Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
In a major reversal, the Government has said it would accept the findings of the Houston Report and process asylum seekers in Naura and PNG. Bob Ellis comments.
By Bob Ellis
The Fairfax press reported the following this morning about the move to begin Nauru II.
THE federal government will rush legislation into Parliament today to process asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea after accepting proposals that take Australia back to the harsh offshore mandatory detention of John Howard’s Pacific Solution.
In a major backdown from her earlier insistence on the Malaysia ”people swap”, Prime Minister Julia Gillard declared: ”If people want to put up banners that this is a compromise from the government: dead right – in order to start saving lives.”
Ms Gillard said she wanted the legislation through Parliament by the end of the week.
It should now be explained why incompetent Chinese waitresses are let in and persecuted Hazara peasant farmers fleeing decapitation by the Taliban kept out.
Who is at the head of the queue? And why?
Why is every Syrian not automatically let in? How can he/she not be said to be a ‘genuine refugee’? How?
That said, it is a good chess move, and Abbott has nowhere to go now, and other things will be talked of, in arguments he will mostly lose, and he will fall because of it, all of his moral eggs having been in this basket.
The Prime Minister’s utterance about ‘I tell you what’s harder, it’s watching people drown’ is idiotic. This could equally be said when banning the Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race or gaoling teenage girls for sailing small craft round the world. Or travelling on any ferry in Bangla Desh. Or evacuating Dunkirk.
The Lieutenant-Governor of South Australia came here on a leaky boat on which some of his relatives in big storms died. And he should not have come — is that the argument? He should not have come? Please say yes or no — so he can sue some of you.
The true solution is to let in a hundred thousand fewer incompetent Chinese waitresses next year and instead let in a hundred thousand Hazara and Tamil refugees and thus abolish the queue, and twenty thousand a year thereafter, flying them here on their last hop at government expense, a far far less expensive destination than Nauru, whose time frame amounts to child abuse, and save our taxpayers a lot of money.
What a stupid, stupid episode.
And a vile stain on our name.
Nauru ‘Pacific Solution’ refugee processing centre (photo courtesy ABC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
39 Comments
Sorry Bob, I usually agree with most of what you write…but to compare desperate refugees coming on overloaded dilapidated, rickety, leaky boats, to the state of the art yachts with superior technology in the Sydney to Hobart with television cameras and air patrols watching their every move, same with a 16 year old girl who is an expert sailor and in constant contact with authorities and her parents is a tad ludicrous.
“A vile stain on our name”
Got it in one, I hope neither of them attempts to take the moral high ground with this as it make them appear more depraved than now. Why are we letting in untold thousand overstayers, who sneak into the country fully intending to stay and yet these folk who are up front and plainly seek asylum, become the football who are portrayed as sneaks and lowlifes.
Well done ‘oldfart’
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
What an absolute disgrace!
A pox on both their houses.
Labor has NEVER portrayed refugees as sneaks and lowlifes…the Coalition are the only ones to have done that since the Tampa and since Howards infamous speech…”We will decide who comes into our country and under what circumstances they come” and in doing so gave permission for every closet racist in the country to put up their hand. They did so in droves and did so proudly like it was a badge of honour. Many people I know who had voted Labor all their lives based on the working class attitude allowed their underlying racsim to surface and voted for Howard. They kept him in Govt when he should never have been there. What was once a bi-partisan issue become the Coalitions political football and thousands of voters rallied in support of their racist policy. Abbott and Howard’s policy has always been about stopping “these people” from coming into our country EVER because they are from the Middle East &/or muslim…because they are not ‘white’ & for no other reason. Labor agreeing to the Houston Report is about saving lives and giving those who have languished in camps in Malaysia/Pakistan/Sri Lanka/Indonesia for many years the opportunity to finally come here. Agreeing to Nauru & Manus Island is not what they would have done had they had power in both houses…but given the makeup of the Parliament and the urgent need to do something some compromise had to be made. It is definitely not perfect but under the circumstances even if one life is saved from drowning it will be successful. I just love the way egotistical journalists and kitchen table experts critisise the Govt for compromising but never suggest how they would do it. Thats because all they want to do throw stones from the sidelines.
Well said dee.
Thanks Lloydy…I am sure some people think Labor should have just rolled over and just let those who swung over to Howard stay with them and not try to win them back with a more conciliatory policy. Had they of done that…Howard et al…now Abbott…would be in power indefinitely…like Labor were going to let that happen! They have to do the best they can under the circumstances.
Well said dee.
The hardest part is always setting a process in motion, often against overwhelming odds, to maximise the potential of success in the medium or long term. This PROGRESSIVE government, with all its stumbles, should be not least credited for the expert handling of the GFC, the introduction of the MRRT, Carbon pricing and now the attempt to defuse the asylum seeker issue in order to improve regional cooperation and therefore mitigate some of the plight of refugees. In light of an intractable self-serving opposition there really wasn’t another viable choice. As we have observed politics is more often than not the art of the possible under difficult or extreme circumstances. Nobody can ever be assured of final outcomes but there is one thing for certain we must NEVER EVER go back to a REGRESSIVE regime. Have we learned that lesson?
But they are breaking the law, or don’t you ALP hacks care about laws.
At this point in time Pakistan is kicking out 3 million Afghans and we promised to accept more than the 495 we accepted last year and then we refuse to.
We are on the excom. panel of the UNHCR yet we think we can do this?
What does that say to the rest of the committee? That we are disgusting racist cowards.
And Gillard is about as regressive on human rights as Howard or Ruddock were.
I ama ware, that emotions are high on this issue, but that is no reason for ad hominem attacks. Please be aware that I have just deleted several comments that I felt were openly abusive and/or defamatory. Please, everyone stay calm and polite and maintain a reasoned and reasonable debate.
Thank you.
DD
I agree with you Dee, this government has too much at stake that will be of immense importance to future generations, this asylum seeker matter needed to be resolved. It is incomprehensible to me that those who claim to be the supporters of refugees can sit back and criticise the government but seem to be oblivious to the tragic loss of life, and despite the comments of Bob, the most important thing to do was to stop people from boarding boats to undertake this perilous journey.
And I am no Labor hack Marilyn, just someone who has come to understand that sometimes there is a need for compromise in order to save lives.
You got it Dee 100% correct!
Thanks so much my friends…I have read so many ugly reports and comments today…people who obviously havent read the report and/or are just reading main stream media comment or those who are so blind by the inflexibility that they cannot see this is about people dying. MSM everywhere including Crikey, New Matilda and shock jock radio, have commentators sayng this is “backflip” or “backdown”…they know very well they dont have to use those words..they just do so to ridicule the PM and incite more hatred against her. They could just as easily say “PM brave in compromise” or such…but no they have to use degrading negative wording just to be spiteful…they have listened and heeded far to much of Abbott, Morrison et al’s personas….truly frightening.
MarilynS
It appears this is the topic you care about and you seem to have done extensive research in this area. Could you please tell me
1. How many displaced persons there are worldwide?
2. How many of these do you think Australia is capable of accommodating?
3. What are the means this could be achieved?
Awaiting your response!
Oh, by the way I am not an ALP hack either. Just a concerned citizen seeking answers! Can you help?
MarilynS
Sorry, forgot to mention I do not regard myself to be, how did you so adroitly put it a “disgusting racist coward”. Even I have some white Anglo Saxon friends (sic).
Everyone has the right to seek asylum without being punished or discriminated against.
That means everyone, not some, not a few, not a thousand or a million or ten.
It means everyone.
I agee with Dee’s comments. This is not a simple issue but I believe the first priority is to stop people risking their lives at sea. Only then can we effectivly impliment a system that extends as much help as possible to those in need. Systems break down when the are circumvented and those that are genuine tend to miss out. It is a bit like the Carbon Price. It is not designed to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere rather it’s purpose is to halt the increase in emmissions. Only then can the process be reversed. You have to stop a train before you can make it go backwards.
Kindest regards
@Dee “Labor has NEVER portrayed refugees as sneaks and lowlifes”
did I say they did? I also think you should add MSM to that list of people who have. However, what the ALP has done is allowed this to be railroaded by the LNP, shock jocks and the rednecks they are inciting. Personally, I feel they should have shown more leadership by just proceeding to onshore processing. We are in contravention of international protocols on refugees. I feel that it is the only just outcome.
At every opportunity Tony Abbott persists with the lie that asylum seekers are “illegal”. I can understand Abbott carrying on like a dork but yesterday the SMH editorial decided to tag along with him.
I quote:
“Their recommendations are intended to ensure there is no advantage to refugees arriving illegally by boat; to increase the incentive for asylum seekers to wait their turn in the queue of refugees, and also the disincentives for pushing in.”
The xenophobia is alive and well in the MSM.
Old Fart (oh dear) No you didnt say it and I didnt say you did. But your comment “portrayed as sneaks and lowlifes” implied someone said it so I simply stated that it was never Labor. Its all the reading and understanding…
Also onshore processing will still lead to people getting on boats. Where do we process them? Onshore in Indonesia/Malaysia/Sri Lanka….if so then those who dont get processed quick enough for their liking are going to get on boats. On Australia’s shore’s? Then in order to be processed they first have to risk their lives on boats to get to an Australian shore. Still getting on boats, still running the dreadful risk of drowning. We should be welcoming the extra thousands we are going to take who have been languishing in ghetto camps in these countries who dont have any $ at all to pay people smugglers and who no doubt thought they would never get to Australia. This is not a backflip – it is a very brave compromise in order to save people lives.
It is true : Howard used fleeing refugees as a shameful dog whistle election primer much as he did with his silent support for Hansonism and his odious Black Armband History to deflect our shocking treatment of the First Australians. These facts should forever define his history as PM along with his sole decision to invade Iraq and Afganistan and never be forgotten.
Labor fought back but then allowed abandoned it’s ideals for pragmatism but it’s backfired.
However every media outlet allows Tont Abbott and his acolytes to get away with outrageous lies : despite MaralynS being accurate re the legalities of fleeing danger, why does no journalist demand answers from Abbott as to the Coalition’s continued fantasy that the boats can be stopped.
Unless Australia is going to active be in the ports of departure we have no control over who leaves a country elsewhere on that planet. And that is why Labor stupidly allowed themselves to be painted into a corner.
You can’t stop refugees (especially when you participated in blowing up their countries) you can only deal with them humanely and legally when they come.
along with my jumbled words : the fantasies perpetuated have been harmful to people already in fear of their lives:
ie: the ghastly Ruddock who claimed those on boats wore designer outfits- those rubbishy rip-off t-shirts that flood every Asian market bearing Gucci logos. These cheap politicians are never called on their blatant lies. Likewise the exagerated claims of what they pay, always listed as ten times the real cost. No frigging hack ever exposes these furphies.
If I had my way I’d tar and feather both.
GocomSys, from my experience, Marylin doesn’t do facts and practicalities. Marylin does hyperbole, fabrication, character analogies and idealism. She attempts to win an emotive war, and is completely unprepared for any kind of rational discussion on the topic.
Her style is kind of like Tony Abbotts. Conflate everything into one pet issue, regurgitate emotive statements ad nauseam, and attempt to drown out other views via denunciation. The thing about this website, is that people are generally here because they are sick of that kind of crap in the MSM.
Matt, I worked for the Woomera lawyers for years on every major case in this country and I can assure you I know refugee law better than most of the lawyers and politicians and media in this country.
Do not ever again tell me I am full of it.
What the parliament did today was completely and utterly trash the human rights of one small group of people simply because they felt like doing so.
I would like the press gallery and pollies to be hermetically sealed in parliament house for a decade or so.
I prefer to see this, as some others have alluded to, as a circuit breaker. This is an attempt to take the heat out of this emotional and yes sometimes “dirty” and “nasty” and “false” debate. It might show the complexity of this issue and lead in time to the best “solution” possible. Like many other recently introduced policies it is a start, a beginning of an evolving process. What’s needed now is “goodwill” on all sides. That’s the problem in a profit/power driven in an outmoded “adversarial” political environment. Time for a change!
It doesn’t matter what you claim to know Marylin, when you resort to dressing up every fact you have no credibility.
You are no lawyer, of that much I am certain.
I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be. But I do know the law.
Matt, you have to date not offered up one thing that is more than abuse of the innocent.
Tell us your facts dear child and I might read them.
You may know some passages of law Marylin, that does not automatically grant you an understanding of the legal process, or an ability to argue the law. “You are no lawyer” refers to your skills as much as your accreditation.
I’m not sure what abuse you think I’ve offered up towards the innocent? What are the accusations I have made that they are “innocent” of?
You are the self proclaimed expert here Marylin, I don’t claim to be. I don’t claim to have a solution to any problem in this matter. You have been asked a number of questions by various people on these boards, and as a self-professed expert one might expect that you could actually address some of them.
There is no problem though, that is the problem.
The law has always stated that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries without fear of punishment, discrimination or other abuses.
What part of that is ambiguous.
In particular Marilyn, which Laws are you referring to? I mean exactly, so that I might examine them myself.
As you stated:
“I can assure you I know refugee law better than most of the lawyers and politicians and media in this country.”
I assume answering this simple request for the location of particular knowledge should not prove challenging.
ri
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20mas
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “uinlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950′s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.
So far so good on the “unlawful” = “illegal” story.
So let’s wander off to the High Court appeal which became Behrooz, Al Kateb and Al Khafaji and have a look at the meaning of “unlawful”.
GUMMOW J: What is the baggage of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: Your Honour, none. It is a word used in a definition provisihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/456.html?query=behroozon, it is simply a defined phrase. It is not a phrase which necessarily involves the commission of a criminal offence.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/458.html?query=behrooz
“GUMMOW J: What is the force of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: It is merely a word which is used in a definition section, your Honour.
GLEESON CJ: Does it mean without lawful permission?
MR BENNETT: Yes, that is perhaps the best way of paraphrasing – - –
GUMMOW J: But in the Austinian sense that is meaningless, is it not?
MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The draftsperson of the Act is not necessarily taken to be familiar with the – - –
GUMMOW J: Well, perhaps they ought to be.”
Wow, so the word unlawful is legally meaningless.
Who would have thought. But wait it get’s better.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html?query=al%20kateb
Here is the actual judgement. Paragraph 86 is there for all the world to see.
“From 1901 to 1994, federal law contained offence provisions respecting unlawful entry and presence in Australia, which was punishable by imprisonment as well as by liability to deportation. The legislation gave rise to various questions of construction which reached this Court[90]. The first of these provisions was made by the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) (“the 1901 Act”)[91]. Section 7 thereof stated:
“Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months, and in addition to or substitution for such imprisonment shall be liable pursuant to any order of the Minister to be deported from the Commonwealth.
Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of deportation, or if the offender finds two approved sureties each in the sum of Fifty pounds for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.”
As enacted in 1958, s 27 of the Act continued this pattern. That provision eventually became s 77 of the Act, but this was repealed by s 17 of the Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth) (“the 1992 Act”). It has not been replaced[92].”
Want a bit of icing on the cake, all of which I sent to the editors of the Australian, the Press Council and Media Watch.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2004/1267.html?query=hamdan
“30 It is important to emphasise that the client did not escape from custody. It would have been an offence for him to have done so: see 197A of the Act. He was released from detention pursuant to a court order. Neither was he committing or proposing to commit an offence simply because he was taking steps to avoid being detained. As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.
31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as “unlawful” serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a “valid permission to enter and remain in Australia”. The use of the term “unlawful” does not as such refer to a breach of a law.”
One would think the Australia could bother to read the material exposing the big lie of “unlawful” and “illegal” instead of simply shooting the messengers.
Now I helped to expose illegal detentions of over 250 people legally in the country, I helped to expose illegal deportations using false documents and have helped to keep many people in the community up to date with the immigration department’s behaviour and often criminality which have become the Palmer and Comrie investigations.
And while I am here let’s have a crack again at the so-called people smuggling that turns out to be a silly lie told by silly politicians and shamefully supported by delusional courts.
http://sievx.com/articles/sentences/dirlist.php
If you read these cases you will note:
“As has been observed in relation to other cases of this kind, the prisoners were not involved in a ‘people-smuggling’ exercise. There was nothing covert about either operation. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or to disguise what they had done”.
This is why we really locked up a few hundred poor schmuck Indonesian fishermen and if it was challenged in the High court I reckon all the cases would have been dismissed because we locked people up for things they could not have known.
“These are serious offences because the Australian Parliament has said the Australian Government has the right to control immigration into Australia in any way it chooses to do so. Australia has agreed to take a large number of refugees from other countries each year. This has to be done in an orderly way. The bringing to Australia of illegal immigrants avoids having these people go through the proper channels. This costs the Australian Government a lot of money and may well have the effect of causing other refugees to have to wait longer for them to get permission to come to Australia.”
(I bet refugees wish they could have such a nice, orderly existence while countries like ours blasts their countries to bits or trade with them in spite of brutal human rights records.)
“To give you some idea of the cost, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs believes that it costs $50,000 to process each illegal immigrant coming into Australia. This cost covers the costs associated with apprehension, transfer, detention, refugee processing, court costs, and removal where necessary.
Together you have brought in 449 illegal immigrants. At $50,000 per person, the total cost to Australia is almost $22.5m, or about Rp112 billion. This money could be better spent on refugee aid where it would help many thousands of refugees, not just a few hundred. The Parliament of Australia have said that this is a very serious offence and that the courts must impose significant sentences in order to deter others, as well as you, from committing this kind of offence in the future.”
(Yet having said there is no smuggling, what is the offence?)
So this is my rebuttal to the silly editorial by the Australian of 29 April by an editor who simply cannot read and simply refuses to see the reality under his nose.
However, as David Corlett exposed in his landmark book “Following them Home”, Australia has a long history of sending people out of the country without correct documents and dumping them in countries where they have no rights or citizenship.
And as we all found out in the case of Vivian Alvarez Solon the DIAC people are not averse to deporting Australian citizens without documents and dumping them to die, then covering up for 4 years.
In defense of MaralynS : she is a well know refugee advocate who dirties her hands at the coal face and not just on internet boards.
If she appears deranged to you, it appears as passion to me and that is not a bad thing.
Labor have dirtied their hands on this matter to their great shame. They abandoned their ideals. However, the alternative crew are too dire to even contemplate. I reckon at least another term of Labor may, just (may!) see humanity and reality return to the refugee debates.
Oscar, she doesn’t come off as deranged to me, just ineffective, annoying, and typical of what you would expect from a 13yr old keyboard warrior, not a woman of her years. Passion is not inherently good. Religious extremists are also passionate in their beliefs, and they sure look like a ‘good thing’ to their brethren, but to the rest of us they look like something else entirely.
Marilyn, I asked specifically for the Laws you were referring to, not rulings in individual cases. Giving a whole bunch of alternate info is not answering the question, it is avoiding it. Can we take it as given that you do not actually know the law and instead use only select judgements? Or can you actually answer my question? A question on something you proclaim to know intimately?
The Lieutenant-Governor of South Australia came here on a leaky boat on which some of his relatives in big storms died. And he should not have come — is that the argument? He should not have come? Please say yes or no — so he can sue some of you.
Did you write this drunk Bob ? You wrote speeches for Mike Rann ! Ask yourself if this poorly written (In anger) trash you wrote is acceptable.
Whats this about the Governor sueing us if we demonstrate our right to free speech , the only person who should not be able to exert their free speech is your rantings prettied up to look like a real news article. Write properly or stop contributing.
Matt, they are rulings in individual cases that are the law in all cases you nitwit.
Separate refugees don’t have separate laws, they all have the same laws.
And the laws are held by the high court to be valid.
Marilyn, I quote your earlier post:
————————————————
“The law has always stated that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries without fear of punishment, discrimination or other abuses.
What part of that is ambiguous.”
————————————————
This is quite simple. You said “the law has always stated..”, and then asked me a question of weather there is any ambiguity in the Law. In order to answer your question, I need to see the Laws you are quoting. What I am not going to do is sift through rulings trying to determine the relevant passages. Looking into individual cases is something I will choose to do if I feel like it after reading the relevant Laws.
You have not answered the question. And so I can not answer yours.
And of course separate refugees don’t have separate Laws, but all cases do have separate rulings. Don’t be ridiculous.
It it the case that if John Howard had not coluded with George Bush and Tony Blair in attacking Iraq, there would not be the refugee problem we have now.
It people wer a bit nicer to each other then we wouldn’t have the disputes we have now. If people could argue their points without abusing other people than maybe we would get a few things done.
I’M afraid we all cannot make a difference, especially if we abuse each other. That puts peoples backs up. People don’t listen and the absuser becomes the one who is ostracised.
We should try not to go to other countires and tell them how great our democracy is. The last time I looked at the opposition in Parliament today its not that good.
I know how to stop the boats.
We offer Indonesia a database so that they can catalogue all their Boats in their realm. They all have to have a License and be sea worthy. Those that are not we pay to make them seaworthy so that they can go and fish. If they can’t afford to make them seaworthy and so they sell them to the People smugglers, we buy them for twice the price that the the smugglers would have paid. Then we take the boat and make it completly unseaworthy, by wrecking it. And the past owner has the money to live and do what he wants, build another boat or Whatever.
So its a win win. We don’t get the people on ‘leaky boats” and they get paid twice as much as a smuggler would have done.
In the meantime we set up a huge UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia and Malaysia and then accept the refugees in a proper and orderly way. We screen them so that no ‘doubtful’ people get through.
Then we all have a party and rejoice in the new Australians who come here in an orderly manner.
Then what we do is mend the world don’t start any more wars and live as decent human beings.
We take away the fear factor of the borders being compromised and we becomae a citizen of the world.
So thats a win win. I just don’t know what we do with people who abuse others because they like it. I know we should open a Monty Python game called abuse a racist. we should call it “scathing”. The person who makes the most scathing comment wins.
Now the last part of this post is tongue in sheek but the first part is almost fair dinkum. All we have to do is pay the corrupt twice as much as they are being paid now.
I say Catalogue the boats, fix the boats and the ones that are unseaworthy Buy the boats. Now that is three slogans which will actually stop the boats.
And you know what, it will cost a lot less than we are paying for wars and asylum detention centres.
QED.
Cracker, why don’t we just understand that we don’t own the oceans and that we cannot stop one person from getting on a vessel.
Meanwhile the racist parliament have settled on legislated crimes against war victims.
Ahh yet more hypocrisy from Marilyn.
Let me see, according to Marilyn, it is within Australia’s power to intercept every boat, and if one goes missing, they let it do so deliberately, by dragging their feet. This is the line of reasoning you take, do you not?
How exactly is this accomplished without ownership? You may need to check a dictionary for what own actually means.