The Coalition's problem with Labor's proposed solution is that it is a step toward a regional approach toward asylum seekers.

The government's problem is that, because most nations in this region aren't signatories to the UN Refugee Convention, regional approaches to asylum seekers are, for the most part, illegal under Australian law.

The Coalition is desperate to force the Labor Government to acquiesce to its less humane, more expensive "Pacific Solution" precisely because Labor's proposed regional solution is superior in terms of both humane treatment of asylum seekers and in terms of cost.

I heard an interview given by Scott Morrison to Julia Baird on radio some weeks ago; in the interview Morrison's concerns for his fellow humans were writ large.

These concerns are most certainly contradicted by his slavish adherence to Abbott's inhuman gamesmanship.

It is outrageous that the media are still prattling about this.

The law is very clear, if someone asks us for help we are obliged to offer it.

This has to stop right now, the convention is legally binding as the high court found again less than 5 months ago.

We don't ever talk about turning away anyone else without due process and we are not even allowed to send away murderers without due process.

What will it take for this pathetic country to just grow up and accept our obligations and stop whining.

The most frustrating thing about Tony Abbott's policies (also known as thought bubbles) is that he never comes out and explains, justifies or defends them so the media and blogs just go round in circles trying to analyse his thought processes.
There is a supicision that he sees the boat arrivals as a sure election vote winner and he wants to avoid any possibility of a bipartisan solution in the short term ; I hope that's not the case.

I wish we could get a perspective from more of a distance.

It is obvious to Blind Freddie that the 'boat people' issue is not about the boat people. Rather, it has become an emotive issue for a sufficient number of Australians over enough time that the opposition (whichever that party may be) MUST use it as a political football in their endeavour to belittle the party in government.

In simple terms, the subject is used as a political jousting medium by one political party against the other.

While we prattle on about the merit of the latest political jousting squeaks, we fail to recognise that the latest political jousting squeak is no more than that - a stage on which to politically joust at the other side.

I just hope that one day an astute journo will write an article that humiliates both sides for using emotive issues in the political jousting process. And, that article will be so informative that subsequent journo's roll out the 'emotive issue + political joust' topic as an explanator for the current political spin.

Cheers

A clear outline of the legal issues though the thought of returning a boat to Afghanistan is rather mind-boggling. While there are clearly some elements in the community who respond to the anti-boat people stuff, I don't believe this has to be pandered to by an Opposition of whatever party - as Malcolm Fraser said , a strong bipartisan stand worked in the 70's, assisted greatly by regional agreements. There are not only legal requirements involved if a refugee boat is overloaded or short of supplies including life jackets , there's the problem of deliberate engine sabotage etc. and the navy's reluctance to cause its personnel to be embroiled and perhaps endangered in such situations. One point that is clearly made is that asylum seekers have the right to be HEARD and assessed - to make their claim - but logically do not have a right to stay if their claim is not substantiated. There is a certain amount of cynicism about regarding repeated legal appeals etc , and people who seem to regard every claim as valid.

Tony Abbott will face a mutiny if, he directs the Governor General to force service personnel to obey an unlawful command.
I would like to hear Maria O'Sullivan's interpretation of Military law (in the context of the the Law of the Sea and International Refugee and Human Rights Law), regarding 'disobeying a lawful command' meaning that the Nuremberg Defence does't apply,"I was only following orders", because service personnel can refuse to obey an 'unlawful' command.

"To do the right thing, is the right thing to do" .......... Chiune Sugihara

Need one say any more than that one sentence?

We must also remember, by 2100, predicted sea level rises, due to global warming, will have a major impact on both here in Australia and also our close Pacific neighbors.

We have come a very long way since the evil Pacific Islands Laborers Act (1901) was enacted to end slavery in the one state of the colony where it was legal, by forced repatriation.

As for Tony Abbott, this youtube video clearly explains every thing he stands for in life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-q0ALVzPg

cui bono

"I think that tension will be exacerbated if we were to pursue push-backs in the region"

You are right but Mr Abbott does not care like he does not care what about the legality or what former chief of the defence force Admiral Chris Barrie said. I'd like to contribute a considerable amount of thoughts on where the issue is currently at in Australian politics and what options we could explore from here.

Unlike Mr Rudd who pretended there was no issue and ignored the problem allowing more misinformations and anger to flourish Ms Gillard started out well, setting the debate in a proper framework by opening up the dialogue with the public to discuss the facts and the complexity of the situation but then turned around and followed her pathetic advisers to play the same border protection bs with the Oppositions and elevated it to some crisis level where it should not be.

While the Greens are commendable for bringing compassionate value and principle of law into the discussion, I do find them however acting like hypocritical fasc.ists, play.ing the same political game in the futile chase after the 'people smugglers' (politically favorable to those tilted to the right as seen as a measure to control the number of boat arrivals) and waste our money. Their policy can be compared to an athlete race where the athletes are so desparate to win the prize and the officials say "it's ok to risk your life and use performance enhancing drugs to beat other competitors, we will promptly reward you when you get over the line, we will just try to go after your drug suppliers". With all the cost of try.ing to keep them out of Australia and putting them in detention it would be cheaper to let them in and employ them to build their own house. Labor and Greens like to send money to Indonesia while Liberals like to send it to Nauru instead of spending it here in Australia and employ Australians.

The Greens' inflexibility to try to find a better solution leaves room for the Oppositions to exploit people's fear and ignorance, devaluing our society making it a divisive cancer. The boats have been coming here since 1700s and our National Anthem says "for those who've come across the seas, we've boundless land to share" so it is really un-Australian to attack boat people and everyone should cool down and find the right way. If these boat people are that scary and "silently invading" us like T. Abbott and S. Morrison claim they are then I would like them to acknowledge that it was much more scary and devastating for the Aborigines when the boat people with guns came and invaded their land in the 1700s.

We currently have really toxic and deranged narrative about boat people floating around, about how these well off (rich or middle class) people pay.ing ten thousand dollars or so, risking their lives on the boats to come here just so they can live on welfare. A simple ponder could see millions of people try to get into the US legal or not because they want the lifestyle and work opportunity knowing they won't get any welfare payment and similarly the many thousands overstaying here don't get any welfare so why would they be bothered staying?

Somehow a refugee is supposed to look impoverished as if he or she has just stepped out of slum through a famine. My friend's grandparents were aristocrats in East Germany, when the Communist took over, the government confiscated their lands and properties but thanks to the family's hidden valuables they were able to live comfortably in material term but were treated like enemy of the state, they then escaped to West Germany before the route in Berlin was closed off. After the closure it was very hard for people to escape, people tried to escape by crossing the Hungarian border to Austria or through the Bulgarian border to Greece many di.ed or got caught. People would go any direction they can in order to reach freedom, sometimes it can take months or years of planning even, so it is not always a sudden event that happen to people and there is a camp people have to try to get there. It must have been some right wing Communist who came up with the idea that refugees should have no aspiration, no initiative and freedom to do what they can to reach for a better life and they must sit on their *rse in camps and live on handouts from the UN and wait to be picked. Ironically, it is those less educated sitting in the camps waiting who are less successful when resettled and depend on welfare whereas the much feared boat people are more successful and less dependent on welfare.

Then we have journalist like Janet Albrechtsen saying asylum seekers live in 4 star hotels on Christmas Island. Does that woman not have the intelligence to distinguish between having the enjoyment of freedom while staying at a hotel and the mental stress brought on by being confined and detained in a detention centre? May be the government should offer her a free three month holiday trip there.

Our humanitarian program is quota based and we don't have a waiting list or queue for the many millions of refugees overseas who we don't have obligation to because they are not in our territory, waiting order is loosely arranged by the UN, hence the confusion and sometimes confected cry about an inequitable system in favour of those who have the means to come here while others waiting in camps are disadvantaged. The concern is a legitimate one though which deserves attention and policy reform.

More than 6000 asylum seekers arrived by air last year and it is the plane arrivals who are the ones posing a threat to the integrity of the system. ABC's Matthew Carney reported that an immigration official Patricia Cruise claimed the system is being rorted by many air arrival claimants whereas most of boat arrivals are genuine refugees. Many of those arrive by plane are clients of certain travel agents who provide them with forged documents and bogus story to learn to fit into refugee criteria and aided by corrupt officials back home. It is a problem they know but don't know what to do about it, and the higher officials don't want to clog up the system so they let many claims approved. If the concern about boat people not having paper and could be non-genuine then the focus should be advocating for a better screening process instead of blanket attack on boat people.

I would think that with cases that seem unauthentic there should be agents overseas to covertly investigate and verify claimants' stories thoroughly to make sure the stories are true and there is no the fraudulent collaboration between people, and the government should enact sanction for those who try to defraud the system. Diligent process is essential for a number of reasons even if it is costly . Firstly we ensure that the chance for a better life will be given to those who deserve it and not stolen from them by the pretenders. Secondly we ensure solid approval and rejection cases and can quash unnecessary appeals with good evidence. Thirdly, without a tringent screening process and we let non-genuine refugees through then the consequence will be unsustainable, even if we build an off-shore processing centre in our region where the asylum seekers can go there first instead of Australia and then after all of the refugees have dri.ed up it will still be filled with non-genuine refugees who are just seeking for economic opportunity as it is easier for them to get there than to Australia (unless the whole world is peaceful and all countri.es prosper). Rigorous screening is vital for such program to be feasible.

It would be better to reform welfare assistance as well. Refugees come here in search for a better life, they don't come here so that they can get welfare. So if the people who come here by themselves (not by our government picking them from the refugee camps) are accepted as refugees, we provide them protection from persecution which is what they need. Welfare payment is not that necessary, we did it with the New Zealander (abolishing welfare entitlement for new arrivals whereas in the old days they had the same entitlement as Australians). We could provide them with health care and education but they are not entitled to welfare until they become citizen after four years of residence. Or may be providing welfare assistance for the first three months of acceptance then half that amount extended for another three months if required, then it really should be up to the refugee groups and charity organisations to continue helping them in material terms, but it is important to have government and NGOs working together with programme to assist refugees to settle in and intergrate into society. Welfare if not properly enforced is an evil, it destroyed many Aboriginal communiti es while there are also many non-Aboriginal people with welfare and drug dependency who slip through government policy. Aborigines were smart and self reliant in their natural way of life, we took that away without proper replacement. We need to re-culturalise value and have targeted projects to identify jobs, business opportunities and assist them with acquiring or setting up to improve their lives and communities, substance addiction treatment also is essential part of the wider program. Investments in such projects may cost more money if thereis no private sponsors, more time and labour in the short term but the benefit in the long term is tremendous and it is much better than keep throwing money away with useless welfare policies that make no improvement on both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal welfare recipients, and hopefully we also get many NGOs, business as well as indignenous volunteers to get involved and come up with ideas. Regardless whether you are indigenous or not compulsory paid part time community work is better than welfare for long term unemployed, we need to improve our welfare policy, people need to have some pride and shame, sense of personal responsibility as well as contribution to society and only be on welfare as a fall back not as an entitlement. I saw intervi.ew where unemployed Australians said they would not do fruit picking because it is low and demeaning to them yet they are happy to collect welfare and feel no shame.

This is an important issue which defines Australian value that one would hope the bright people from The Australia Institute, IPA, Lowy Institute, Hawker Britton, and other Public Policy think tanks come together and work on it with the Australian Intelligence, immigration department, people movement experts and refugee experts to come up with a decent policy so we don't have to hear this inane 'turn the boats back' from Abbott and Morrison anymore. I remember the poll from last year showed that the majority of Australians want onshore processing which means in their hearts they want a humane and low cost solution. The Liberal party don't represent Liberal ideal, there is no real Liberal anymore, they should drop the name and merge with the Nationals and call it the National Socialist Party, that is what their policies represent.

A better appoach would be to have community detention in Indonesia instead of asking them to incarcerate the asylum seekers for us like what has been is happening, but not only are they referred to the UN their ID profiles should be shared with Australian Intelligence also. People try to get here so they don't have to wait for too long. We could obviate this by licensing a ship carrier to take about 6000 asylum seekers in the region per year in a special programme. 2000 each from Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. These people have to be registered through the UN and request to be on waiting list for this program. We could help the UN with processing claims. Make good use of our NBN. work with overseas telcos, construct and set up fibre optic connection just for the consulate overseas which requires and some UN offices that need it only. We can do screening intervi.ews by teleconferencing which is like be.ing next to the person when using fibre optic internet. This proposal of course require careful study to see if it is financially possible, the government really need to be prudent on how money is spent especially on these sensitive issues, they open themselves for attack by allowing asylum seekers' temporary house to be furnished with $10,000 budget. I'm not be.ing petty but we need to consider that when government contract out to other people they will quote as much as they can, more over most of our young people when they move out of home to find their feet in the world don't have a budget of 10k to furnish their new place, go for basic budget within our means is most sensible. Government needs to learn not to upset people unecessarily, when you upset one it multipli es to 100 or 1000, only do it if it is necessary.

This is a special programme where people try to get here faster and will not be eligible for welfare when resettled until they become citizens as they are outside of the normal annual humanitarian budget if they think they can look after themselves when they get here, people try to get to another country have confidence in looking after themselves and build a better life they don't try to get there so they can get welfare or be a burden. 1/3 of the tickets can be sold at say at the price of $300 then the rest are awarded to the highest bidders. This is an equitable system and better than them paying the people smugglers for some dodgy boat trip. If people don't choose to be on this programme and pay the people smugglers especially if they have no papers when they arrive here while there is no risk of incarceration in Indonesia and such, then we can tell there is something dodgy with them. We also need somekind of proper waiting list for them. If we set up a system where it does not make a difference or can be better for them to wait overseas by alleviate the waiting period over there and provide them a safer way to come here quicker then they don't need to risk their lives on any dodgy boat trip. These days asylum seekers do monitor our law through a few clicks on the internet. Employers should also get involved in this program and sponsor a refugee for work, many overseas people working here in non-skilled and low skilled anyway. We should try this program for three years and monitor the result.
My housemate suggests a different solution. Buy a decent size piece of land in some other country and build an Australian Embassy there then build a few high rises behind it. Transport the asylum seekers who did not come directly from dangerous territory there. If the vicinity is good enough for our embassy staff then it is good for the rest, they also enjoy be.ing on Australian territory technically as embassy grounds are. When the high rises are empty let the local government use it for their citizens.

If proper policies are implemented the economy can always be in equilibrium when adding more people, we do need to plan better housing, infrastructure for water, energy and transport, it is essential to have such policy in place especially if you imagine our neighbouring pacific islands go underwater and we have to grant them refuge. Certainly with the NBN expanding, those regional areas which require migrant workers can compete with the city, sustainable growth and population distribution can be planned easi.er. We went through it with the 10 pound Poms, the Southern European migrants as well a various tides of refugees before and we are better for it. Australians are job snobs, I rent out rooms and share my house, quite a few Irish and Chinese travellers have come through in the past year and they had to do jobs like farm work or abattoir in order to get their visas renewed because Australians couldn't be bothered with these jobs. From DIAC and the ABS the number of refugee intake is very small compared to the net migration figure eventhough net migration has been dropping over the past few years (net NOM Dec 2006 - 197.4k, Dec 2007 - 244.1k, Dec 2008 - 315.7k, Dec 2009 - 246.9k, Dec 2010 - 171.1k, June 2011 - 170.3k and this March guestimate is at 183.9k) while the population has since grown quite a bit. I really don't know where all the pathetic hysteria came from.

c'est bien