The Coalition has released its policy on “border protection”. The press release is here. All the usual nasties are there (TPVs, turn back the boats, blah blah) but what’s significant is the return of the Pacific Solution:
In government, we will commence discussions to establish an off shore processing detention facility in another country. This off shore facility will be the destination for anyone seeking to enter Australia illegally by boat.
That’s, to be clear, the Pacific Solution squared. There would be no detention or processing of asylum seekers anywhere on Australian territory, including Christmas Island, if I’m reading it correctly.
An Abbott government would trump the Howard government when it comes to abuse of human rights.
Update: Looks like the policy was released to the (News Limited) media before backbenchers found out about it:
Four angry Liberal backbenchers demanded a meeting with Opposition leader Tony Abbott this morning ahead of the announcement of the Coalition’s new asylum-seeker policy.
Liberal sources have told The Canberra Times that backbenchers Judi Moylan, Petro Georgiou, Judith Troeth and Russell Broadbent met with Mr Abbott at 9.30am today to vent their frustration over the tough new policies.
The quartet are understood to have been taken by surprise by the announcement of a new policy, which appeared in a News Limited paper this morning.
Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey:
Liberal MP Petro Georgiou has slammed Tony Abbott’s back-to-the-Howard-era policy on asylum seekers, saying it is “cruel” and “victimises the persecuted”.
“It does not have my support,” Georgiou said after this morning’s release of the new policy by Abbott, Scott Morrison and Philip Ruddock.
includes new policy of allowing foreign intelligence agents free reign at our passports.
includes new policy of allowing foreign intelligence agents free reign at our passports.
How did we manage to get into a competition between the Labor and Liberal parties as to who has the worst asylum seeker policy? Where is the leader willing to say we’re going in the wrong direction?
How did we manage to get into a competition between the Labor and Liberal parties as to who has the worst asylum seeker policy? Where is the leader willing to say we’re going in the wrong direction?
The ALP should stop dicriminating against Afghans and Sri Lankans. Its a complete failure as a seterrent anyway. This will help mobilise supporters.
Oh, and and let the coaltiion go to the election with this suite of completely faled policies. Everyone from Howard’s Pacific Solution came here in the end – but it cost us 10 times as much. Complete failure.
The TPV only makes more people come by boat – as it denies family reunion. Undr Rudd, we’ve seen the old practice of predomnatkly male boat travel. The numbers will incresae enrmously with the TPV – as theey did 1990-2001. In te meantime in punished the same people we were allegedly liberating from saddam and Taliban. It made us look like incoherent fools. Complete failure.
The ALP should stop dicriminating against Afghans and Sri Lankans. Its a complete failure as a seterrent anyway. This will help mobilise supporters.
Oh, and and let the coaltiion go to the election with this suite of completely faled policies. Everyone from Howard’s Pacific Solution came here in the end – but it cost us 10 times as much. Complete failure.
The TPV only makes more people come by boat – as it denies family reunion. Undr Rudd, we’ve seen the old practice of predomnatkly male boat travel. The numbers will incresae enrmously with the TPV – as theey did 1990-2001. In te meantime in punished the same people we were allegedly liberating from saddam and Taliban. It made us look like incoherent fools. Complete failure.
Agreed, Chris.
Agreed, Chris.
“How did we manage to get into a competition between the Labor and Liberal parties as to who has the worst asylum seeker policy?”
I thought it was obvious. Inflaming media dickheads.
“How did we manage to get into a competition between the Labor and Liberal parties as to who has the worst asylum seeker policy?”
I thought it was obvious. Inflaming media dickheads.
‘I thought it was obvious. Inflaming media dickheads.’
Yes, and an opposition deviod of principle.
‘I thought it was obvious. Inflaming media dickheads.’
Yes, and an opposition deviod of principle.
I too agree with Chris. The race to the bottom is certainly pretty ugly, but given recent polls on such things I doubt that anyone much in the ALP will be leading in the right direction. An albotross around all our necks has already been created. A very big circuit breaker is needed, and a renewal of the refugee campaigns of earlier in the decade.
I believe Malcolm Fraser said we are headed in the wrong direction, but alas he is yesterday’s leader and was never yesterday’s hero.
I too agree with Chris. The race to the bottom is certainly pretty ugly, but given recent polls on such things I doubt that anyone much in the ALP will be leading in the right direction. An albotross around all our necks has already been created. A very big circuit breaker is needed, and a renewal of the refugee campaigns of earlier in the decade.
I believe Malcolm Fraser said we are headed in the wrong direction, but alas he is yesterday’s leader and was never yesterday’s hero.
I don’t care if refugee applicants are processed offshore, onshore, by the seashore, or in a store.
Just so long as they are processed.
It shouldn’t worry the applicants where it happens, after all, they are running away from being killed!
I don’t care if refugee applicants are processed offshore, onshore, by the seashore, or in a store.
Just so long as they are processed.
It shouldn’t worry the applicants where it happens, after all, they are running away from being killed!
I thought Australia was meant to be the “lucky country…”
I thought Australia was meant to be the “lucky country…”
Hey, I thought the Liberal Party was the party of responsible economic management?
So how come they want to spend so much money on developing off-shore facilities when construction costs and other overheads (like quids pro quo to foreign governments) are much more expensive? There is no way that off shore processing can be cheaper. I mean did you see the cost of Charismas Island?
THIS RECKLESS SPENDING MUST STOP!
*snort*
(Now where did I hear that before).
Or perhaps the Libs could get the Isrealis to print new passports for the asylum seekers?
Hey, I thought the Liberal Party was the party of responsible economic management?
So how come they want to spend so much money on developing off-shore facilities when construction costs and other overheads (like quids pro quo to foreign governments) are much more expensive? There is no way that off shore processing can be cheaper. I mean did you see the cost of Charismas Island?
THIS RECKLESS SPENDING MUST STOP!
*snort*
(Now where did I hear that before).
Or perhaps the Libs could get the Isrealis to print new passports for the asylum seekers?
Maybe the Liberals should introduce a Tax on all Boat People, you know one that rases the cost of production (fares) to a level that will deter them from commencing. … at least Phoney Tony would then be consistent with both his dog whistling and his “backflippiness” …;-)
Maybe the Liberals should introduce a Tax on all Boat People, you know one that rases the cost of production (fares) to a level that will deter them from commencing. … at least Phoney Tony would then be consistent with both his dog whistling and his “backflippiness” …;-)
We should implement a class of visa called the paid migrant visa. If you pass a basic medical examination and a criminal background check you should for a fee of say $30000 buy residency in Australia. That competition would send people smugglers out of business (they charge $10000-$15000 with no garantees) and would also prove a nice little earner for the government. Of course poor refugees would be stuck in overseas camps as richer refugees pay there way in but that’s how it is now anyway.
We should implement a class of visa called the paid migrant visa. If you pass a basic medical examination and a criminal background check you should for a fee of say $30000 buy residency in Australia. That competition would send people smugglers out of business (they charge $10000-$15000 with no garantees) and would also prove a nice little earner for the government. Of course poor refugees would be stuck in overseas camps as richer refugees pay there way in but that’s how it is now anyway.
Rock bottom. Agree with all comments above about lack of opposition, media beat ups, et al. Still there’s a nasty streak in the national character that has surfaced over and over during the past couple of hundred years that can’t be denied either.
Ironic that in one respect- ending the discriminatory freeze, they were actually able to take high moral ground off Labor.
What a muckfest.
Rock bottom. Agree with all comments above about lack of opposition, media beat ups, et al. Still there’s a nasty streak in the national character that has surfaced over and over during the past couple of hundred years that can’t be denied either.
Ironic that in one respect- ending the discriminatory freeze, they were actually able to take high moral ground off Labor.
What a muckfest.
A tax on boat people would have to be set rather high.
There is already a “tax” per head of roughly $10,000 (payable to Popeye the People Smuggler), this cost doesn’t seem to deter anybody.
However some actual rigour in vetting applicants may do something to deter arrivals.
A tax on boat people would have to be set rather high.
There is already a “tax” per head of roughly $10,000 (payable to Popeye the People Smuggler), this cost doesn’t seem to deter anybody.
However some actual rigour in vetting applicants may do something to deter arrivals.
Donald Horne was being ironic. And presciently ironic, at that.
Donald Horne was being ironic. And presciently ironic, at that.
Ok, So we all agree this policy is a bit wrong, in that it doesn’t address either the problems associated with boat arrivals (physical risk/payments to criminals to fund nefarious activities etc.), the lengh of time to process a claim, the humane treatment of the most vunerable or the impact that asylum seekers will have on society (intergration problems/problems accessing services/welfare costs etc.)
Given that we know all that, what policies will address these (and more that I haven’t thought of) problems and how do we advocate them in such a way as to convince Australians that it’s a good idea to do this?
Any thoughts?
PinkyOz
Ok, So we all agree this policy is a bit wrong, in that it doesn’t address either the problems associated with boat arrivals (physical risk/payments to criminals to fund nefarious activities etc.), the lengh of time to process a claim, the humane treatment of the most vunerable or the impact that asylum seekers will have on society (intergration problems/problems accessing services/welfare costs etc.)
Given that we know all that, what policies will address these (and more that I haven’t thought of) problems and how do we advocate them in such a way as to convince Australians that it’s a good idea to do this?
Any thoughts?
PinkyOz
Jesus, I’m getting too old to get out on the street again. And I’m not well enough to do it. But I guess I’m going to have to.How the hell can one fight for a decent Australia when we’re led by such a bunch of morally bankrupt bastards – and I mean all major parties not just Abbott’s racist fascist thugs.
I wanna stay buried in the 18C.
Jesus, I’m getting too old to get out on the street again. And I’m not well enough to do it. But I guess I’m going to have to.How the hell can one fight for a decent Australia when we’re led by such a bunch of morally bankrupt bastards – and I mean all major parties not just Abbott’s racist fascist thugs.
I wanna stay buried in the 18C.
That happened because Labor believed they could win the refugee debate by getting tougher on refugees. They can’t win it that way, certainly not with Abbott in charge of the Liberals. They will always get outbid.
I think they are wrong in believing they that they have can’t sway public opinion in the other direction (even with News ltd against them), which is actually quite a condemnation of the Australian public.
That happened because Labor believed they could win the refugee debate by getting tougher on refugees. They can’t win it that way, certainly not with Abbott in charge of the Liberals. They will always get outbid.
I think they are wrong in believing they that they have can’t sway public opinion in the other direction (even with News ltd against them), which is actually quite a condemnation of the Australian public.
Pinkyoz – see my comment above for one reform suggestion. Any thoughts on it?
Pinkyoz – see my comment above for one reform suggestion. Any thoughts on it?
Ok Steve at the pub … a tax on production would be too high … bugger
How about, wait for it, a Tax on Popeye the people smugglers profits set at above the risk free rate of (say) 6% … hang on Labour stole that one … bugger x2.
I know, how about a tax on …. ah fuggetabout it … let’s just host a 2UE party on the North West Shelf, Gloria can bring the M16′s and Morrison can wear the dress.
Ok Steve at the pub … a tax on production would be too high … bugger
How about, wait for it, a Tax on Popeye the people smugglers profits set at above the risk free rate of (say) 6% … hang on Labour stole that one … bugger x2.
I know, how about a tax on …. ah fuggetabout it … let’s just host a 2UE party on the North West Shelf, Gloria can bring the M16′s and Morrison can wear the dress.
Update: Looks like the policy was released to the (News Limited) media before backbenchers found out about it:
Update: Looks like the policy was released to the (News Limited) media before backbenchers found out about it:
An expanded version of my suggestion is given here:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/26/refugees-who-can-pay/
An expanded version of my suggestion is given here:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/26/refugees-who-can-pay/
SATP, it matters a great deal where people are processed – the last Pacific Solution cost around $2bn over three years to process a lousy 5000 refugees, around 90% of whom were found to be genuine anyway.
That’s a bloody high price to pay for your policy of “process ‘em anywhere, and bugger the cost”. I seem to recall you giving people here a serve about being poor financial managers. You shouldn’t throw stones in that glass house of yours.
SATP, it matters a great deal where people are processed – the last Pacific Solution cost around $2bn over three years to process a lousy 5000 refugees, around 90% of whom were found to be genuine anyway.
That’s a bloody high price to pay for your policy of “process ‘em anywhere, and bugger the cost”. I seem to recall you giving people here a serve about being poor financial managers. You shouldn’t throw stones in that glass house of yours.
TerjeP @ 19 -
Interesting … It’s sort of a very pragmatic measure, which means it will meet a lot of political opposition. But it’s not a bad thought, if only as a starting point.
You might want to keep some flexibility there, allowing for decreases in the cost to keep the crims from just lowering their margins, but hopefully it would just get to the point where they will look for something else to do, or start going to other countries. As for poorer refugees … maybe a HECS scheme type thing where either earning capacity or work for the dole is used to pay back the initial investment?
Possibly, maybe it’s a bit contrived, but it’s a damn sight better then locking them in jail for 3 years in a bizarre game of ‘who will blink first’.
PinkyOz
TerjeP @ 19 -
Interesting … It’s sort of a very pragmatic measure, which means it will meet a lot of political opposition. But it’s not a bad thought, if only as a starting point.
You might want to keep some flexibility there, allowing for decreases in the cost to keep the crims from just lowering their margins, but hopefully it would just get to the point where they will look for something else to do, or start going to other countries. As for poorer refugees … maybe a HECS scheme type thing where either earning capacity or work for the dole is used to pay back the initial investment?
Possibly, maybe it’s a bit contrived, but it’s a damn sight better then locking them in jail for 3 years in a bizarre game of ‘who will blink first’.
PinkyOz
Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey:
Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey:
As for Scott Morrison, wasn’t he the fella who took over from Bruce Baird in Cook?
Demonstrates how far to the right this opposition is moving.
Morrison has turned out to be a mean-spirited, negative bore.
N’
As for Scott Morrison, wasn’t he the fella who took over from Bruce Baird in Cook?
Demonstrates how far to the right this opposition is moving.
Morrison has turned out to be a mean-spirited, negative bore.
N’
This is a desperate move by a desperate man & his morally bankrupt party. The desperation was obvious in his loopy, erratic, bellowing performance in parliament yesterday.
Abbott’s let his HYDE come out to play.
Gives people a glimpse into what he’d be like as a future PM. We’d be the laughing stock…when not being condemned by others. And bullied by the Coalition.
N’
This is a desperate move by a desperate man & his morally bankrupt party. The desperation was obvious in his loopy, erratic, bellowing performance in parliament yesterday.
Abbott’s let his HYDE come out to play.
Gives people a glimpse into what he’d be like as a future PM. We’d be the laughing stock…when not being condemned by others. And bullied by the Coalition.
N’
On previous experience this policy will increase the number of refugees trying to come by boat given that family reunions are not allowed.
This is obviously evidence driven policy. It didn’t work last time so we’ll try it again.
On previous experience this policy will increase the number of refugees trying to come by boat given that family reunions are not allowed.
This is obviously evidence driven policy. It didn’t work last time so we’ll try it again.
This issue is one of racism.
Or xenophobia, near enough to the same.
No need to talk about detail, just cut to the core.
Those who want to make this an issue, that is those who want to hysterically bleat about allowing a tiny number of desperate people come here, need to be confronted with their overt or implicit racism.
Lets not get derailed with Pacific solutions, TPVs, fucking border security bullshit whatever lets just get to the essence …. those that wish to divert attention from the real issues of immigration population every other issue, should be simply told that they are racist, that this is unacceptable in Australia nowadays, or should be anyway , and the sooner they shut their mouths and begin to talk instead like decent caring ethical human beings the sooner we will become a country we can all be proud of.
I’m looking at the COALition and the media primarily but lots of others, including the ALP for being gutless, ‘pragmatically’ apparently warranted or otherwise.
Please.
Lets not talk about detail, lets just accuse the racists of being racist.
This issue is one of racism.
Or xenophobia, near enough to the same.
No need to talk about detail, just cut to the core.
Those who want to make this an issue, that is those who want to hysterically bleat about allowing a tiny number of desperate people come here, need to be confronted with their overt or implicit racism.
Lets not get derailed with Pacific solutions, TPVs, fucking border security bullshit whatever lets just get to the essence …. those that wish to divert attention from the real issues of immigration population every other issue, should be simply told that they are racist, that this is unacceptable in Australia nowadays, or should be anyway , and the sooner they shut their mouths and begin to talk instead like decent caring ethical human beings the sooner we will become a country we can all be proud of.
I’m looking at the COALition and the media primarily but lots of others, including the ALP for being gutless, ‘pragmatically’ apparently warranted or otherwise.
Please.
Lets not talk about detail, lets just accuse the racists of being racist.
“Raaaacist!” I’ve heard this countless times before. Used when coming second in a debate/argument.
Hannah’s dad, I’ve seen that tactic used in countless trade union meetings, and always when the union hierarchy look like losing the floor.
Fail.
“Raaaacist!” I’ve heard this countless times before. Used when coming second in a debate/argument.
Hannah’s dad, I’ve seen that tactic used in countless trade union meetings, and always when the union hierarchy look like losing the floor.
Fail.
what hannah’s dad says.
what hannah’s dad says.
Hannah’s Dad
Hear Hear
Hannah’s Dad
Hear Hear
Yes, hannah’s dad – well said. As an added bonus SATP disagrees with you.
Yes, hannah’s dad – well said. As an added bonus SATP disagrees with you.
I agree with Hannah’s dad and I await the answer to the question of what safely turning back boats means. And no where does this say it will stop boats, it will just dump asylum seekers on some fly blown island in the Pacific at great expense to us morally and financially. Sad day for Australia today You just have to hope Kev won’t feel the need to top it. Or should that be bottom it?
I agree with Hannah’s dad and I await the answer to the question of what safely turning back boats means. And no where does this say it will stop boats, it will just dump asylum seekers on some fly blown island in the Pacific at great expense to us morally and financially. Sad day for Australia today You just have to hope Kev won’t feel the need to top it. Or should that be bottom it?
Steve @ 30 -
It probably won’t make you feel any better about it, but I agree. Calling racist is to end the debate and start the argument. Regardless of how right you are Hannah’s Dad, It’s a dead end.
It’s exactly the same as a Fox news presenter comparing their enemies with those ‘Left-wing Nazis’.
…
Actually that’s another thing I don’t really get. Nazis are Fascist, right-wing I thought, another great moment for re-writing the facts I guess.
PinkyOz
Steve @ 30 -
It probably won’t make you feel any better about it, but I agree. Calling racist is to end the debate and start the argument. Regardless of how right you are Hannah’s Dad, It’s a dead end.
It’s exactly the same as a Fox news presenter comparing their enemies with those ‘Left-wing Nazis’.
…
Actually that’s another thing I don’t really get. Nazis are Fascist, right-wing I thought, another great moment for re-writing the facts I guess.
PinkyOz
Hannah’s dad.
We don’t need a black armband history when we continue to carry out a black armband present.
Hannah’s dad.
We don’t need a black armband history when we continue to carry out a black armband present.
Laugh, Like Rudd isn’t? Our friends in Indonesia didn’t like Howard but respected him as strong but mean or worse. Rudd is plainly regarded as just sneaky and unmanly (shock, horror but still a fact of life in Indonesian Society) and has exactly no respect. Of course, we all know the deep regard and (sorry laughing) respect the Chinese have for him.
Laugh, Like Rudd isn’t? Our friends in Indonesia didn’t like Howard but respected him as strong but mean or worse. Rudd is plainly regarded as just sneaky and unmanly (shock, horror but still a fact of life in Indonesian Society) and has exactly no respect. Of course, we all know the deep regard and (sorry laughing) respect the Chinese have for him.
All the arguments in the world about why this is wrong will not change the “minds” of the hillbillies who support this.
All the arguments in the world about why this is wrong will not change the “minds” of the hillbillies who support this.
Yes Adrian # 33, I’m in disagreement with chanting “Racist” at people whose argument is beating mine. You can take that to the bank.
Yes Adrian # 33, I’m in disagreement with chanting “Racist” at people whose argument is beating mine. You can take that to the bank.
So Oigal, you speak on behalf of ‘our friends’ in Indonesia?
The Indonesians that I know have quite a high opinion of Rudd, but of course you’re just pushing your tired agenda, and using the Indonesians to do it. Pathetic really, but pretty typical.
So Oigal, you speak on behalf of ‘our friends’ in Indonesia?
The Indonesians that I know have quite a high opinion of Rudd, but of course you’re just pushing your tired agenda, and using the Indonesians to do it. Pathetic really, but pretty typical.
So if I understand this new “Pacific Solution” correctly, it applies only to those arriving by boat. Those arriving by boat get processed off shore. Those arriving by other means, get processed, presumably, in Australia.
Then what this policy really says is that the wealthy (those overstaying visas and/or arriving by plane) will get on-shore processing as opposed to the poor and desperate arriving by boat, who are processed off shore. This appears to me to be saying preferential treatment for the wealthier asylum seekers.
Am I reading this correctly?
So if I understand this new “Pacific Solution” correctly, it applies only to those arriving by boat. Those arriving by boat get processed off shore. Those arriving by other means, get processed, presumably, in Australia.
Then what this policy really says is that the wealthy (those overstaying visas and/or arriving by plane) will get on-shore processing as opposed to the poor and desperate arriving by boat, who are processed off shore. This appears to me to be saying preferential treatment for the wealthier asylum seekers.
Am I reading this correctly?
Chris @ 40 – Its probably not quite that simple. Those arriving by plane would have managed to get a visa of some sort in the first place – airlines get into a lot of trouble if they transport someone without a visa. So the ones arriving by air and overstayers are those from low risk (in terms of probability of asking for asylum) countries. And from what I’ve read the people smugglers also charge quite a bit so most of the really poor refugees would not be able to afford the to get on a boat in the first place anyway.
But we shouldn’t confuse people’s wealth with whether they are being persecuted in their home country or not. Having money may make it possible to avoid persecution in some circumstances but certainly not all.
Chris @ 40 – Its probably not quite that simple. Those arriving by plane would have managed to get a visa of some sort in the first place – airlines get into a lot of trouble if they transport someone without a visa. So the ones arriving by air and overstayers are those from low risk (in terms of probability of asking for asylum) countries. And from what I’ve read the people smugglers also charge quite a bit so most of the really poor refugees would not be able to afford the to get on a boat in the first place anyway.
But we shouldn’t confuse people’s wealth with whether they are being persecuted in their home country or not. Having money may make it possible to avoid persecution in some circumstances but certainly not all.
Chris @ 41
I don’t know about really poor refugees not getting on boats. In desperate times, I don’t think it is a sign of wealth for a family to raise $10,000 (and we are talking about extended families here) to get one member a place on a boat. And I don’t know how true the stories are of the costs of places on boats anyway. If they really are wealthy refugees, surely they could get a visa and a plane ticket and fly here.
So I think it may be that simple. It is just dog whistle politics targeted towards, at most 5,000 unfortunate people, while ignoring the majority who remain in Australia illegally.
Chris @ 41
I don’t know about really poor refugees not getting on boats. In desperate times, I don’t think it is a sign of wealth for a family to raise $10,000 (and we are talking about extended families here) to get one member a place on a boat. And I don’t know how true the stories are of the costs of places on boats anyway. If they really are wealthy refugees, surely they could get a visa and a plane ticket and fly here.
So I think it may be that simple. It is just dog whistle politics targeted towards, at most 5,000 unfortunate people, while ignoring the majority who remain in Australia illegally.
Chris Owens, I think that you are right. Chris is just buying the coalition/MSM line that most of those who come by boat are wealthy, with the subtext of course that they are somehow not deserving of refugee status.
The fact is that people overstaying their visas, most of whom have come by plane are staying here illegally, while those who are seeking asylum are not illegal. The level of ‘risk’ of the country in terms of probablity of seeking asylum is irrelevant. Interesting use of the word risk, though.
Chris Owens, I think that you are right. Chris is just buying the coalition/MSM line that most of those who come by boat are wealthy, with the subtext of course that they are somehow not deserving of refugee status.
The fact is that people overstaying their visas, most of whom have come by plane are staying here illegally, while those who are seeking asylum are not illegal. The level of ‘risk’ of the country in terms of probablity of seeking asylum is irrelevant. Interesting use of the word risk, though.
This has always been a huge misunderstanding about asylum seekers (which has its roots in mistaken belief that its a form of economic migration): there’s no logical reason for asylum seekers to be the poorest of the poor.
While it s certainly possible to be very poor and a genuine refugee, more commonly authoritarian governments disporportionately fear middle class educated people. The Khmer Rouge wiped out the educated first, so did Stalin when occupying the eastern bloc. Saddam’s regime had a notable bias toward on persecuting the university -educated Shi’a and Kurds. So did the Taliban.
There’s basically zero reason to suspect that ‘having some resources’ is a sign of ‘not being genuinely persecuted’ – in fact, if anything, its slightly the other way.
This has always been a huge misunderstanding about asylum seekers (which has its roots in mistaken belief that its a form of economic migration): there’s no logical reason for asylum seekers to be the poorest of the poor.
While it s certainly possible to be very poor and a genuine refugee, more commonly authoritarian governments disporportionately fear middle class educated people. The Khmer Rouge wiped out the educated first, so did Stalin when occupying the eastern bloc. Saddam’s regime had a notable bias toward on persecuting the university -educated Shi’a and Kurds. So did the Taliban.
There’s basically zero reason to suspect that ‘having some resources’ is a sign of ‘not being genuinely persecuted’ – in fact, if anything, its slightly the other way.
@LeftyE
This is something I knew but have not before seen explained so succinctly. Thank you – I plan to file it away for future use.
@LeftyE
This is something I knew but have not before seen explained so succinctly. Thank you – I plan to file it away for future use.
Chris @ 42 – the dirt poor ones (say a lot from Africa) simply can’t raise $10,000. They struggle to get to the refugee camps. The luckier ones are able to raise money and many are probably using their family’s life savings – I see nothing wrong with them doing so in order to get out of some pretty bad circumstances. My parents are from overseas in the asian region and I know the intent of having the family jewelry was pretty much as an portable emergency stash that was kept in the home so it could be accessed quickly in case they needed to flee civil trouble.
And a fair amount of money won’t buy you even a temporary visitor visa if the immigration department thinks you are a high enough risk (unless you can bribe Australian officials). For example, one of my grandmothers was unable to get a visitor visa to visit Australia after she got to a certain level of age and medical problems. Even if we guaranteed to pay any medical costs – and she had a good record of visiting and leaving again.
adrian @43 – I never said that most of those who come by boat are wealthy. If you actually read what I said, I was saying that wealth should not be the primary consideration. Asylum should not be about whether they have money or not its about whether they are being persecuted or not.
Chris @ 42 – the dirt poor ones (say a lot from Africa) simply can’t raise $10,000. They struggle to get to the refugee camps. The luckier ones are able to raise money and many are probably using their family’s life savings – I see nothing wrong with them doing so in order to get out of some pretty bad circumstances. My parents are from overseas in the asian region and I know the intent of having the family jewelry was pretty much as an portable emergency stash that was kept in the home so it could be accessed quickly in case they needed to flee civil trouble.
And a fair amount of money won’t buy you even a temporary visitor visa if the immigration department thinks you are a high enough risk (unless you can bribe Australian officials). For example, one of my grandmothers was unable to get a visitor visa to visit Australia after she got to a certain level of age and medical problems. Even if we guaranteed to pay any medical costs – and she had a good record of visiting and leaving again.
adrian @43 – I never said that most of those who come by boat are wealthy. If you actually read what I said, I was saying that wealth should not be the primary consideration. Asylum should not be about whether they have money or not its about whether they are being persecuted or not.
Here’s a link to Judith Troeth who has also has some rational things to say on the policy.
I am disappointed that my party proposes to revert to harsh and inhumane treatment of those who arrive in this country seeking refuge, she said.
I regard the proposed arrangement to send refugees and asylum seekers to a third country for assessment as a total abrogation of our obligations to newcomers to our country.
Senator Troeth also said Mr Abbott’s plans to bring back temporary protection visas would be a “further imposition of insecurity and uncertainty on those who are least able to determine their direction in life”.
How weird … someone in the Liberal Party who is actually a liberal.
Here’s a link to Judith Troeth who has also has some rational things to say on the policy.
I am disappointed that my party proposes to revert to harsh and inhumane treatment of those who arrive in this country seeking refuge, she said.
I regard the proposed arrangement to send refugees and asylum seekers to a third country for assessment as a total abrogation of our obligations to newcomers to our country.
Senator Troeth also said Mr Abbott’s plans to bring back temporary protection visas would be a “further imposition of insecurity and uncertainty on those who are least able to determine their direction in life”.
How weird … someone in the Liberal Party who is actually a liberal.
Ok Chris, fair enough – it’s just the subtext from the opposition and others that because a refugee might be able to afford to pay a people smuggler they are not a genuine refugee – I think that phrase is economic refugee – that annoys me.
As others have said, it is simply not true.
Ok Chris, fair enough – it’s just the subtext from the opposition and others that because a refugee might be able to afford to pay a people smuggler they are not a genuine refugee – I think that phrase is economic refugee – that annoys me.
As others have said, it is simply not true.
Sadly, both Petro Georgiou (my local MP) and Judith Troeth (when in Canberra lives across the road from my parents) are retiring at the next election. I don’t know who is tipped to replace Senator Troeth, but we lucky bunnies in Kooyong are having Josh Frydenberg foisted upon us. You can see from his bio just why I am so excited about his (unfortunately) imminent ascension to Federal parliament: http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/about-josh/
Sadly, both Petro Georgiou (my local MP) and Judith Troeth (when in Canberra lives across the road from my parents) are retiring at the next election. I don’t know who is tipped to replace Senator Troeth, but we lucky bunnies in Kooyong are having Josh Frydenberg foisted upon us. You can see from his bio just why I am so excited about his (unfortunately) imminent ascension to Federal parliament: http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/about-josh/
Fiona,
He looks kind of like Peter Dutton with new hair and shiny new teeth. Either that or something out of American Christian television.
Other than that, I can’t glean too much from that link other than an apparent expertise in international matters.
Fiona,
He looks kind of like Peter Dutton with new hair and shiny new teeth. Either that or something out of American Christian television.
Other than that, I can’t glean too much from that link other than an apparent expertise in international matters.
Why do these young Libs all look the same, sound the same?
Why do these young Libs all look the same, sound the same?
Broadbent is my local member. I’ve left an encouraging message on his website. I’ve never voted for him but I’ve met him a few times and he seems like a decent bloke. I’d suggest anybody who feels they can might show a bit of support for these guys, I’m sure they’re feeling a bit exposed at the moment.
Of course, this whole mess is just one more reason I’ll be voting Greens when the day comes around.
Broadbent is my local member. I’ve left an encouraging message on his website. I’ve never voted for him but I’ve met him a few times and he seems like a decent bloke. I’d suggest anybody who feels they can might show a bit of support for these guys, I’m sure they’re feeling a bit exposed at the moment.
Of course, this whole mess is just one more reason I’ll be voting Greens when the day comes around.
Except that he is in the Liberal Party I don’t see what is wrong with Mr. Frydenberg.
.. er.. and that he is a lawyer, and has been working as a political/ministerial advisor. We already have too many lawyers & too many political cadres making it into parliament.
In his favour, he’s one helluva tennis player (envy) and he has more or less held some sort of a job. And that childhood photo shows one helluva cute little girl! (sister?)
Except that he is in the Liberal Party I don’t see what is wrong with Mr. Frydenberg.
.. er.. and that he is a lawyer, and has been working as a political/ministerial advisor. We already have too many lawyers & too many political cadres making it into parliament.
In his favour, he’s one helluva tennis player (envy) and he has more or less held some sort of a job. And that childhood photo shows one helluva cute little girl! (sister?)
Cheers tigtog! Its an amazingly pervasive belief that refugees must be poor to be genuine, given the Convention test has nothing to do with economic status – but with whether or not someone is being persecuted.
another big one is “but why did they destroy their papers???!!!”. Newsflash: persecuted political dissidents don’t get passports and/or exit permits from authoritarian regimes such as the Taliban. So they often flee without them, or on false ones.
And of course, while fleeing, its always a BRILLIANT idea to some other real ID to the border post for when you’re searched, just so you can prove who you really are.
Cheers tigtog! Its an amazingly pervasive belief that refugees must be poor to be genuine, given the Convention test has nothing to do with economic status – but with whether or not someone is being persecuted.
another big one is “but why did they destroy their papers???!!!”. Newsflash: persecuted political dissidents don’t get passports and/or exit permits from authoritarian regimes such as the Taliban. So they often flee without them, or on false ones.
And of course, while fleeing, its always a BRILLIANT idea to some other real ID to the border post for when you’re searched, just so you can prove who you really are.
The ABC’s synopsis of Abbott on the 7.30 Report tonight.
“Opposition Leader Tony Abbott today unveiled his policy which flags a return of offshore processing of asylum seekers. Pledging that if elected his party would restore the Howard Government’s controversial pacific solution to ward off illegal boat arrivals.”
The ABC’s synopsis of Abbott on the 7.30 Report tonight.
“Opposition Leader Tony Abbott today unveiled his policy which flags a return of offshore processing of asylum seekers. Pledging that if elected his party would restore the Howard Government’s controversial pacific solution to ward off illegal boat arrivals.”
LP Queries 270510
Long time lurker here. On ethical grounds, I do not really understand this post. Some serious questions about it, if I may (I want to compare my student’s responses to what people say here).
The Coalition has released its policy on “border protection”. The press release is here. All the usual nasties are there (TPVs, turn back the boats, blah blah)
1. The current government also tried to ‘turn back the boats’. Was this also considered similarly ‘nasty’?
2. Current government policy has led directly to about 150 deaths, according to the Greens. Is this considered ‘not nasty’ compared to TPV’s?
but what’s significant is the return of the Pacific Solution:
…
That’s, to be clear, the Pacific Solution squared.
3. Why ‘squared’? What evidence exist to support this comment? (If it’s just hyperbole, then that’s fine, of course.)
4. Why is offshore processing such a ‘nasty’ if, as commenters have pointed out, most wind up here anyway, AND the system also reduces deaths at sea by destroying the ‘business case’ of people smugglers, who the PM himself has called scum of the Earth?
5. Is destroying the business of people smuggling perceived as ‘bad’?
6. Why is offshore processing opposed if (as claimed on this thread) sees most asylum seekers get to Australia and minimises deaths in transit?
(I know it cannot be that commenters here do not care about the deaths per se.)
There would be no detention or processing of asylum seekers anywhere on Australian territory, including Christmas Island, if I’m reading it correctly.
Offshore processing in a UN-run camp (or camp run to UN standards) does seem to be the intent. This was qualified by the term ‘when Christmas islad is full’.
7. Why is this outcome seen as less desirable thanany other UN-run camp like the hundreds already in existence around the world?
An Abbott government would trump the Howard government when it comes to abuse of human rights.
8. By what process of analysis does this comment connect to the press release? (I understand the emotive connection, I am looking for a factual or policy connection. Again, if this is just a bit of hyperbole, that’s fine)
9. What about the human rights of the people who have demonstrably died in transit under the current Government scheme?
10. Are human rights better served by having Christmas Island full, Curtin, Lenora and other areas being used, Baxter being re-surveyed for use, and apparently about 150 deaths in transit so far?
If so, why, if not, why not?
11. This is a bad-choice/worse-choice issue: nasty, emotive, but ethically intriguing. What, in the commenter’s views, is the relative value of each death compared to a policy which has been proven to stop the deaths? (I realise I am asking a moral and ethical question: what level of loss of life is thought ‘acceptable’ to avoid offshore processing and TPV’s. I apologise for any unintended offence, for I want to know what the corpses-to-‘bad choice’ ratio is. I already know that many here seem to accept [unconsciously?] that about 150 deaths is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding TPV&offshore processing. When do people get to a level of deaths found personally so unacceptable that they’ll accept the ‘bad choice’ of TPV&offshore processing instead: 200 dead asylum seekers? 500 dead? 1000 dead?) I will state that my opinion is that ethically, I prefer the bad choice of TPV&offshore to the worse choice of even one death.
12. Given that I and people here held Howard accountable for the about 300 SIEV X deaths, who within the present government do people here assess bears responsibility for the about 150 deaths resulting from current government policy?
13. I am intrigued by some of the more emotive comments here: how and why is a reduction to 3 arrivals in 3 years and no deaths in transit under Howard’s later system a failure, and thousands of arrivals now up to 3 a week, and about 150 deaths in transit a success?
LTL
LP Queries 270510
Long time lurker here. On ethical grounds, I do not really understand this post. Some serious questions about it, if I may (I want to compare my student’s responses to what people say here).
The Coalition has released its policy on “border protection”. The press release is here. All the usual nasties are there (TPVs, turn back the boats, blah blah)
1. The current government also tried to ‘turn back the boats’. Was this also considered similarly ‘nasty’?
2. Current government policy has led directly to about 150 deaths, according to the Greens. Is this considered ‘not nasty’ compared to TPV’s?
but what’s significant is the return of the Pacific Solution:
…
That’s, to be clear, the Pacific Solution squared.
3. Why ‘squared’? What evidence exist to support this comment? (If it’s just hyperbole, then that’s fine, of course.)
4. Why is offshore processing such a ‘nasty’ if, as commenters have pointed out, most wind up here anyway, AND the system also reduces deaths at sea by destroying the ‘business case’ of people smugglers, who the PM himself has called scum of the Earth?
5. Is destroying the business of people smuggling perceived as ‘bad’?
6. Why is offshore processing opposed if (as claimed on this thread) sees most asylum seekers get to Australia and minimises deaths in transit?
(I know it cannot be that commenters here do not care about the deaths per se.)
There would be no detention or processing of asylum seekers anywhere on Australian territory, including Christmas Island, if I’m reading it correctly.
Offshore processing in a UN-run camp (or camp run to UN standards) does seem to be the intent. This was qualified by the term ‘when Christmas islad is full’.
7. Why is this outcome seen as less desirable thanany other UN-run camp like the hundreds already in existence around the world?
An Abbott government would trump the Howard government when it comes to abuse of human rights.
8. By what process of analysis does this comment connect to the press release? (I understand the emotive connection, I am looking for a factual or policy connection. Again, if this is just a bit of hyperbole, that’s fine)
9. What about the human rights of the people who have demonstrably died in transit under the current Government scheme?
10. Are human rights better served by having Christmas Island full, Curtin, Lenora and other areas being used, Baxter being re-surveyed for use, and apparently about 150 deaths in transit so far?
If so, why, if not, why not?
11. This is a bad-choice/worse-choice issue: nasty, emotive, but ethically intriguing. What, in the commenter’s views, is the relative value of each death compared to a policy which has been proven to stop the deaths? (I realise I am asking a moral and ethical question: what level of loss of life is thought ‘acceptable’ to avoid offshore processing and TPV’s. I apologise for any unintended offence, for I want to know what the corpses-to-‘bad choice’ ratio is. I already know that many here seem to accept [unconsciously?] that about 150 deaths is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding TPV&offshore processing. When do people get to a level of deaths found personally so unacceptable that they’ll accept the ‘bad choice’ of TPV&offshore processing instead: 200 dead asylum seekers? 500 dead? 1000 dead?) I will state that my opinion is that ethically, I prefer the bad choice of TPV&offshore to the worse choice of even one death.
12. Given that I and people here held Howard accountable for the about 300 SIEV X deaths, who within the present government do people here assess bears responsibility for the about 150 deaths resulting from current government policy?
13. I am intrigued by some of the more emotive comments here: how and why is a reduction to 3 arrivals in 3 years and no deaths in transit under Howard’s later system a failure, and thousands of arrivals now up to 3 a week, and about 150 deaths in transit a success?
LTL
It’s official, Abbott is now Bizarro Howard.
He kinda resembles a craggy, hard edged, stupendously stupid Billy Hughes though.
It’s official, Abbott is now Bizarro Howard.
He kinda resembles a craggy, hard edged, stupendously stupid Billy Hughes though.
Abbott is in the pocket of billionaire mining bosses …
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/05/07/1225863/824497-100508-leak.jpg
Abbott is in the pocket of billionaire mining bosses …
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/05/07/1225863/824497-100508-leak.jpg
SATP
The comment about the sister was out of court mate – just saying.
SATP
The comment about the sister was out of court mate – just saying.
“After leaving Canberra Josh spent a month as a jackaroo on a sheep station in South Australia before joining Deutsche Bank as a Director of Global Banking in January 2005.”
LOL.
“After leaving Canberra Josh spent a month as a jackaroo on a sheep station in South Australia before joining Deutsche Bank as a Director of Global Banking in January 2005.”
LOL.
PinkyOz,
I agree that the fee associated with a paid migration visa ought to be open to review. I’ve suggested a price of $30000 based crudely on the fees people are currently paying in the black market for passage to Australia. However it may be that such a fee needs to be higher or lower to be most effective. I think that this is something that can only be judged with practical experience and my initial objective would simple to establish the principle that a price mechanism is more orderly than a queuing system.
In terms of allowing people to borrow the money from the Australian government and pay it back through HECS I don’t think this is a good idea. The point of the exercise is to send people smugglers out of business by taking away their market of affluent refugees, not to open the borders. The paid migration visa would however provide scope for charities and private employers to pay passage for others. And no doubt some people would find a willing lender or benafactor.
I’d also like to see our borders being a bit more open by establishing more bilateral free immigration agreements as per the arrangement we have with New Zealand. However this would only be politically acceptable if it was confined to more affluent nations (eg Singapore). However this is a quite separate and independent initiative.
Mean while the masses will be preoccupied with the notion that there are only two answers, one called Labor, one called Liberal. Sad but predictable.
Regards,
Terje.
PinkyOz,
I agree that the fee associated with a paid migration visa ought to be open to review. I’ve suggested a price of $30000 based crudely on the fees people are currently paying in the black market for passage to Australia. However it may be that such a fee needs to be higher or lower to be most effective. I think that this is something that can only be judged with practical experience and my initial objective would simple to establish the principle that a price mechanism is more orderly than a queuing system.
In terms of allowing people to borrow the money from the Australian government and pay it back through HECS I don’t think this is a good idea. The point of the exercise is to send people smugglers out of business by taking away their market of affluent refugees, not to open the borders. The paid migration visa would however provide scope for charities and private employers to pay passage for others. And no doubt some people would find a willing lender or benafactor.
I’d also like to see our borders being a bit more open by establishing more bilateral free immigration agreements as per the arrangement we have with New Zealand. However this would only be politically acceptable if it was confined to more affluent nations (eg Singapore). However this is a quite separate and independent initiative.
Mean while the masses will be preoccupied with the notion that there are only two answers, one called Labor, one called Liberal. Sad but predictable.
Regards,
Terje.
“Other than that, I can’t glean too much from that link other than an apparent expertise in international matters.”
Go to his published articles. I was pleasantly surprised by his advocacy of putting Pinochet on trial, strong support for Aung San Suu Kyi, doubt over bailouts, and wanting Bush to get serious about climate change. Marks against him include support for Howard’s anti-terrorism laws and the NT intervention.
SATP is right, we have too many lawyers in Parliament already, but I can’t help but be impressed by his academic and professional achievements. I can think of worse potential representatives, that’s for sure.
“Other than that, I can’t glean too much from that link other than an apparent expertise in international matters.”
Go to his published articles. I was pleasantly surprised by his advocacy of putting Pinochet on trial, strong support for Aung San Suu Kyi, doubt over bailouts, and wanting Bush to get serious about climate change. Marks against him include support for Howard’s anti-terrorism laws and the NT intervention.
SATP is right, we have too many lawyers in Parliament already, but I can’t help but be impressed by his academic and professional achievements. I can think of worse potential representatives, that’s for sure.
I’m waiting for a MSM journalist to ask Tony Abbott the following questions…..
- isn’t the reason we are still seeing refugees coming to Oz from Afghanistan is because almost ten years after the post 9/11 invasion the place remains a mess?
- isn’t the main reason Afghanistan remains a mess is that at a very crucial period in its recovery resources and manpower were diverted to the invasion of Iraq?
- isn’t it a fact that your party committed this nation to the war in Iraq despite fierce opposition in this country and without bipartisan support of the Labor Party?
- isn’t it a fact that the reasons given for invading Iraq turned out to be false and the whole operation had an implementation record that would make the pink batts scheme appear ideal?
- isn’t it a fact that the resources requested by the Afghanis for recovery have always been a fraction of what has been spent in Iraq ie. ~1/100th but rarely delivered?
- therefore shouldn’t you Tony Abbott and your party be forced to accept a great deal of responsibilty for the continuing flow of refugees from Afghanistan to Australia?
..I will not be holding my breath waiting because even if they are asked they still have to be published!!
I’m waiting for a MSM journalist to ask Tony Abbott the following questions…..
- isn’t the reason we are still seeing refugees coming to Oz from Afghanistan is because almost ten years after the post 9/11 invasion the place remains a mess?
- isn’t the main reason Afghanistan remains a mess is that at a very crucial period in its recovery resources and manpower were diverted to the invasion of Iraq?
- isn’t it a fact that your party committed this nation to the war in Iraq despite fierce opposition in this country and without bipartisan support of the Labor Party?
- isn’t it a fact that the reasons given for invading Iraq turned out to be false and the whole operation had an implementation record that would make the pink batts scheme appear ideal?
- isn’t it a fact that the resources requested by the Afghanis for recovery have always been a fraction of what has been spent in Iraq ie. ~1/100th but rarely delivered?
- therefore shouldn’t you Tony Abbott and your party be forced to accept a great deal of responsibilty for the continuing flow of refugees from Afghanistan to Australia?
..I will not be holding my breath waiting because even if they are asked they still have to be published!!
I like the bit where young Josh became a director of banking. With, as you can see, years of financial wisdom accrued from hard graft at the coalface of the markets.
TerjeP I find your proposal a bit bizarre. Asylum seekers should get priority if they need asylum, nothing more, indeed nothing less. Moving away from that particular class, on the other hand, the idea about more open movement with countries that are on a relative par in terms of economies is far more feasible, on the basis that movement will be much more 2 way and that many Australians want the opportunities that would provide.
I like the bit where young Josh became a director of banking. With, as you can see, years of financial wisdom accrued from hard graft at the coalface of the markets.
TerjeP I find your proposal a bit bizarre. Asylum seekers should get priority if they need asylum, nothing more, indeed nothing less. Moving away from that particular class, on the other hand, the idea about more open movement with countries that are on a relative par in terms of economies is far more feasible, on the basis that movement will be much more 2 way and that many Australians want the opportunities that would provide.
It’s hardly suprising that a libertarian solution to the refugee problem would come down to three factors: money, money and more money.
It’s hardly suprising that a libertarian solution to the refugee problem would come down to three factors: money, money and more money.
Check out comment #56.
Its how the ABC summarised Abbott’s appearance on the 7.30 Report.
Here is a bit of that summary.
Notice anything?
“……. restore the Howard Government’s controversial pacific solution to ward off illegal boat arrivals….”
See the word “illegal”?
They are not you know.
Boat people I mean, they are not ‘illegal’.
Its one of the spin lines that the racists use, that the boat people are ‘illegal’.
The Libs use that word in their Youtube ad.
Sometimes the racists are clever, they describe the boats as illegal rather than directly stating such about the people.
Now, if they are not ‘illegal”, why did the ABC use that word as a given fact?
Its a worry.
Check out comment #56.
Its how the ABC summarised Abbott’s appearance on the 7.30 Report.
Here is a bit of that summary.
Notice anything?
“……. restore the Howard Government’s controversial pacific solution to ward off illegal boat arrivals….”
See the word “illegal”?
They are not you know.
Boat people I mean, they are not ‘illegal’.
Its one of the spin lines that the racists use, that the boat people are ‘illegal’.
The Libs use that word in their Youtube ad.
Sometimes the racists are clever, they describe the boats as illegal rather than directly stating such about the people.
Now, if they are not ‘illegal”, why did the ABC use that word as a given fact?
Its a worry.
Armagny – I have not suggested we stop taking people under the refugee program. All I have suggested is an alternate immigration option which provides wealthier refugeesan option to buy entry to Australia from the Austalian government rather than buying a boat ride on the black market. in fact if they take this option they would free up space in the refugee program for other refugees. It is a very human and practical solution. It also takes a lot of the political sting out of the whole thing.
Armagny – I have not suggested we stop taking people under the refugee program. All I have suggested is an alternate immigration option which provides wealthier refugeesan option to buy entry to Australia from the Austalian government rather than buying a boat ride on the black market. in fact if they take this option they would free up space in the refugee program for other refugees. It is a very human and practical solution. It also takes a lot of the political sting out of the whole thing.
Adrian – Where did you learn to be so funny?
Adrian – Where did you learn to be so funny?
let’s see.
ALP’s caring and sharing policies on boat people = increase in people smuggling and 159 deaths
Howard and now Abbott policy = huge decrease in people smuggling and no deaths.
But of course, lefty compassion is all about symbols isn’t it? Perceived racism is far worse a tragedy than the death of a few boat people, as far as you maniacs are concerned.
What a bunch of hypocritical, vicious, cruel and stupid idiots you people are.
let’s see.
ALP’s caring and sharing policies on boat people = increase in people smuggling and 159 deaths
Howard and now Abbott policy = huge decrease in people smuggling and no deaths.
But of course, lefty compassion is all about symbols isn’t it? Perceived racism is far worse a tragedy than the death of a few boat people, as far as you maniacs are concerned.
What a bunch of hypocritical, vicious, cruel and stupid idiots you people are.
I noticed Julie Bishop looked over the moon in parliament when Abbott was blowharding on his border protection policy. Sad stuff.
I’ve posted on Abbott’s old guard ways today:
http://blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/topics-australian-politics/789-in-old-guard-abbott-we-trust
Plus ce change…eh?
N’
I noticed Julie Bishop looked over the moon in parliament when Abbott was blowharding on his border protection policy. Sad stuff.
I’ve posted on Abbott’s old guard ways today:
http://blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/topics-australian-politics/789-in-old-guard-abbott-we-trust
Plus ce change…eh?
N’
adrian @ 65, one thing you forgot about the glibertarian solution to any problem is tht it must also involve contract law (without, of course, any pesky govt oversight to make sure that contracts are actually honoured) and Teh Market (TM).
Sorry, that’s two things.
Anyway, simple solutions for the simple-minded.
adrian @ 65, one thing you forgot about the glibertarian solution to any problem is tht it must also involve contract law (without, of course, any pesky govt oversight to make sure that contracts are actually honoured) and Teh Market (TM).
Sorry, that’s two things.
Anyway, simple solutions for the simple-minded.
” in fact if they take this option they would free up space in the refugee program for other refugees.”
If it had that effect, I would take a different view. Might be hard to administer in practice if it were, say, a middling class of ‘potential refugees’ who were offered the option of paying for a visa. Or alternatively you could simply offer a modest number of entry tickets to people willing to pay high sums into the national coffers.
Wouldn’t bother me much if we were finding a way to treat actual refugee claimants humanely.
” in fact if they take this option they would free up space in the refugee program for other refugees.”
If it had that effect, I would take a different view. Might be hard to administer in practice if it were, say, a middling class of ‘potential refugees’ who were offered the option of paying for a visa. Or alternatively you could simply offer a modest number of entry tickets to people willing to pay high sums into the national coffers.
Wouldn’t bother me much if we were finding a way to treat actual refugee claimants humanely.
Hmm, a lot of these arguments sound familliar on paying for visas, oh yeah, they are the same ones used to argue against full-fee places at universities.
Look it was an idea, one approach that we can take on how to handle refugees coming in from countries in a humane and safe way. There are lots of potential problems including that DIAC might put the interest of paying refugees over non-paying refugees, it’s a genuine concern, but I would not say one that should stop the discussion.
If you think this isn’t the way to go, good, but please bring some ideas to the table. There must be a solution that takes a humane and fair angle somewhere.
PinkyOz
Hmm, a lot of these arguments sound familliar on paying for visas, oh yeah, they are the same ones used to argue against full-fee places at universities.
Look it was an idea, one approach that we can take on how to handle refugees coming in from countries in a humane and safe way. There are lots of potential problems including that DIAC might put the interest of paying refugees over non-paying refugees, it’s a genuine concern, but I would not say one that should stop the discussion.
If you think this isn’t the way to go, good, but please bring some ideas to the table. There must be a solution that takes a humane and fair angle somewhere.
PinkyOz
Roccoco …
I have always assumed the whole point of Howard’s policy was to ensure that refugees got the message that
a) you will almost certainly drown if you get on a boat
b) we’re going to make your life even more hazardous and miserable than where you are.
How are you going to discourage people from fleeing brutality except with the “message” of even more brutality?
If Howard’s policy stopped the boats (I doubt it was relevant but just for the sake of argument) and it was about the “message” he sent, it can only have been that message.
Roccoco …
I have always assumed the whole point of Howard’s policy was to ensure that refugees got the message that
a) you will almost certainly drown if you get on a boat
b) we’re going to make your life even more hazardous and miserable than where you are.
How are you going to discourage people from fleeing brutality except with the “message” of even more brutality?
If Howard’s policy stopped the boats (I doubt it was relevant but just for the sake of argument) and it was about the “message” he sent, it can only have been that message.
I suggested the paid entry immigration visa to Andrew Bartlett a while back and he likened it to our current education visas which often get used as a back door way to buy residency. He indicated that a paid entry immigration visa did however seem more transparent and was probably a good idea.
Of course we could just stick with the private sector solution which is to pack people on leaky boats and stir up political arguments amoungst the good people of Australia.
I suggested the paid entry immigration visa to Andrew Bartlett a while back and he likened it to our current education visas which often get used as a back door way to buy residency. He indicated that a paid entry immigration visa did however seem more transparent and was probably a good idea.
Of course we could just stick with the private sector solution which is to pack people on leaky boats and stir up political arguments amoungst the good people of Australia.
If you fix the price and limit the supply then you create enormous temptations for corruption. I think you should either sell a fixed quantity of such visas at a market price or else sell a market quantity at a fixed price. Obviously I prefer the later option because that is what I proposed.
If you fix the price and limit the supply then you create enormous temptations for corruption. I think you should either sell a fixed quantity of such visas at a market price or else sell a market quantity at a fixed price. Obviously I prefer the later option because that is what I proposed.
The idea is interesting but I don’t like that our govt would effectively be taking the place of exploitative people smugglers with respect to accepting payment for a place. Albeit that they would have a guarantee and safe passage.
These are covert travel plans and although the controlling powers couldn’t care less about those fleeing and don’t have any interest in trying to stop it once another country tried to set up this system they’d definitely not welcome it and probably not allow it.
When money is involved corruption will happen.
If it were possible to do what you propose BUT allow these refugees to bring their money intact to Australia in order to help them set themselves up that would take out the grubby business of buying a place and dampen the redneck response that they come here and take welfare payments.
The idea is interesting but I don’t like that our govt would effectively be taking the place of exploitative people smugglers with respect to accepting payment for a place. Albeit that they would have a guarantee and safe passage.
These are covert travel plans and although the controlling powers couldn’t care less about those fleeing and don’t have any interest in trying to stop it once another country tried to set up this system they’d definitely not welcome it and probably not allow it.
When money is involved corruption will happen.
If it were possible to do what you propose BUT allow these refugees to bring their money intact to Australia in order to help them set themselves up that would take out the grubby business of buying a place and dampen the redneck response that they come here and take welfare payments.
Terje’s idea could be improved on. What you do is issue a new subscription every year broken into quarterly intervals for people who see themselves as economic refugees. You set up a camp somewhere like Afganistan or Indonesia or along the transit route, and get them to submit bids covering processing, resettlement and passage. All the bids are ranked along with some other criteria to separate those that are very similar, disqualify criminals etc, and those that fit within the quota get accepted. Anyone who misses out can try again in three months.
That way those who could pay people smugglers pay us instead. We don’t have to rescue them off ricketty boats in the middle of nowhere. They arrive in better shape and there’s a definite process leading to resettlement. We let them know that if they mess up within, say three years, they get returned without a refund. Not messing up means acquiring skills in English suitable to a semi-skilled occupation or better and progress towards a marketable job-skill. We support them in this by ensuring quality services are locally available.
This undercuts people smugglers, improves safety, ensures people who can pay do pay, and supports the infrastructure needed to bring in those who qualify as refugees and who really can’t pay.
Terje’s idea could be improved on. What you do is issue a new subscription every year broken into quarterly intervals for people who see themselves as economic refugees. You set up a camp somewhere like Afganistan or Indonesia or along the transit route, and get them to submit bids covering processing, resettlement and passage. All the bids are ranked along with some other criteria to separate those that are very similar, disqualify criminals etc, and those that fit within the quota get accepted. Anyone who misses out can try again in three months.
That way those who could pay people smugglers pay us instead. We don’t have to rescue them off ricketty boats in the middle of nowhere. They arrive in better shape and there’s a definite process leading to resettlement. We let them know that if they mess up within, say three years, they get returned without a refund. Not messing up means acquiring skills in English suitable to a semi-skilled occupation or better and progress towards a marketable job-skill. We support them in this by ensuring quality services are locally available.
This undercuts people smugglers, improves safety, ensures people who can pay do pay, and supports the infrastructure needed to bring in those who qualify as refugees and who really can’t pay.
Really? You would prefer entry to Australia was run by exploitative people smugglers. An interesting perspective.
Really? You would prefer entry to Australia was run by exploitative people smugglers. An interesting perspective.
There is nothing grubby about paying to come to Australia. I once paid cash so they would let me into Disney Land. Everybody had fun and no kittens were killed.
There is nothing grubby about paying to come to Australia. I once paid cash so they would let me into Disney Land. Everybody had fun and no kittens were killed.
– Tony all over.
TONY ABBOTT: He has a contract but look, you know, Julia says taxing alcopops produces less drinking. That’s what she’s just boasting about but she says taxing resources is somehow going to produce more mining. See this is the complete illogicality at the heart of the Government.
KARL STEFANOVIC: That was quite clever.
JULIA GILLARD: Well yeah, in a Simple Simon kind of way, doesn’t stand up to much analysis – Tony all over.
Lol!!!
– Tony all over.
TONY ABBOTT: He has a contract but look, you know, Julia says taxing alcopops produces less drinking. That’s what she’s just boasting about but she says taxing resources is somehow going to produce more mining. See this is the complete illogicality at the heart of the Government.
KARL STEFANOVIC: That was quite clever.
JULIA GILLARD: Well yeah, in a Simple Simon kind of way, doesn’t stand up to much analysis – Tony all over.
Lol!!!
She is pretty funny. They all are really. Sad but oh so funny.
She is pretty funny. They all are really. Sad but oh so funny.
Let’s not get too hard on poor ol’ Tony. After all, as he said, he gave “serious face” to the “small L” Liberals after the announcement in The Australian. The Australian was presumably given the media release early as a reward for their work in demonising asylum-seekers.
It’s not only the return to Howard policies that is distressing. Looking at the speech Tony Abbott gave to the Asia Society recently, the way the language was used it looks as if Abbott is not only following previous policies but is using Howard as his speechwriter. Language is such an identifier or else Abbott took on so much of Howard’s personality that he mimics his word-style.
Let’s not get too hard on poor ol’ Tony. After all, as he said, he gave “serious face” to the “small L” Liberals after the announcement in The Australian. The Australian was presumably given the media release early as a reward for their work in demonising asylum-seekers.
It’s not only the return to Howard policies that is distressing. Looking at the speech Tony Abbott gave to the Asia Society recently, the way the language was used it looks as if Abbott is not only following previous policies but is using Howard as his speechwriter. Language is such an identifier or else Abbott took on so much of Howard’s personality that he mimics his word-style.
What Gillard really should have pointed out Keithy was the flaw in the analogy.
The important difference between the taxing of RTDs and the taxing of resources is that the tax on resources is conditional on the profit margin being large enough which is a derivative of the final price. Resource sellers pay the tax after the sale, not prior to the sale. There’s simply no means for the seller to include the tax in the price. The seller gets the best price they can regardless of the existence of the tax. If they fall short of super profits, they don’t pay it and if they get there they do.
Conversely, RTDs have a pre-sale tax placed on them which the seller can and does pass on. All RTD sales do attract the tax.
What Gillard really should have pointed out Keithy was the flaw in the analogy.
The important difference between the taxing of RTDs and the taxing of resources is that the tax on resources is conditional on the profit margin being large enough which is a derivative of the final price. Resource sellers pay the tax after the sale, not prior to the sale. There’s simply no means for the seller to include the tax in the price. The seller gets the best price they can regardless of the existence of the tax. If they fall short of super profits, they don’t pay it and if they get there they do.
Conversely, RTDs have a pre-sale tax placed on them which the seller can and does pass on. All RTD sales do attract the tax.
Commodity producers are generally price takers as Fran implies. Investors seek mines that are low on the cost curve. A tax on profits is certainly better than a pure cost on production and if this was a largely revenue neutral reform that simple swapped royalties for a profit tax I’d guess the miners would be very supportive. However it’s not neutral and is in essence a tax grab.
The government has apparently enacted state of emergency powers so they can bypass their own laws that put limits on government advertising. Nice stuff hey.
Commodity producers are generally price takers as Fran implies. Investors seek mines that are low on the cost curve. A tax on profits is certainly better than a pure cost on production and if this was a largely revenue neutral reform that simple swapped royalties for a profit tax I’d guess the miners would be very supportive. However it’s not neutral and is in essence a tax grab.
The government has apparently enacted state of emergency powers so they can bypass their own laws that put limits on government advertising. Nice stuff hey.
Keithy @ 81 – Unfortunately the simple simon sort of stuff works a lot of the time even its plain wrong (eg if refugees have money to pay people smuggler it must mean that they’re not real refugees)
Although when it comes to the mining tax debate the government is willing to spent a lot of money countering what they believe is misinformation:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bending-its-own-rules-rudd-government-goes-on-the-attack-against-miners-20100528-wj4o.html?autostart=1
Keithy @ 81 – Unfortunately the simple simon sort of stuff works a lot of the time even its plain wrong (eg if refugees have money to pay people smuggler it must mean that they’re not real refugees)
Although when it comes to the mining tax debate the government is willing to spent a lot of money countering what they believe is misinformation:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bending-its-own-rules-rudd-government-goes-on-the-attack-against-miners-20100528-wj4o.html?autostart=1
Excellent points LTL @ 57. The majority of the other comments here appear to stem from tribalism rather than principles.
Excellent points LTL @ 57. The majority of the other comments here appear to stem from tribalism rather than principles.
So Abbott the loud proponent of small government will sell off Medibank to pay British prison management firms exceedingly large sums of money to imprison refugees, who are fleeing for their lives, on Christmas Island 2000km off the Australian coast. It’s not as though the refugees are going to stop fleeing their homelands or swim from Christmas Island to Australia. In fact why did we waste money building a high security prison on Christmas Island, surely simple barracks would have been sufficient.
How many backpackers and students overstay their visas?
So Abbott the loud proponent of small government will sell off Medibank to pay British prison management firms exceedingly large sums of money to imprison refugees, who are fleeing for their lives, on Christmas Island 2000km off the Australian coast. It’s not as though the refugees are going to stop fleeing their homelands or swim from Christmas Island to Australia. In fact why did we waste money building a high security prison on Christmas Island, surely simple barracks would have been sufficient.
How many backpackers and students overstay their visas?
Libertarians: non-solutions to non-problems. Like evangelical Christians and Trotskyites, everything that happens is grist for their mill rather than any sort of spur to address actual reality and engage with it. It’s always sad when Terje thinks he has a good idea.
No, we shouldn’t. There is no market for it. The market that currently pays people-smugglers hasn’t got the kind of pull-a-number-out-of-your-arse money that you’re talking about, Terje. Those who do either don’t want to telegraph their income to government, or are happy with existing immigration channels.
So if you’ve caught a sexually-transmitted disease from being raped, you’re out? Why the medical thing?
People who are fleeing state persecution tend to be, as they say, persons of interest to the authorities already. This is what’s called a logical loop: let’s be nice and say that it arises from the naïveté and credulousness required to maintain faith in libertarianism.
Part of the naïveté I spoke of earlier involves imperfect knowledge levels. Classical economics (i.e. first year uni) assumes that all actors in a market have perfect knowledge of market conditions, but those of us with a bit more experience – or who never went to uni at all – know this is nonsense. Should there be an ad campaign across the whole world advertising this, so that the village-level networks of knowledge that feed the whole people-smuggling market can dry out like mould under sustained sunshine? You can’t destroy a market when your competitors aren’t aware that you offer an alternative.
Like libertarians care about that. Whenever you hear libertarians telling you what they think you want to hear, keep hold of your wallet and reach for a weapon.
You’re sounding awfully blithe there Terje. Firstly, you’ve proposed a new policy measure that doesn’t address a major issue, which counts as policy fail in my book. Second, look at that generation of penniless-migrant-made-good – Frank Lowy, Arvi Parbo, Harry Triguboff, Charmaine Solomon – and look at how grateful they are to the opportunities Australia presented to them. Consider how different their attitude might have been if they had ecountered an Australia so frightened and hostile as it is today.
Human, in the sense of being flawed – but it isn’t practical because it is steadfast in its refusal to address real issues in Australian immigration today (and wouldn’t you rather be steadfast than messy, Terje? You know you would).
Libertarians: hippies in cufflinks.
Why is it that I can go from Sydney-Colombo return for <$2300 but a Sir Lankan can't do that one way for less than ten times as much? Government is the least of the problems in that caper – the Australian government, anyway.
There is also the issue of "processing" people. Government can process an application, but it does not follow automatically why people should also be "processed".
hannah's dad@56: let us hope that they interpret a Coalition defeat at this election as a rejection of this kind of policy for all time, in the way that repeated shellackings weaned them off opposition to Medicare.
Libertarians: non-solutions to non-problems. Like evangelical Christians and Trotskyites, everything that happens is grist for their mill rather than any sort of spur to address actual reality and engage with it. It’s always sad when Terje thinks he has a good idea.
No, we shouldn’t. There is no market for it. The market that currently pays people-smugglers hasn’t got the kind of pull-a-number-out-of-your-arse money that you’re talking about, Terje. Those who do either don’t want to telegraph their income to government, or are happy with existing immigration channels.
So if you’ve caught a sexually-transmitted disease from being raped, you’re out? Why the medical thing?
People who are fleeing state persecution tend to be, as they say, persons of interest to the authorities already. This is what’s called a logical loop: let’s be nice and say that it arises from the naïveté and credulousness required to maintain faith in libertarianism.
Part of the naïveté I spoke of earlier involves imperfect knowledge levels. Classical economics (i.e. first year uni) assumes that all actors in a market have perfect knowledge of market conditions, but those of us with a bit more experience – or who never went to uni at all – know this is nonsense. Should there be an ad campaign across the whole world advertising this, so that the village-level networks of knowledge that feed the whole people-smuggling market can dry out like mould under sustained sunshine? You can’t destroy a market when your competitors aren’t aware that you offer an alternative.
Like libertarians care about that. Whenever you hear libertarians telling you what they think you want to hear, keep hold of your wallet and reach for a weapon.
You’re sounding awfully blithe there Terje. Firstly, you’ve proposed a new policy measure that doesn’t address a major issue, which counts as policy fail in my book. Second, look at that generation of penniless-migrant-made-good – Frank Lowy, Arvi Parbo, Harry Triguboff, Charmaine Solomon – and look at how grateful they are to the opportunities Australia presented to them. Consider how different their attitude might have been if they had ecountered an Australia so frightened and hostile as it is today.
Human, in the sense of being flawed – but it isn’t practical because it is steadfast in its refusal to address real issues in Australian immigration today (and wouldn’t you rather be steadfast than messy, Terje? You know you would).
Libertarians: hippies in cufflinks.
Why is it that I can go from Sydney-Colombo return for <$2300 but a Sir Lankan can't do that one way for less than ten times as much? Government is the least of the problems in that caper – the Australian government, anyway.
There is also the issue of "processing" people. Government can process an application, but it does not follow automatically why people should also be "processed".
hannah's dad@56: let us hope that they interpret a Coalition defeat at this election as a rejection of this kind of policy for all time, in the way that repeated shellackings weaned them off opposition to Medicare.
So Andrew E, if economic incentives and punitive deterrents are ineffective, how is it that Howard “stopped the boats”? Maybe the Dark Master knows something about the real world that you don’t?
So Andrew E, if economic incentives and punitive deterrents are ineffective, how is it that Howard “stopped the boats”? Maybe the Dark Master knows something about the real world that you don’t?
Fiona@50: Frydenberg is an accident waiting to happen. He should have gone to prison over the Bolt leak and I thought his pieces for The Age were among the most fatuous I’ve seen in a long time.
Now, back to Terje.
Given that there is no queue, and that the price mechanism is set by government, this is
curious to say the leastbullshitclassic straw man work.Given that Singaporeans aren’t queueing up to enter Australia in anything like the numbers they are from NZ, or Britain, or Sri Lanka, this is another non-solution to a non-problem.
Nobody wants that, and you can stick your sarcasm – most people who enter Australia don’t have to pay people smugglers (unless you want to get all pejorative about “travel agents”).
Consider the labour-market shortages facing Australia, and question whether they can be adequately addressed by people with a lazy $30k sitting around. Once you start facing up to the sort of real questions Australia’s immigration system must address – who knows, you may even stumble upon a real solution (then pick yourself up and carry on as though nothing had happened).
Fiona@50: Frydenberg is an accident waiting to happen. He should have gone to prison over the Bolt leak and I thought his pieces for The Age were among the most fatuous I’ve seen in a long time.
Now, back to Terje.
Given that there is no queue, and that the price mechanism is set by government, this is
curious to say the leastbullshitclassic straw man work.Given that Singaporeans aren’t queueing up to enter Australia in anything like the numbers they are from NZ, or Britain, or Sri Lanka, this is another non-solution to a non-problem.
Nobody wants that, and you can stick your sarcasm – most people who enter Australia don’t have to pay people smugglers (unless you want to get all pejorative about “travel agents”).
Consider the labour-market shortages facing Australia, and question whether they can be adequately addressed by people with a lazy $30k sitting around. Once you start facing up to the sort of real questions Australia’s immigration system must address – who knows, you may even stumble upon a real solution (then pick yourself up and carry on as though nothing had happened).
Andrew E: “Fiona@50: Frydenberg is an accident waiting to happen. He should have gone to prison over the Bolt leak and I thought his pieces for The Age were among the most fatuous I’ve seen in a long time.?
(Reminder to self: must stop drooling over that photo.)
My sentiments exactly.
Andrew E: “Fiona@50: Frydenberg is an accident waiting to happen. He should have gone to prison over the Bolt leak and I thought his pieces for The Age were among the most fatuous I’ve seen in a long time.?
(Reminder to self: must stop drooling over that photo.)
My sentiments exactly.
Andrew E@#92 said:
There is a quota, so the contrived distinction with a queue is one without a difference. Unless you are arguing for Open Borders, in which case the nag is broken down and its time to put up the hessian screen
Andrew E said:
Most of the skilled labour shortage is entirely self-created as the humoungous immigration rate triggers a demand for technicians and tradesmen that far out-strips supply. The metropolitan contractors cannot compete with the wages offered by the mines so “its impossible to find good help”.
AUS does face something of a skilled “labour shortage” as the Baby Boom generation retires. But it is way over-stated as much of this can be addressed by raising the retirement age, training un-skilled labour up into skilled labour and investing in labour-saving technology.
There is plenty of underutilized labour out there. Reported and disguised unemployment is still well above historic norms. And of course perish the thought that employers would ever spend a penny out of their own pockets on training or offering apprenticeships.
The easiest way to increase the labour force participation rate is to raise wages. Or alternatively substitute manual labour with mechanical capital. But if the cheap labour supply is glutted by massive immigration then wages remain stagnant. And if labour is cheap then there is no incentive for employer to substitute men with machines.
The optimum rate of net immigration, that which maximises per capita income, is about 180,000 pa, averaged out over the next 40 years. That is about half the current level of 300,000+, which is unsustainable on ecological and logistical grounds.
Andrew E@#92 said:
There is a quota, so the contrived distinction with a queue is one without a difference. Unless you are arguing for Open Borders, in which case the nag is broken down and its time to put up the hessian screen
Andrew E said:
Most of the skilled labour shortage is entirely self-created as the humoungous immigration rate triggers a demand for technicians and tradesmen that far out-strips supply. The metropolitan contractors cannot compete with the wages offered by the mines so “its impossible to find good help”.
AUS does face something of a skilled “labour shortage” as the Baby Boom generation retires. But it is way over-stated as much of this can be addressed by raising the retirement age, training un-skilled labour up into skilled labour and investing in labour-saving technology.
There is plenty of underutilized labour out there. Reported and disguised unemployment is still well above historic norms. And of course perish the thought that employers would ever spend a penny out of their own pockets on training or offering apprenticeships.
The easiest way to increase the labour force participation rate is to raise wages. Or alternatively substitute manual labour with mechanical capital. But if the cheap labour supply is glutted by massive immigration then wages remain stagnant. And if labour is cheap then there is no incentive for employer to substitute men with machines.
The optimum rate of net immigration, that which maximises per capita income, is about 180,000 pa, averaged out over the next 40 years. That is about half the current level of 300,000+, which is unsustainable on ecological and logistical grounds.
The best we may be able to do is close monitoring of the conditons and legality of the treatment of refugees. Does anyone know what, if any, indepenedent NGO’s monitor and report on those held offshore?
The best we may be able to do is close monitoring of the conditons and legality of the treatment of refugees. Does anyone know what, if any, indepenedent NGO’s monitor and report on those held offshore?
Jack: more straw man work. Terje’s proposal is silly, your premise is wrong, and what is this “Dark Master” crap?
Jack: more straw man work. Terje’s proposal is silly, your premise is wrong, and what is this “Dark Master” crap?