind of order not your personal view

    • persephone says:

      08:28am | 22/03/10

      Or, as Howard’s ministers did with bona fide Australian citizens, deport or imprison them just on a whim, annie.

      I would have thought strictly applying the rule of law - that it’s better to have 99 guilty people walking free than 1 innocent person falsely imprisoned - would have been preferable.

      As I said, it’s amazing how conservatives are prepared to trash the very principles they’re supposed to to die in a ditch for.

    • Alex says:

      08:58am | 22/03/10

      persephone says “Anyone who arrives in Australia - whether that be our territorial waters or Sydney airport, where most of them do - are entitled to seek, and receive, asylum.”

      That’s not true.  Not even close.  Under treaties and international obligations, only people who are unable or unwilling to return to their country of residence for specific reasons of persecution are eligible to seek asylum.

      No country is obliged, legally or morally, to provide asylum merely because someone asks for it.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:00am | 22/03/10

      @ persophone hold the hostility. I dont care about these visas and can understand your reservations about a mnister revoking them on the evidence of a coroner (which if we choose to ingnore why do we even hold these inquests). I was merely asking you to debate the point that Scott presented which you subsequently have rather than the opinion you wrongly assumed was presented to begin with.

    • persephone says:

      09:44am | 22/03/10

      Adam

      Sorry, but I don’t think I’m off topic here.

      Scott might be playing semantic games, but he is saying that these people should have their visas revoked because of the coroner’s findings.

      So he’s obviously connecting the judicial and immigration processes.

      If he’s not, on what grounds is he seeking the revocation of these people’s visas? Just because?

    • Arnold says:

      10:38am | 22/03/10

      Persephone, the immigration and judicial processes are separate.  That is, you do not have to found guilty by a court to be deemed unfit for Australian residency.

      If immigration policies were designed according to your views, Osama bin Laden could apply for and receive temporary status with Australia.  To the best of my knowledge, he has not been convicted of any illegal activities, even though the entire world knows what he is capable of.

    • Dave says:

      10:35am | 22/03/10

      ” And he can’t come up with one - and thus avoids discussing - which tackles the majority of asylum seekers, who come here by plane.”

      This is not correct, the proportion of onshore applicants, people arriving by planes and boats, has hovered from 41% in 2000-2001 down to 5.6% in 2003-224 and back up to 17.5% last year.

      This year if the current trend of people by boats continue, almost 70% on refugee and humanitarian visas will be delivered to onshore applicants because the government has planned to allocate only 13750 visas in 2009-2010.

      Quoting international obligations and legal arguments do not make inherently the refugee process fairer if the total number of places remains constant. You are only swapping one type of refugees for another.

      Incidentally, the peak of humanitarian and refugee visas was in 2005-2006 under the Howard government, when 14144 visas were delivered, 91% of them to offshore applicants and the rest to onshore applicants made up overwhelmingly of people arriving by planes.

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:33pm | 22/03/10

      @Persephone,

      Scott IS “strictly applying the rule of law”

      He even gave you the act, section and clause (s501 and clause 6c of the Migration Act).

    • persephone says:

      02:45pm | 22/03/10

      Which leaves it to the Minister’s discretion.

      In this case, the Minister has apparently decided to use it in a way Scott doesn’t like.

      His call.

    • Sam says:

      06:37am | 22/03/10

      I have a feeling that KRudd is giggling away somewhere out there, I mean if you do a bad job in government, don’t keep your promises and come up with unrealistic policies and can still be a popular PM, it says more about us as a nation of people unable to see the forest for the trees rather than the Kevinator being able to be on top despite his poor performance.

      Reply

    • Jacki says:

      07:57am | 22/03/10

      I agree
      Kev07 is a spin doctor

    • iansand says:

      07:11am | 22/03/10

      Gosh Scott.  I’m frightened.

      Mission accomplished.  Nothing to see here.  Move along please.

      Reply

    • matt says:

      10:45am | 22/03/10

      Gee, iansand. Great contribution to the debate.

    • Dave says:

      07:40am | 22/03/10

      The arrival of people by boats does not change the overall numbers of asylum seekers being granted residendy in Auastralia.

      For the last ten year Australia has handed between 13000 and 14000 refugee and humanitarian visas (See Dept. Immigration figures). Only the mix changed with the numbers of boat arrivals. This is a zero sum game.

      in 2004-2006 when the pacific solution was in place and the boats stopped arriving, almost all refugee and humanitarian visas were delivered to the UNHRC. Now, again, more visas are delivered, for a hefty fee,  trough people smugglers.

      I suspect the government has cynically let the people smugglers ply their trade because the asylum seekers who are catching boats are more entrepreneurial that those who are waiting patiently in UNHCR camps. That means fewer poor Somalis and more middle class Tamils. Somalis have struggled to adjust, Tamils will thrive in this country.

      Reply

    • Red says:

      07:54am | 22/03/10

      Scott I have two questions; What percentage “illegal boat arrivals from the Howard regime are now permanent residents?
      Where would you have stood when the Jews were trying to escape from Germany?

      Reply

    • annie says:

      08:11am | 22/03/10

      comrade red so you want to encourage people to pay criminal and board leaky boats risking their lives to cross very the sea to jump the queue when needy people waiting thier turn in refugee camps for 5 years or more in my view should get first dibs. At least howards stopped the boats nil via sea for the last 5 years of his government.

      Reply

    • Alice says:

      10:20am | 22/03/10

      @annie
      1. Do you have any idea what the proportion of boat arrivals is compared with the number of people who arrive by plane with dodgy paperwork and/or overstay their visas?
      2. Do you realise that compared with other countries Australia’s “border protection” problems are virtually non-existent?
      3. If you are so deeply troubled by this, have you thought about push factors at all?

    • annie says:

      11:25am | 22/03/10

      alice their are no push factors different to the howard regimes last 5 years. the percentage of people who arrive by plane and get asylum i beleive is around 5 to 6% of our refugee intake of 14000. The difference is no tpv and the resumption of family reunions the closing of naru all under our current government.

      plus under howard christian iraquis were given preference to people from the sudan as soon as labor came to power ellison changed that back to preference sudan over christain iraquis. i wonder if people from the sudan make batter labor voters.

    • Mazzy says:

      08:34am | 22/03/10

      Scott, I read that you were one of those in charge of nsw liberals when the political racist pamphletts were distributed. is this more win at all cost thinking?

      Reply

    • matt says:

      10:45am | 22/03/10

      Mazzy, I read that Rudd was one of those in charge when documents relating to the sexually abuse of an Aboriginal girl were shredded to avoid investigation and legal proceedings. Is this more Rudd/Labor lie, spin and retain power at all cost.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:06am | 23/03/10

      Matt, those documents not only were not shredded but have been published on the front page of the Australian newspaper.

      Do follow the story you want to spout crap about.

    • Bob says:

      08:56am | 22/03/10

      There is NO border protection problem. This is racist scare mongering and point scoring. It plays on the fears of people about being overrun by “the enemy”. Frankly its disgusting.

      The figures bear out the truth. There is only a very small percentage of Asylum Seekers arriving on our borders by sea. And Australia is recieving only a miniscule percentage of Asylum Seekers worldwide. It is simply the ultimate version of the old (and rather childish) “I’m a tougher law maker than you” and “I can protect Australia better than you” games.

      Reply

    • ng says:

      09:26am | 22/03/10

      @Bob, you’re 100% on the money there. There is no border protection problem, because there is NO bloody border protection. How many safe Countries do they pass, where they can seek asylum, but choose not to. They are nothing more than Country shoppers, who come here purely for economical purposes. There is a correct way to seek asylum, and jumping on a leaky boat and paying thousands of dollars is not the correct way.

    • Dingo says:

      10:29am | 22/03/10

      Bob, there is no mention of race. Frankly, continuing to try and portray those who object to an open backdoor refugee policy as racist is disgusting.

      I do not have any fear of refugees, but I do object to the injustice of (all male) boat arrivals taking advantage of the situation at the expense of less fortunate men, women and children waiting to be given a chance at a new life.

      The small percentage arriving by sea was the result of proper boarder security. Not being able to comprehend that the current policies will see these numbers continue to grow is really childish.

    • Betelnut says:

      09:31am | 22/03/10

      Gee Scott,

      I would have thought you have had plenty of time to look at the ramifications of the Haneef case/s in the run up to the last election.  You know, the one where Andrews and Ruddock used immigration laws to deport a person subsequently found to have no case to answer, all in the name of a political point scoring exercise.

      The lessons were pretty clear, politicians should stay out of the courts, and not use immigration processes to circumvent the pursuit of justice.

      Again Scott, you have beeen given, what, your 10th column now in the Punch.  A forum you can use to directly communicate with voters.  Yet again, however, you choose to dwell on pointless and childish issues, rather than put forward a cogent set of policies that you will take forward to the upcoming election.

      Reply

    • Fact free zone says:

      09:38am | 22/03/10

      A reprehensibly shallow offering from an elected Liberal Party member, despite the depth of material readily available to him from Parliament itself.

      “Countries that have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention have undertaken to provide protection to persons who are declared to be ‘refugees’ within the meaning of the Convention.  Article 1A(2) defines a ‘refugee’ as any person who:

      … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it…”
      http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2009-10/10rp07.htm


      “Obligations under the Convention fall squarely onto the receiving state, and come into effect after the asylum seeker has entered its territory and made a claim for refugee status. The most basic principle, or core obligation, of signatory states is that of ‘non-refoulement’, i.e. not sending someone back to a situation where there they might face persecution.(13) Another important obligation (and source of increasing tension with the rise of people smuggling) is not to penalise asylum seekers for entering a signatory country ‘illegally’.(14)”
      http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm


      “The principle of non-refoulement is the cornerstone of international refugee protection and is expressed unequivocally in article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention which prohibits a State from expelling or returning a refugee in any manner whatsoever to territories where his/her life or freedom would be threatened for a Convention reason.[15] Significantly, the prohibition is not without limitation.[16] An important exception is contained in article 33(2) which states that the prohibition does not apply to refugees who may be reasonably regarded ‘as a danger to the security of the country in which he or she is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime[17], constitutes a danger to the community of that country’.[18]

      There remains persistent disagreement amongst scholars as to whether the prohibition requires actual admission into a country or whether it permits denial of entry at the ‘frontier’. It is clear however that the prohibition applies to refugees (those formally recognized as such) as well as asylum seekers, at least initially, for otherwise the international protection regime would be fundamentally compromised.”
      http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2009-10/10rp07.htm

      In summary, although there is debate about ‘complementary protection’ for persons arriving who are deemed not to be refugees, by whatever means, we are obliged as a country not to put them back in danger.

      One other interesting point. Whoever Perspehone is, her case is well put and pretty accurate - both consistent features of her posts but conspicuously absent from most other posters. And that includes the author, Morrison, who as the Liberal Shadow Minister has an obligation to present an undistorted case to the people.

      Reply

    • michael says:

      02:29pm | 22/03/10

      No one asked me if I agreed to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Not all the countries of the world have signed the convention.Whys should we? I believe the majority of Australians don’t want the majority of refugees coming here. Why don’t we have a referrendum on the issue and allow everyone to vote to either agree or remove our agreement to the convention. Let the majority have their say. If everyone votes and agrees to us sticking with the convention I would accept that and if they don’t I would accept that too.

    • Jimmy says:

      10:04am | 22/03/10

      We should not forget we all were immigrants at one point when coming to Australia. Immigrants actually founded this country.

      Reply

    • Alice says:

      10:54am | 22/03/10

      I agree with the sentiment although we can’t really say that immigrants “founded” the country.

      The only Australians who have any real entitlement to complain about boat arrivals are the indigenous Australians.

    • Jimmy says:

      11:22am | 22/03/10

      @Alice: I stand corrected on that part.

      Actually, let them decide who can come and should stay. Now that would be interesting wouldn’t it?

    • Matt says:

      11:33am | 22/03/10

      Alice, immigrants founded the society that refugees are seeking to move to.

      The immigrants who founded modern Australia did not benefit from the established housing, health, education, social security and financial systems of the indigenous people. The immigrants built those institutions and they are the reason people want to migrant to Australia today.

      I don’t dismiss the enormous impact European settlement has had on indigenous Australians. In fact, I would rather see more urgent action in helping indigenous Australians before focusing on the world’s 21 million refugees.

    • AdamC says:

      10:46am | 22/03/10

      Scott is wrong, Kruddy isn’t sceptical about border protection – he is terrified of it as a political issue. Thus far, he has managed to avoid having to engage with it in any serious way.

      I don’t like informal migration channels. I am fairly comfortable in that position. People can always find some reason to advocate for informal immigrants (in the US, for example, it is apparently controversial when the government deports illegal immigrants who have no claim to asylum); I reject them. To those who argue for weak border protection arrangements on the basis of humanitarian imperatives and international treaties I say the following; (1)  your well-meaning concern facilitates a criminal racket and (2) the 1951 refugee convention is totally outdated and unworkable – let’s renounce it! How about that, then, Scott?

      Reply

    • Dingo says:

      11:21am | 22/03/10

      Totally agree AdamC.

      Particularly about renouncing the 1951 refugee convention which has become completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, so too has the UN to a large extent.

      Reply

    • Jeff says:

      12:00pm | 22/03/10

      I’m all for taking in the most amount of people into this country as we can sustain, I think most people are. We are are blessed country.
      What disturbs me to see is there are some (not all) people simply jumping the queue by paying their way through people smugglers. To see these people get in the country in place of a eg.South African or Zimbabwean who has pursued the correct channels, waited their turn etc. is simply not a fair or sustainable.

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:16pm | 22/03/10

      Ultimately everyone, with the possible exception of the East Africans, is either an immigrant or descendant from immigrants.  What is ultimatly important here is what broader society wants.  For too long politicians have distorted this debate for their own political ends, we need to hold a referendum to address what Australia, as a society, wants to do about immigration and border security let’s not have dog whistling pollies decide for us.

      Reply

    • Ricky says:

      01:01pm | 22/03/10

      This is just another Rudd failure, i dont know why antone is surprised.Every dollar we spend on these illegal immigrants is one more dollar that isnt spent on old age pensioners & other deserving Australians(not to mention our hospitals, etc).Chances are these illegals will just be another ungrateful minority that will add to the multicultural cesspit Australia is becoming.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      01:11pm | 22/03/10

      Irrespective of your position on Asylum Seekers, I don’t believe the government of the day should have the power to lock up women and children, or anyone for that matter, in prison like conditions. There is a concept in any free country worth its salt called separation of powers and it is not, or should not be the governments job to dish out summary justice to satisfy the mob. If we don’t like the 1951 Refugee agreement we have signed then lets recind it. If we don’t want people coming here in boats then make it illegal and punish them legitimately, but let us take this dangerous power away from the government as it is not their role nor should it be

      Reply

    • Jake Tomsett says:

      01:18pm | 22/03/10

      Morrison’s lines are a re-hash of the Ruddock/Duffield lines of old.  It’s all glib one-liners, without a solution or substantial policy alternative other than to sub-contract our international responsibilities to other nations…for a fee.  The reality is the trickle of boat people is but a tiny proportion of worldwide irregular migration.  It’s cyclical and occurs on this scale about once a decade.  The solution is regional cooperation from Australia/NZ up through SE/North Asia; and then peace in those nations from which the refugees are fleeing - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.  We are seeing the UNHCR determining life is more safe in Sri Lanka and possibly Afghanistan than was previously the case, such that more and more asylum seekers on Christmas Island will begin to have their claims refused.  But in the main, the Hazaras will get theirs up.

      Folks…get used to it.  This phenom - “fleeing from persecution” - has been around in one form or another for centuries.  It’s the strongest indictment one can find of man’s inhumanity to another.  But we are big enough, strong enough, and secure enough to be able to manage to integrate a few thousand unexpected refugees a year.

      As for Scott Morrison: you’re a bloody disgrace.  Go back to tourism, and “where the bloody hell you belong”....as Lara would have it.  Send that Duffield crony back to real estate while you’re at it seeing as she couldn’t cut it in Robb’s office and has been a press release desperately seeking a compter screen ever since.

      Reply

    • FRED says:

      02:57pm | 22/03/10

      Scott, a bit of thinking instead of spruiking time might help yout understand the facts differently.
      Indeed 93 unarmed fishing boats have been stopped at sea, and our border was protected. Their 4250 passengers( including Indonesian crew) have been taken to the Howard Government’s $500 million detention centre on Christmas Island , Australia( but not Australia for immigration purposes- figure that one out!)  and are fully assessed against UN Refugee Convention criteria, as required. Most have been confirmed to be real refugees - people who fled persecution- and are granted permanent protection. And that is was decent governments do.

      Scott, please develop a Coalition policy on asylum seekers which complies with international law- the law which RG Menzies signed on behalf of Australia. Do not confuse asylum seekers with the UNHCR confirmed refugees whom we select from their pool of people in camps who require resettlement in a safe country. Under Howard, the refugee settlement program grew insignificantly though the need did. Offer to take more refugees.

      Scott, do some research on the flight of desperate people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, consider the compelling reasons for flight, and reflect on our capacity to help in our region. Talk to the Iraqis, Iranians and Afghans who came ten years ago, and learn what good human capital they prove to be. Check the uni entrance offers for their children’s names.

      In the finest Liberal tradition, you Scott and the Coalition must show respect for human rights including the right of an asylum seeker to seek protection in our country. There is no correct way to seek asylum but there is a correct way to treat asylum seekers, and detaining them for months in an offshore Guantanamo Bay institution isolated from community when they have committed no crime and are not illegal, is not.

      I wish Rudd and co would find the courage to call the Opposition’s bluff and explain to the people of Australia that genuine asylum seekers are no threat to our national security and have the human right to be safe. And nowhere is better than Australia.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:30pm | 22/03/10

      Don’t know why Scott is moaning about boat people when it’s British backpackers, backdoor Kiwis and pseudo Indian students that make up the bulk of immigrants (legal or otherwise). With both parties having a stated aim of an australian population of 36 million by 2050, a few thousand here or there is not going to make a lot of difference. Of course with Australia’s environmental problems, the only sensible solution is zero immigration, but not a chance in hell of that happening.

      Reply

    • marie says:

      06:30pm | 22/03/10

      What ?  you mean there is a border protection policy ???

      Reply

    • franklin says:

      03:30pm | 23/03/10

      It needs to be emphasized that the classification of an asylum seeker as a refugee is a very subjective process, particularly for asylum seekers arriving via people smugglers. In the end it often comes down to whether an asylum seekers claims are to be believed or not, and in most cases without any real evidence.

      The problem in assessing claims of asylum seekers arriving via people smugglers is that it cannot be determined without doubt what has actually happened to them. It is standard practice for asylum seekers to destroy identity and travel documents prior to arrival and then claim refugee status, although such documents were used for travel in other countries up until arrival at Australian immigration points. All enquiries after that point involve the verification of a story of persecution and assessment as to whether the story is believable or not. The immigration department can make inquiries offshore to test the story, but this is time consuming and expensive and will not always resolve the matter. The further a person is from their home country, the more difficult it is to confirm the facts. And with a payoff of settlement in an affluent first world country, most asylum seeker escaping dysfunctional third world countries would have no qualms about fabricating or embellishing a story of persecution.

      The entire refugee assessment process for asylum seekers arriving via people smugglers is flawed by error and guesswork, which works greatly to the advantage of the claimants.

      Reply
 
Comment

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

by Joe Hildebrand

48

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Let’s face it: What Paul McLeay’s done isn’t the worst thing in the world. It isn’t…

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

by Sophie Mirabella

106

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

The Greens are now officially the far-left faction of the Australian Labor Party.  They have been…

Five ingredients of a good advice column

by Lucy Kippist

7

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Question: A young Man being an apprentice, and having served about half his time, hath a very fair opportunity…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Enough with all the meat eating all ready

Edward James says:

Reducing the consumption of meat and sea food by 15%. What about the world population is it not increasing each year by the same or greater percentage? Those extra people are not all vegatarian they are eating meat and fish too. There is something strange about the maths message in your story. Our world… [read more]

From: The national policy agenda which nobody voted for

thatmosis says:

This whole process has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Here we have a Nation held captive by independants and a so called independant party called the Greens, aka the Raving Looney Party, whilst money is being wasted daily on public servants doing their usual thing, nothing but with bells on.… [read more]

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

penbo 03 Sep 10 12:12PM

Scorchingly good and uncharacteristically sensible piece by @Joe_Hildebrand on the NSW Labor Party http://tinyurl.com/2896syw#ausvotes

Leo Shanahan

_leo_s 03 Sep 10 10:55AM

Like Shane Warne I can guarantee I haven't had a facelift. Can't speak for @penbo though, we don't call him Sza Sza for nothing.

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 03 Sep 10 09:12AM

Five ingredients of a good advice column. New post by me: http://bit.ly/d6bbX3#thepunch

Leo Shanahan

_leo_s 02 Sep 10 06:38PM

@Alex_Carlton there is no nice way for me to say i want to here that right now.

See all tweets

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Warning: this has nothing to do with politics. We thought we’d see how the Prime Minister and Opposition… Read more

26 comments

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed