Chris Bowen and Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein signed the long foreshadowed agreement for a swap of asylum seekers at 2.30pm. There are some details, though not a lot, at the ABC.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
I am disgusted with the Australian government and wait to read Marilyn Shepherd’s vitriolic comments – I better start hunting through ABC and Crikey
Another box ticked. Now there is just the mining tax to sort out.
@2 This is just the start. Sit back and watch th
is get right royally buggered up, too.
This is an appalling policy. We should process on-shore, in or near our major population centres. We should do it as quickly as possible with a minimum period of “quarantine” with minimum imposition.
That is the correct answer to the xenophobic blather coming out of the LNP. This policy is pure pandering to right-wing opinion, yet the government won’t even get credit from the xenophobes for this.
This underlines how absurd are claims that Bob Brown is “the real Prime Minister”.
Sigh, another 800 desperate people sent ‘out to sea’, the only good thing being the 4000 that will make it. It makes for good sound bytes, but exactly what are we doing to people? Malaysia’s role in this is also quite questionable, but will probably go without too much notice.
Razor @ 3 – I wish I could be that glib about policies that directly affect the lives of 4800 people. But I guess bashing this governmet is just more important.
Yes, its vulgar, sneaky, duplicitous, illogical, cruel and stupid.
Billie, am on terms with Marilyn Shepherd and my eardrums are still vibrating from a chat on the dog and bone a few days ago. She’s dinkum; hopping mad at it and you know she’s always willing for a stoush with Hansonists concerning it.
For pete’s sake, take the four thou, leave the eight hundred here alone and then sit down for REAL talks with other countries, as to sorting the problems of the hundred thousand still in Malaysia.
Is that “adult”?
This is one of those moments where I come close to despair.
So obviously wrong, so vile in motivation as to make me physically ill.
To whom should I direct my preferences? Tweedledumb, or Tweedledevil? And which is which?
The Burmese refugee spokesman on the 7.30 report tonight was very supportive of the agreement. In effect, he said that it was creating 4000 extra places for Burmese refugees as well as focusing world attention on what was happening to refugees in Malaysia (thus putting pressure on Malaysia to be more humane.)
My attitude is that if the policy means that more refugees will settle in Australia while those who don’t get in get treated better it isn’t all bad.
If it cuts out all the fuss associated with people smuggling that won’t be a bad thing either – Makes it easier for the government to create more opportunities for refugees without having to fear the political flak.
If this 800 are found to be genuine refugees, can we have them back?
Yes well the Burmese man was not going to be traded like a piece of dogshit was he.
It enrages me that our media are all so blithering ignorant they don’t understand that the UN does not asses fucking refugees claims, signatory states do.
This is the worst policy ever, all this whining and prattling and law breaking over 800 random human beings while 10 million others are on the verge of starving to death.
No wonder Rudd refused to have anything to do with it.
I would like to share a speech that smarmy little prick gave in 2006
http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/speeches.do?newsId=2061
Coalition attempts to excise Australian mainland from migration zone
Posted August 10, 2006
Mr BOWEN (Prospect) (10.17 a.m.)?In 1951 the United Nations convention for the protection of refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many Western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, ?Never again.? I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.
Oh, I’m getting a familiar feeling… one I remember from the early noughties. So familiar… Hang on – I’ve got it. It’s the continual slow burn of being ashamed and humiliated for my country.
On ther ABC RN Breakfast Phillip Clarke and resident talking head Michelle Grattan got through the conversation where the question: “will this stop the boatsTM – LNP?” was repeatedly raised, but there was no mention at all of the total source of all humanitarian claimants, or of course, immigration more generally.
Same on 702 with Deborah Cameron interviewing Alison Carabine. I think they all got the same message. “…but Alison, will it Stop The Boats???’
Bernard Keane has a crack at the ‘Malaysia Solution’
Summarised down. How do we measure success? Are we still trying policies that address ‘pull’ factors orer ‘push’ factors? Do we really trust Malaysia at face value on human rights of asylum seekers? Is the risk the ALP is taking in doing this greater then the risk of the status quo?
All said, while he’s not over the moon about this one, a net increase of 3,200 asylum seekers with genuine claims is a step in the right direction and a whole lot more productive then the expensive and pointless offshore processing deal that the LNP would reintroduce.
I wonder Pinky if you are on the same planet as the rest of us. This is offshore processing you fool, it breaks the law and it is illegal.
What fucking part of that didn’t you get.
Well I don’t have a problem with this. It will almost certainly improve the situation for Malaysia’s 90,000 by a) relieving some of the pressure with the 4000 coming to Australia, and b) by offering a new model for the handling of refugees in Malaysia, and c) by saving the lives of the unknown number of people who are bo longer lost at sea from the deterent factor.
No matter how this issue is handled, even considering the “fling open the doors and let everyone come” option, the end result is going to be controversial. People who are displaced by global warming in my mind have a higher “right” to access than those who are displaced by political and or economic dislocation.
People have some say measure of control over their national political issues, but they have no measure of control over the environment. And those idiots who continue to parrot the “our 1.5% of emissions will have no influence so we should do nothing” self serving stupidity, concrete in place our legal responsibility to those who are consequently displaced by our environmental apathy.
Does that sound callous? I think that it is realistic. Most of the people arriving in Australia are economic refugees, and there are hundreds of millions of people who would move here in a dot if it were possible. But again people have a measure of control over their economic destiny within their own country. In today’s world of 7 billion it is just not realistic for masses to move around selecting the best economic opportunities. Even for business this will soon be curtailed.
However the plight of those whose land becomes unliveable cannot be rationalised away. They will come, in the millions, and rightly so.
Marlyn @ 15 -
Let’s just step back a bit here. First, I was just summarising the article attached, not expressing an opinion per se. Second, I didn’t say the ALP plan was not off-shore processing (obviously it is).
I’m not a fan of off-shore processing, mostly because it makes no sense. We are at some point going to let these refugees in, where there processed is largely irrelevant. So why pick a place that is different from the one they are going to and will cost more money to support? Illegal or not is just more reason not to do it.
That said, this solution at least acknowledges that we do have responsibilities to refugees (though apparently not ALL refugees) and at least tries to address some deficiencies in conditions for refugees currently in Malaysia. Though what it does for boat arrivals is still questionable and as Keane pointed out, near impossible to measure.
Why is it our business in Malaysia? WE have people jailed here cutting their fucking throats and going insane because we are punishing them for what ever.
It takes 18 hours work to “process” aka read a bloody application form and figure out the facts, it HAS TO BE DONE HERE.
GOT THAT.