Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

FactCheck: are Australia’s refugee acceptance rates high compared with other nations?

“We want to end the tick and flick approach of this [Labor] government that has seen nine out of 10 people found to be refugees when that doesn’t match what we are seeing in other places around the world…

A man in the second group of asylum seekers transferred to Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island calls out to journalists, 2 August 2013. AAP Image/ Eoin Blackwell

“We want to end the tick and flick approach of this [Labor] government that has seen nine out of 10 people found to be refugees when that doesn’t match what we are seeing in other places around the world and we want to end the process where ‘no’s turn into a 'yes’ in 80% of cases by these processes” - Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, press conference, 16 August.

Announcing the Coalition’s new asylum seeker policy alongside opposition leader Tony Abbott, Morrison said it was time to overhaul Labor’s “tick and flick approach”, which he said had led to high refugee acceptance rates compared with other countries. Morrison added that with 80% of initial refusals being overturned, it was “no wonder Australians are questioning whether this is a fair dinkum system that is operating under this government”.

So how much of that is true?

Morrison’s statement that about nine out of 10 asylum seekers being accepted as refugees in Australia is accurate if his claim is limited to asylum seekers arriving by boat. Morrison was clearly referring to boat arrivals at this press conference, even though at other times it hasn’t been made as clear.

This issue matters if you are comparing the acceptance rate with other countries. In Australia, asylum seekers have been broken into two categories since the Howard government introduced new policies targeting boat arrivals. Those categories are Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs), meaning people arriving by boat, and Non-Irregular Maritime Arrivals (Non-IMAs), meaning people arriving by plane.

Since 2001, the processing of arrivals by plane has been consistent. People arriving at an Australian airport and claiming asylum are placed in detention in Australia, and have their claims heard by a migration officer in the first instance and, if rejected, by the Refugee Review Tribunal on appeal. If a claim is successful, the asylum seeker is granted a permanent protection visa.

In 2010-11, 25% of the 5494 applications from those arriving by plane were successful after their primary application, and 43.4% of 4840 applicants who had completed both a primary application and a final review process were successful. In 2011-12, the figures for people arriving by plane were 25% of 5792 successful at first instance, and 44% of 5159 successful after both primary application and review.

In contrast, people arriving by boat have been subject to a range of policies since 2001, most recently Labor’s new off-shore processing and resettlement agreement with Papua New Guinea. The success rate of applications for a protection visa of people arriving by boat has traditionally been considerably higher than the success rate of those arriving by plane.

Rates of acceptance for people arriving by boat after an initial assessment of claims were 38.3% of 5218 applicants in 2010-11 and 71.1% of 3825 applicants in 2011-12. Rates of acceptance for applicants whose primary and review processes had been completed were 93.5% of 2909 applicants in 2010-11, and 91% of 5240 applicants in 2011/12. So Morrison is about right when he says nine out of 10 people arriving by boat are eventually accepted as refugees.

In his press conference, Morrison drew a comparison between that figure and rates of acceptance “in other places around the world”. This is an inaccurate point of comparison. The figure that needs to be compared with international experience is the combined acceptance rate of asylum seekers arriving by both boat and plane in Australia, as other countries do not separate asylum seekers according to their mode of arrival.

Surprisingly, the Department of Immigration does not aggregate the figures for boat and plane arrivals. However, if the department’s figures above are combined, as I have done for this fact check, the success rate after primary application and review of all asylum seekers (boat and plane arrivals) was 62.2% of 7749 applications in 2010-11, and 67.7% of 10,399 applications in 2011-12. (Complete 2012-13 figures are not yet available.)

Great caution must be exercised in making comparisons with acceptance rates overseas. Difference in acceptance rates may have nothing to do with the systems of review of applications. Refugee-receiving countries around the world are dealing with populations from different regions. The levels of humanitarian crisis differ from country to country. And even where the types of crisis are similar, asylum seekers from some regions may fit neatly within the UN Convention’s definition of a refugee and be eligible for state protection, while others may not.

Furthermore, the rates of success of asylum seekers from the same country can vary markedly from year to year due to assessments of the country’s geo-political circumstances. Here in Australia, for example, for Afghan arrivals by plane, grants rates rose from 78% to 92% from 2010/11 to 2011/12.

However, to give some sense of comparison, the UNHCR has data for Refugee Recognition Rates and Total Recognition Rates, which includes other forms of complementary protection. In 2010, at a global level, the Refugee Recognition Rate was 30% globally and the Total Recognition Rate was 39%. In 2011, the Refugee Recognition Rate was 30% and the Total Recognition Rate was was 38%.

In 27 European Union countries in 2011, there was a 25% success rate at the first instance for people seeking asylum and a further 21% of applicants were successful on appeal. (Unlike in Australia, the figures are not available for the overall success rates after final appeals in the EU.)

In Canada, there was a 38% success rate after final appeal in 2010.

Among the main refugee-receiving industrialized countries, in 2011 Switzerland had the highest Total Recognition Rate at the first instance of 72%, while Finland’s rate was 67%.

From these claims, to the extent that comparisons can be made given the different approaches to collecting data, the application success rate in Australia is higher than the average in the EU, and higher than Canada, though it is still lower than some industrialised nations with the highest success rates.

Morrison also claimed in the press conference that 80% of rejected asylum claims are then overturned on review. Again, this figure is accurate only in relation to boat arrivals. In 2010-11, initial decisions were overturned on review 83% of the time for people arriving by boat, and in 2011-12, 82.4% of the time. Over the first three-quarters of 2012-13 (up until the end of March 2013), the rate dropped to closer to 70%.

The latest Asylum statistics — Australia report does not provide statistics on how many people who arrive by plane and have their applications for asylum rejected, but then accepted on review. However, based on the overall grant rates of 43.4% in 2010/11 and 44% and 2011/12, as discussed above, the overturn rate for these asylum seekers would have to be significantly lower than 80%.

Morrison is right to question such a high overturn rate. However, his suggestion that the overturn rate represents a “tick and flick” approach to refugee status determination misrepresents the rigorous administrative processes Australia has in place for determining asylum seeker claims to protection.

There are a range of explanations for the high overturn rate of primary applications on review. One is that the initial decision maker and the decision maker on review have a different understanding of what is required to satisfy the legal definition of a refugee. A second explanation is that the initial and final decision makers have made different assessments of applicants’ personal circumstances, and of the information related to the country from which the applicant is fleeing persecution. A third explanation is that although the decision makers have broadly the same understanding of the facts and the law, their assessments of whether the facts satisfy the legal test are different.

The high success rate on appeal does not necessarily suggest that there is something wrong with the process of review. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that the decision of the review body is likely to be more accurate than the decision of the primary decision maker, given the legal and technical expertise of administrative appeals tribunals, and the fact that they apply the rules of evidence and protect procedural rights more consistently than initial decision makers.

In light of this, the Opposition’s plan to stop asylum seekers being able to seek a review of their case through the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Federal Court is almost certain to result in more applications for review in the High Court, which can scrutinise federal government decisions for “jurisdictional errors”. That would prove to be more costly and would be likely to lead to longer delays in the resolution of claims.

Verdict

Morrison is broadly right. His reference to “nine out of 10 people” found to be refugees after arriving by boat is accurate. And he is correct that that 80% of primary decisions are being overturned on appeal.

As for whether Australia’s refugee acceptance rates are high compared with other nations, the only way to make meaningful international comparisons is by looking at all asylum seeker applications, not just those from people arriving by boat. When this is done, and to the extent that international comparisons are meaningful, Australia’s acceptance rate appears to be relatively high. This means Morrison’s comment that Australia’s acceptance rate “doesn’t match what we are seeing in other places around the world” is a reasonable assessment.


Review

This assessment provides a thorough analysis of the complications that arise from trying to compare refugee status determination processes among countries.

There are two brief points to add to this fact check. Australia is the first country in our region that some asylum seekers reach where they are able to access refugee status determination processes. This may also explain the high volume of positive assessments of boat arrivals in comparison to other regions.

A second point is that last year’s Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, led by retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, recommended the need for a thorough review of the refugee status determination process. Its report found that there was a high final refugee approval rate for people arriving by boat to Australia, but added this was broadly consistent with UN High Commissioner for Refugee approval rates for similar caseloads.

As a result of the Expert Panel’s recommendation, a review of the refugee status determination process was ordered by the Gillard government and continued under Rudd. Whichever major party wins the election, no doubt they will continue with that review. - Sara Davies

The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article.

Request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

Join the conversation

210 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Greg Young

    Program Director

    There are a couple of points I'd like to make in response to this.

    First of all is a basic "so what" point. Even if Morrison is right, it's only an issue if the 90% of applicants accepted are not genuine refugees. Otherwise he is merely repeating back what refugee advocates have been telling him for years - that his so-called "illegals" are overwhelmingly legitimate refugees. Has Morrison provided any evidence that any of the 90% of applicants accepted should not have been?

    The second is the comparatively low acceptance of plane arrivals, at 44%. What this tells me is that the people we pay the least attention to are mostly gaming the system and are the people who should be the real targets of any increase in hard-line policies.

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Greg Young

      Greg, clearly we are paying a hell of a lot more attention to plane arrivals than the Boat People Lobby insists we don't. How many times a day, do we hear demands, "why don't the xenophobes and racists in western Sydney care about the 'illegals' who arrive plane"? Well, here we have the answer. A hell of lot of attention, money, and resources are ALREADY very much focused on this group.

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      There is no evidence to support this claim, David.

      It is demonstrably true that a lower percentage of plane arrivals than boat arrivals are found, in the end, to be valid refugees. There is no evidence anywhere in this article or that I have seen elsewhere to suggest, as you claim, that those arriving by plane are subjected to more attention, more rigorous scrutiny, etc. Unless you can advance actual evidence to show this, then all the numbers can reasonably be said to demonstrate is that boat arrivals, to date at least, are rather more likely to be genuine refugees than those arriving by plane.

      Of course, you can just keep making unsibstantiated claims like 'clearly we are paying a hell of a lot more attention to plane arrivals' but, unless you can back these claims with actual evidence, you'll understand why most of us will pay little credibility to your statements.

      report
    3. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, it is really is rather silly to try so lamely to cheat, when your words remain. Why don't you go on to quote the FULL sentence I wrote, which, for some reason, you chose to cut in half. I wonder why. ;)

      report
    4. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to David Thompson

      Actually your sentence in full makes no sense to me. And your point is just wrong. Billions are being spent on both sides of the debate to target a group that is actually more likely to be made up of genuine refugees. If you can show me the facts about how equivalent amounts of money, punitive legislation and sheer government bloody-mindedness are being directed against plane arrivals, I'll be fascinated to know. I somehow suspect you won't though.

      report
    5. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Greg Young

      Greg, please post again, with my sentence at the top (quotation marks of you like), then start your posy from scratch.

      report
    6. Rick Fleckner

      Student

      In reply to Greg Young

      Two very good points you've made. What we need besides the plethora of fact checkers is an "hystero - meter", because the media in general seems to not comment much at all when we, the great unwashed, are bombarded by hysterical ravings of the Morrison kind.

      report
    7. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      I was being polite, David, the rest of your sentence makes nbo sense and is merely abuse. It changes nothing. Is that really the best you can do?

      report
    8. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      Why, David? putting it in quotation marks won't change the fact that it is grammatically and semantically incoherent and incomprehensible.

      report
    9. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, as I had to remind Greg, too.
      "Greg, clearly we are paying a hell of a lot more attention to plane arrivals than the Boat People Lobby insists we don't. "

      report
    10. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      If you ever want to translate that into English I'm willing to offer further comment. at the moment it is meaningless beyond the first phrase.

      report
    11. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, the Boat People Lobby, including on TC, are always trying to draw ugly inferences about why nobody says a peep about regular plane arrivals, who apply for asylum; and so why don't the various agencies focus more on air arrivals? But this data shows that the Boat People Lobby have been carrying on like drama-queens, and trying switch and bait. Given the substantial number of regular air arrivals who have their applications refused, before being sent home, not only is there no real big deal about plane arrivals, but clearly enough money, energy, focus, and resources are clearly directed to that area, far more than the Refugee Lobby claims, or dares to admit.

      report
    12. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      Top-drawer misquoting there, David - the only thing i'v eever heard said was that we needn't be so worried about boat arrivals when they were fewer than air arrivals and far more likely to be genuine refugees, so therefore, why aren't we more upset/worried by air arrivals. That is nothing like the same thing as saying that no official attention is being paid to air arrivals. Everybody with half a brain knows that ALL arrivals are fairly carefully checked. the point some people have tried to make is that we are stirred up to get all frightened and emotional about boats when they represent a small part of the whole story.

      But, frankly, I can no longer be bothered arguing with someone who considers it rational to continually use cheap slogans like 'Boat People Lobby' - do you think the capital letters make it look more impressive? Either way, it strikes me as rather puerile and vacuous.

      report
    13. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      David, instead of 'boat people lobby' what would you prefer?

      report
    14. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Greg Young

      Hmm,

      $10,000 ticket for a boat ride,
      $2,000 ticket for a plane ride.

      Clearly boat refugees have much more $ than plane refugees....

      report
    15. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Robert Attila

      Robert,
      Obviously the best way to "Stop the Boats" is to issue more plane tickets.

      At $2000 a ticket from Indonesia to Australia we'd be making enough profit to pay for the entire assessment process particularly if we considered the savings on the multi-billion dollar budget for enforcing the current policy.

      report
    16. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, could you please share your 'making profit' calculations? A simple one is fine, but must include cost of airfares, number passengers, assessment costs per passenger.

      report
    17. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      David T
      I can get to the UK and back for $2000. Surely I can get from Jakarta to Port Headland for a lot less than that even if I have to pay for an empty seat on the return flight. Profit = $2000 less cost of flight from Indonesia to Port Headland'

      report
    18. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      Er, you forgot the multiplication bit - the number of passengers flying.

      report
    19. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      Hey.
      I've demonstrated you can make a profit on one passenger. If you graduated from primary school you can probably calculate a profit based on the total number of passengers once you work out the return fare from Jakarta to Port Headland. eg Gross Profit = Profit per passenger * Total no of passengers.

      report
    20. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      Oh David, David, David, oh, for such a simple world. One of the very first, extremely important things we learn In Economics is that costs are anything but constant. For a start, at the very least there are fixed and variable costs. They change very much according to output.
      Now, given you've already said your benchmark is
      "on the multi-billion dollar budget for enforcing the current policy."
      We can only test your claim by plugging in that final number - the number of passengers

      report
    21. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      Number of passengers = number of applicants for refugee status.

      My equation works perfectly well if you ensure that every seat on the plane is full, or every plane is X% full. However the exact profit is irrelevant the reality is that the cost of flying people from Indonesia to Australia is far less than the $2000 you quoted.

      The current cost of "turning back the boats" which is estimated at $150,000, per person not being turned back, is just a ridiculous waste of money and resources and far outweighs the 'profit' from safe flights to Australia.

      report
    22. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to David Rennie

      A message to all....Govts cannot make 'profits' unless they produce something & sell it at a profit. Govts produce very little to sell & r not qualified to do so in any case, nor is it their job to do so. Only private sector makes profits, & pays tax to fund the govt & social services.

      If a govt reduces their 'spend' that is not a profit, but simply a reduced expenditure of tax.
      I've seen some people write that if govts pay migrants to live here then the $ would be spent in this economy & thus benefit the economy. I shudder every time i read such illiterate Keynesian rubbish.

      report
    23. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Robert Attila

      Robert,
      If you're selling tickets at $2000 and it only costs $500 to provide the service that's a profit regardless of whether it is done by business or government.
      Profit has a wider general meaning than your rather narrow economic explanation.
      If the government reduces its spend on its destructive anti boat people policy then we all profit in more ways than just economic .

      "What profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul". We are in danger of losing our soul as our politicians wrestle in the mud over to deliver us the worst solution to this problem.

      report
  2. David Rennie

    IT Consultant

    Perhaps the best thing would have the UN assess the claims of the applicants in Australia and determine if they complied with an international standard. The UN would then be more likely to apply the correct standard first time. The time in detention would presumably be far less.

    Australia could then stop wasting vast sums of money seeking 'off shore' solutions, that are temporary at best,and only pander to the bigot vote.

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      Have the UN inside our borders, making our decisions? David, are you mad? What part of "WE will decide..." do not you understand? Have any of you people been to school? Didn't they teach you basic Civics?

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      David, instead of insulting people and making spurious claims about people not learning "civics" (which, unless they are American, they probably didn't as such, though they may well have recieved some education in Australian politics, constitutional law, etc. - I for one studied Australian politics at the tertiary level and consider your views unsupported by evidence).

      I think you'll find, if you calm down a little, that David Rennie merely suggested that we might ask expert UNHCR staff to make…

      Read more
    3. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      David,
      The part I understand is that our decisions are required to comply with the International Convention on Refugees. What did they teach you about our international obligations. Obviously not much if you think John Howards appeal to the bigots has any validity in law.

      The LNP claim "We will decide" contravenes that responsibility and is, and always has been, designed to appeal to the bigots who still support the White Australia Policy.

      Using the UN to assess claims of refugee status would provide a single consistent assessment that would ensure the process of acceptance or rejection occurred in the shortest time frame available. It would deal with the LNP's objections to the review process.

      report
    4. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, its rather rude & arrogant to call people you have no idea about bigots, plus presumptuous to think your definition (of bigotry) is correct AND can be applied to others. R u telepathic per chance?

      Ultimately each country has the RIGHT & responsibility to decide who enters THEIR country. No foreign law can be permitted to contravene that most basic of rights.

      I would assume our signature on the UN convention can be withdrawn at any time, so the UN convention is hardly cast in stone or an inalienable requirement. By all means have a UN inspector assess claims, but the ultimate decision must be made internally.

      As always there a r lot more unexpected implications of any 'decision' or change in law or 'solution' than the immediate issue of concern. Also checks & balances must be maintained to reduce the risk of 'unintended' consequences.

      report
    5. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Robert Attila

      Robert,
      The refugee convention allows people to enter our country and apply for refugee status. Furthermore we are expected to review their application based on UN standards for refugees.

      If we decided to withdraw from our international commitments then your argument would have some validity however at no time has the government suggested that.

      The original anti-boat people policy introduced by the Howard government was designed to appeal to people who were bigoted against migrants in general as part of the 2001 election campaign. It had nothing to do with saving lives or the sanctimonious claptrap that is wrapped about the policy now.

      I have no problem calling bigots, Bigots and racists, Racists. They will never admit to it but why should the rest of us not call them out for what they are. We will never get rid of this scourge on our society unless we are prepared to confront these obnoxious opinions.

      report
    6. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, these issues r not nearly as simple as we may wish it to be. Not every anti-boat people is racist. In fact i know several immigrants who agree with the anti -boat people.

      I know what u r saying, but as i have matured i have realised life is never as simple as it seems on the surface. Be careful about throwing rocks in glass houses because your intolerance of these 'bigots' may in itself be bigotry... of sorts.. Its ethically dangerous taking a moral high ground at the best of times…

      Read more
    7. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      "The part I understand is that our decisions are required to comply with the International Convention on Refugees"
      David, what do you mean by "the part"? Which part of the Constitution are you talking about?

      report
    8. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Robert Attila

      Robert,
      I have never suggested that all supporters of the anti boat policy are racist merely that the policy was design to attract the votes of racist bigots.

      Not being a recent immigrant I can't speak on behalf of them, however my experience is that the people who are most anti-boat people are also racist, opposed to asians, burkhas nig-nogs or some of the above, who fit a racial profile and want to come to Australia to better their lives.

      If you do not fit this category perhaps you should consider who you are associating yourself with.

      report
    9. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      "Furthermore we are expected to review their application based on UN standards for refugees."
      David, who is "we"? What is your source of this "expectation", and who cares and "expectations"?
      "The original anti-boat people policy introduced by the Howard government was designed to appeal to people who were bigoted against migrants in general as part of the 2001 election campaign."
      I'm won't bother with patient niceties here. You are just wrong, and uninformed. The original anti-boat people policy was introduced and legislated by Malcolm Fraser. It was made barbaric by Keating.
      David, I don't know how old you are, so maybe you haven't reached this part at school in History classes. But you are wrong on just so many levels, it's weird.

      report
    10. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      The part that says that "the Federal Government makes International agreements" and presumably complies with them.

      report
    11. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      DT,
      What Rubbish, Until JH made his infamous declaration in 2001 Australia dealt with applicants for refugee status in Australia under Australian law.

      He was in danger of losing the election and needed to appeal to the bigots who supported Hanson, some of whom were former Labour supporters.

      And let me just point out that is a long time since I completed my Masters and History honours degrees but I do hope that the world has not degenerated to the state of your claims since then.

      report
    12. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, did just answer my question with "the part...." You honestly really do not know, do you? Wow.

      report
    13. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      David T
      Yes I do know , To be exact:
      The part of the constitution is:
      Section 51 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power
      to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
      of the Commonwealth with respect to {par} (xxix) external affairs;

      report
    14. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      "What Rubbish, Until JH made his infamous declaration in 2001 Australia dealt with applicants for refugee status in Australia under Australian law."
      David when a knowledgeable historian informs you that the phenomena you had always thought started in 2001, actually started 20 years earlier, you are supposed to own your incomplete knowledge, thank that other knowledable person for educating you, and finally reconsider all the judgements you have made on the basis of being ill-informed.

      report
    15. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      DT,

      You cliam "when a knowledgeable historian informs you that the phenomena you had always thought started in 2001, actually started 20 years earlier".

      When that occurs I will, however it hasn't so far.

      The Keating Government introduced mandatory detention for asylum seekers but did not attempt to refute Australia's obligation to comply with the UN convention on refugees.

      It did not attempt to claim that people arriving in Australia could not claim refugee status which is the basis of the anti-boat people policies of the Howard government.

      The difference is the refusal under Howard to comply with our obligations by developing ways of proclaiming that some parts of Australia are not really part of Australia.

      Prior to 2001 our policies complied with our international obligations, since 2001 policies have not complied.

      report
    16. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to David Rennie

      "If you do not fit this category perhaps you should consider who you are associating yourself with. " what makes u think i associate with bigots David? The mathematical/statistical probability is that no group is homogeneous, i therefore dont have to 'mix' with bigots to know that not all liberals or anti-boaties r racist. I for 1 have a mix of liberal (left wing) & conservative views, which can change as i pick up new info/data. I dont care what 'side' my view may sit, all i care about is finding…

      Read more
    17. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Robert Attila

      Robert,
      I said that the original policy was designed to appeal to bigots not that everybody who supports it is a bigot. On the other hand its rare to find someone who strongly supports it who isn't.

      And I have no doubt that not all racists are white. However that doesn't make racism any more palatable.

      report
  3. David Thompson

    Marketing Research

    I have no time for the man. But thank you for rolling your sleeves up, and presenting this data. But unfortunately guys, by pursuing so doggedly every circumlocution going, practically balancing a ball on your nose to judge Morrison false, you have actually just highlighted how surprisingly spot on he is.
    1. You are always supposed to contact the person you are fact-checking to clarify their use of terms, and source of their claims.
    2. You are not permitted to substitute your own definitions, and…

    Read more
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      you see, David, it would be far hardewr for peopl elike me to judge your contributions as toxic crap if you didn't keep beginning with manifestly and glaringly obviously WRONG statements.

      If you actually READ the article they did not judge Morrison to be wrong - they concluded that he was largely correct. Unless, in your version of reality, the sentence 'Morrison is broadly right.' means something other than 'Morrison is broadly right.'

      The fact that the author was careful in weighing up the…

      Read more
    2. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, I said they went out of their way (circumlocutions) to prove him wrong, even though they did not contact him, and through those highways and biways, they raised some very important issues, beyond their eventual conclusion on the specific matter. So, yes, I agree they did conclude Morrison "is broadly right". So, fair cop, I should have acknowledged this specifically, before pursuing the other stuff. My apologies.

      report
    3. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to David Thompson

      Hi David, happy to have our methodology questioned and we do usually seek a response from MPs/people we fact check, mainly to clarify the source of their claims.

      For instance, when we fact checked Sophie Mirabella on the rate of manufacturing job losses, we contacted her office to check if she'd been using ABS, OECD or other data in order to make her calculation. That mattered, as our economist author needed to be sure that we were comparing apples with apples.

      However, in this case - much…

      Read more
    4. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      Well Liz, thank you very much for following that up. I understand where they were coming from much more clearly now, and why. But while I have already given then nod on the direct issues, it was more the issues that they raised on the way that caught my attention.

      report
    5. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      While we're here Liz, I was actually hoping you might respond to my more important concerns expressed in my first post.

      report
  4. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    I seem to recall a French former World Bank official being hit with a high profile rape accusation in mysterious circumstances a few years ago. During the investigation the police dredged up the fact that she had claimed to have been a victim of rape in her home country and they brow-beat into confessing she had made it up.

    But of course everyone is going to invent whatever they think will get them over the line, the honest people are going to be repatriated. A system that rewards dishonesty doesn't seem an intelligent one in my opinion

    report
  5. David Rennie

    IT Consultant

    Morrisons' "Tick and Flick" reference suggests that the figures refer to those given refugee status on initial application. The truth is that the figure of 90% only applies to a fraction of the applications after the full judicial review has been completed, hardly tick and flick.

    According to the figures this occurs for less than 50% of all applicants and less than 70% of boat arrivals. So Morrison's claim should be seen as a gross exaggeration.

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, they should have clarified all this with Morrison before printing a "fact check".

      report
    2. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      Morrison used the term in the quote above to imply a lack of due process and easy entry to Australia under the Governments watch.

      The assessors have been very generous to him by assuming that his comment only applied to boat arrivals and very generous in allowing the full review process to be referred to as 'tick and flick'.

      What part of his comment required further explanation from him. Should the authors be required to let him weasel out of the claim before assessing what he said.

      report
    3. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, a quick phone call could have focused the whole analysis. Look, it's not that big a deal, given their conclusion. BUT some of the turns they took on the way, do raise very significant other issues.

      report
    4. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      How?
      He's implying lack of due process.
      He's making claims that can only be supported by making very generous assumptions about his statements.

      What would a phone call have achieved.

      Isn't the point of analyzing the claims to make an independent assessment rather than providing the claimant with the opportunity to explain away their inaccuracies if any.

      report
    5. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Rennie

      David,I haven't read any other form of legitimate "fact check" that does not start with checking with fact-asserter. If they were my employees, I would be most displeased for such unprofessional clumsiness.

      report
    6. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Thompson

      David,

      I haven't seen any evidence of these fact checks going back to the source of the statement for spin.

      When KRuddy said that 70% of newspapers were owned by Murdoch did that get referred back to him. No it didn't. If it did then I am sure he would have explained that he meant 'after they are printed and before they are sold'.

      report
    7. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to David Rennie

      I think you need to read the article again David for Morrison is quoted as
      " “We want to end the tick and flick approach of this [Labor] government that has seen nine out of 10 people found to be refugees when that doesn’t match what we are seeing in other places around the world and we want to end the process where ‘no’s turn into a 'yes’ in 80% of cases by these processes” "
      A clear reference there to the appeal process and in fact the Fact Checker report confirms Morrison's statement.
      Do some arithmentic and you'll see that the 90% refers not to just a fraction as you would put it but the total number of IMAs in question.
      As an example for you using the first year ( in round numbers )
      38% of 5200 = ~ 2000
      93% of 2909 = ~ 2700 and thus 4700 of 5200
      is near enough to 90%.
      No exaggeration whatsoever as stated by the article.

      report
    8. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      Yep, Liz got it. Ta. ;)

      report
    9. David Rennie

      IT Consultant

      In reply to Greg North

      Greg,
      The emphasis is on the "Tick and Flick approach seeing nine out of 10 people found to be refugees". Its not even clear from the statement whether the 80% of cases that are rejected are part of the 90% or part of 10% initially rejected.

      However the reality is there is no Tick and Flick they are all well scrutinised and subject to due process. The best we can say for the claim is that it is well spun with very generous assumptions about his meanings.

      As to the arithmetic it only applys to boat arrivals not all refugees. Other countries use consolidated figures so they are not comparable.

      There is a high probability that people desperate enough to come here by boat are more likely to be refugees than the general body of asylum seekers.

      report
    10. N Wilson

      Biologist

      In reply to David Rennie

      Quite correct, David Rennie.

      Morrison's implication is by definition acceptance at the first assessment, not those overturned later. As such, incorrect.

      And there are problems for his further implication in denying appeal, because this seems to be unlikely to pass the High Court, as they have knocked this over before. This is when it becomes the typical Liberal line - pointing out the 'problem', but not offering a real solution.

      My memory is that the right of appeal was denied for offshore processing during the Pacific Solution, but still 70% of boatpeople were assessed as refugees - higher than the first assessment now. Wonder how that works - are officials now saying no more often deferring to appeal to sort it out? Are a different type of person coming?

      report
  6. Eddie Jensz

    logged in via Facebook

    Isn't it wonderful that Australia retains its welcoming face by allowing the downtrodden of the world refuge in a country that has a long history of accepting people as refugees?

    I thank Scott Morrison for pointing out that we continue to accept our responsibility under the International Refugee Convention and I am so happy to accept the new Australians as part of our multicultural country, a country which my forebears fled to due to persecution in their home country in the nineteenth century. Well done Australia. And as our national anthem says quite well

    "For those who've come across the seas
    We've boundless plains to share,
    With courage let us all combine
    To advance Australia fair."

    report
  7. Ken Birch

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    The author says that federal tribunals apply the rules of evidence. In fact, they are not required to and often do not apply the rules of evidence. For the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, see the AAT Act, s 33. This is intended to allow tribunal proceedings to be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition as possible. As far as I know, the same applies to proceedings in the Refugee Review Tribunal. Perhaps the reviewer could check this.

    report
    1. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Ken Birch

      Morning Ken, thanks for your comment.

      I've emailed the author & reviewer to see if they can respond. All the best.

      report
    2. Alex Reilly

      Associate Professor, Law School at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Ken Birch

      Ken, Thanks for this comment. You are correct about the rules of evidence not applying in Tribunals. In relation to the Refugee Review Tribunal this is stated in s 420 of the Migration Act 1958. My reference to the rules of evidence was, therefore, wrong. The point I was trying to make was that Tribunal members are trained at dealing with evidence, and at applying the principles of evidence, in particular in relation to the relevance and significance of information that comes before the Tribunal.

      report
    3. Kimberley Recreant

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Reilly

      Alex, I've worked at the Refugee Review Tribunal (not using anything like my real name of course). I beg to differ with your point about Tribunal members' training and, in general, their quality of work. Unfortunately, the Tribunal no longer publishes what experience and qualifications the members have. You'd be surprised at how narrow and limited their experience is, in general these days. Many of them are not good at the job but they finalize decisions and are therefore seen as performing their…

      Read more
    4. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Kimberley Recreant

      "I beg to differ with your point about Tribunal members' training and, in general, their quality of work."
      I spat my coffee when read that. They are all just low-grade public servants, or even from private temp agencies.

      report
    5. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      Kimberley and David - interesting opinions, but there's no actual evidence provided to back your claims.

      report
    6. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, unless you claim Kimberley is lying then she doesnt need to provide further 'evidence'. She worked there so how much better evidence do you need? You sound very desperate now.

      Of course she 'could' be wrong or lying, but what if she isnt??

      I find it outrageous that any public servant is getting $200k for what is very simple/no brainer work that my junior analysts could no doubt do - for a lot less, say $60-70k, & they r degree qualified. Thats what you get from 'big' govt....waste & incompetence. i'd love to get $200k or even half that these days... & i may be far more experienced & qualified than than the tribunal members plus I have expertise in many areas of business, IT, production, engineering, HR, validation, implementations, waste mgt, etc.

      Govt needs a big shake out & hair cut, see how long these pencil pushers last in the real world. sigh...

      report
    7. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      The sort of people who make these decisions are of the same caliber and gene pool as the mediators at the rental bond board.

      report
  8. Leigh Burrell

    Trophy hunter

    All illegals to be deported immediately upon arrival. Smugglers and crew to be gaoled for a minimum of 15 years, both adults and minors!

    report
    1. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      That might be a good idea, provided you educate yourself on what "illegal" means. Arriving by boat to seek asylum is not illegal. This has been established by lawyers, academics and sundry other fact-checkers countless times, and one can only speculate why you would seek to perpetuate this pernicious myth.

      As to smugglers, the inaugural award of Honorary Australian Citizenship went to a people-smuggler, in case you haven't noticed.

      report
    2. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Greg Young

      Greg, their movement through Indonesia is illegal. Indonesia is not a signatory to the convention. They are illegal immigrants.

      What honours would you have us bestow on the likes of Captain Emad? Do you send them fan mail?

      report
    3. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Barely even worth a response. Educate yourself. You and other right-wingers slandering people does not determine the law. If you were even remotely right, we would not be spending time and money valuating their applications would we? We would just send them all back, rather than only 10% of them. Surely even you can see the tank-size hole in your arguments.

      I have no opinion on the case you name, but if you condemn people-smuggling as evil in principle, as both the major parties claim to, why lionise Raoul Wallenberg for doing just that? If you can't be humane, at least be consistent in your prejudices.

      report
    4. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Greg Young

      "If you were even remotely right, we would not be spending time and money valuating their applications would we? We would just send them all back, rather than only 10% of them."

      I think you're getting confused between the success rate of applications, the right to claim and the laws governing their movement through Indonesia. They're rather odd ideas to conflate, but there you go.

      report
    5. Peter Monaghan

      Self-employed

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      So often, high-handed opponents of immigration – of certain kinds of immigration, which translates to immigration by certain “kinds” of people – indulge in shoring up their own privilege rather than assessing their presumptions and commitment to fairness. The legality of some forms of immigration – of immigration by categories of people – is not the point. Laws are already in place, so the purpose of debate is to assess, to check for injustices and inequities, to imagine a better way forward…

      Read more
    6. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      No Paul, if early exchanges reveal one party is uneducated and is ignorant of the basic poles that keep the whole discourse together, then it is best to move on from that uneducated and ignorant person. As regards people, you should shut up until you've at least got the under your belt.

      report
    7. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to David Thompson

      David, if you're going to abuse others, do at least try to write in comprehensible English. Again, your final sentence is meaningless in its present form.

      report
    8. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I often ask myself what's the point debating people who have no regard for the truth.

      OK, what Australian law are they breaking by moving through Inodnesia? And, again, why don't we just send them all back if they are all illegal?

      It is blindingly obvious that your argument is BS, but please feel free to substantiate it with some facts and legal references.

      report
    9. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to David Thompson

      F'ing phone.
      "As regards other people, you should shut up until you've at least got the Law under your belt.

      report
    10. N Wilson

      Biologist

      In reply to Greg Young

      Greg, with respect, responding to trolls only encourages them.

      report
    11. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Greg Young

      "OK, what Australian law are they breaking by moving through Inodnesia? And, again, why don't we just send them all back if they are all illegal?"

      We would be interested in Indonesian law governing their movement through Indonesia. Why don't we send them back if they're illegal? There are two separate issues muddled up there. Our assessment of their claim has no bearing on Indonesian law, and vice versa.

      report
    12. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      In other words, you have squat. No data,no reference.

      Even if what you say is true - and you've provided zero proof - we do not enforce Indonesian law for them unasked. Come up with an Australian law that they have broken, explain why LNP policy is not to send them all home if you are right, or quit slandering people.

      report
    13. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Greg Young

      "we do not enforce Indonesian law for them unasked."

      Sure, I never said we did. And I never said they broke Australian law. My point was simply that their migration is illegal. Specifically, they violate Indonesian law while in Indonesia.

      report
    14. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Which laws do they violate? Are all refugees who transit Indonesia in violation of Indonesian law? If they are in violation of Indonesian law why are they not prosecuted by Indonesian authorities? Are any prosecuted by Indonesian authorities?

      Bald assertions don't cut it.

      report
    15. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Very neatly dodged.

      My research indicates that, like Australia,"irregular arrivals" are referred to the International Organization for Migration and those claiming asylum are further referred to UNHCR for processing of their claims. These individuals are deemed to have broken no law and are allowed to reside legally in Indonesia while their asylum claims are processed and permanent resettlement arranged.

      You could have read the law of Indonesia namely Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2011 or its predecessor Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 9 Tahun 1992 (both available on the web) and found out the correct information for yourself.

      report
    16. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      "Do your own homework"

      Sorry, but if you make a claim, it is up to you and you alone to back it up. If you're too lazy to do so, you can't expect others to research it for you.

      report
    17. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "These individuals are deemed to have broken no law and are allowed to reside legally in Indonesia while their asylum claims are processed and permanent resettlement arranged."

      That is clearly not the case. There are any number of references showing these illegals are arrested and detained. Again, DYOR. It is worth noting also that Indonesia recently passed legislation against people smuggling.

      report
    18. Peter Monaghan

      Self-employed

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      All this talk of "these illegals" seems to overlook that the people in question are, foremost and in fact exclusively, people. I wouldn't be hopeful of worthy lawmaking by people who see their fellows in those kinds of degraded terms. I presume that if, say, your suburb was blown up by a cyclone, you wouldn't accept food, clothing, or shelter from anyone in the next town, the rest of your state, the country, or – heaven forfend – the whole world. Some of those who offer humane support may not be your "my legals," and you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

      Of course, we all, already, share much with neigbours near and far. Not always appreciatively, clearly.

      report
    19. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Again you do not provide even a single example of the “number of references” that you claim show that refugees are arrested and detained. What you do is to demonstrate your ignorance of how the Indonesian legal system handles refugees.

      Before you quote one of these references you should read it carefully. If it mentions “rumah dentensi” then you best be aware that under extreme pressure from Australia the Indonesian government introduced UU 6/2011 partly to change the practice of allowing refugees…

      Read more
    20. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      "I presume that if, say, your suburb was blown up by a cyclone, you wouldn't accept food, clothing, or shelter from anyone in the next town, the rest of your state, the country, or – heaven forfend – the whole world."

      I would welcome temporary assistance and have myself offered it freely to others in an emergency. What I would not ask for is permanent ownership of a portion of their home.

      I do agree that the question of illegal, irregular or lawful, both here and in transit countries, is not the most important one.

      report
    21. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      But this is exactly what the people and political parties promoting the idea of "illegal refugees" want to achieve. They want the public to consider asylum seekers as criminals and therefore they can be treated as degraded people.

      But when they are confronted with the consequences of their campaign their refrain is the inevitable " We can't be held responsible for people who misunderstand our message"

      report
    22. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "The passage of the law against people smuggling has nothing to do with the legality of refugees"

      I never said it did. I said it was worth noting. Why? You've answered that yourself. The act of organising and facilitating the movement of these people through Indonesia to other countries is illegal.

      report
    23. Peter Monaghan

      Self-employed

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Their home may be their home, but the fortunate part of the world i which you are fortunate to live is not "yours."

      Plus, I don't imagine that you'd think it appropriate if, in an emergency (such as refugees suffer), your neighbour's idea of "putting you up," temporarily but indefinitely, meant confining you in the middle of a desert behind razor wire, separated from your family, and from your children while they are abused after being thrown into adult quarters with inadequate protection…

      Read more
    24. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "They want the public to consider asylum seekers as criminals and therefore they can be treated as degraded people."

      Nothing prevents them being both. Like Greg, you're conflating the issues of the legality of their movement through transit countries and their right to claim asylum here. They're separate considerations in different jurisdictions.

      report
    25. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      The act of organising and facilitating the movement of people into Australia is illegal under the Migration Act.

      The act of moving into Australia to seek asylum is not illegal under the Migration Act.

      Can you see the difference?

      The Act says that one party, the smuggler, is committing an illegal act but the other party, the asylum seeker is not.

      Well it is the same in Indonesia.

      You have consistanly said "They", that is the refugees, are illegal. Are you now changing your tune?

      report
    26. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      No, not changing my tune at all. It's a separate matter as you note. Why assume I meant it otherwise?

      report
    27. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I have to wonder what you're trying to achieve here. A discussion of the legality of this organised migration without mention of the legality of the organisation process would be conspicuously incomplete and unrepresentative of the reality of what is occurring.

      In the context of an attempt to portray the entire process as unquestionably legal, it borders on dishonest.

      report
    28. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      If this is directeeat my comments then you best read the last one again. It starts:

      "The act of organising and facilitating the movement of people into Australia is illegal under the Migration Act".

      This would seem to be a case of where one part of the process is legal and the other is not.

      report
    29. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Quote: “They are illegal immigrants.”

      Quote: “My point was simply that their migration is illegal. Specifically, they violate Indonesian law while in Indonesia.”

      Was I wrong to assume that the “They” were asylum seekers or refugees?

      report
    30. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      Peter, r u suggesting we open the flood gates to anyone who wants to come here?
      or at least to 'refugees'? There r millions world wide as you know.

      How would we cope with millions turning up here? I sure wont pay to keep them, will you?
      there arent the jobs or the $. ANy practical ideas or just grandiose theology?

      Its easy to be morally high n mighty IF other people (tax payer) pay the bill.

      To prove the legitimacy of your moral claims you should offer YOUR house to all refugees, if you dont then u can be accused of hypocrisy or 'all talk no action' .

      Your theories r grand in scope & slanted morality, but crumble when the bill has to be paid..

      BTW, my parents were refugees form E.Europe (having barely lived thru WWII) & my wife's family refugees from Asia (who experienced Japan's raping & pillaging in WWII) - both came here legally in the 60's & 80's.

      report
    31. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      And yet Peter, u want to allow these 'abusers' into our country. Well done... Brilliant...

      "..while they (children) are abused after being thrown into adult quarters..."

      "why not presume that they are the furthest thing from criminals" u just contradicted yourself above..

      Where should, the millions of refugees be placed the? After all, if we open the doors to all refugees millions LITERALLY would arrive here in shore order. Do u have a big house? Put your $ where your morality is & offer refugees your house. Of course you wont. Talk is cheap & meaningless as they say.

      report
    32. Peter Monaghan

      Self-employed

      In reply to Robert Attila

      How do you do it?

      You gauge (leaning towards the generous) the tolerance for sustainable growth (not merely economic) within the expanses of a simple principle: We, the fortunate, make sacrifices in our well-being (for which, read: buying power, more than anything) to the less fortunate.

      After all, many would-be immigrants are in desperate need in part due to:

      i) our or our allies' actions and their outcomes – colonial adventures, post-colonial score-settling, illegally indulged slaughters…

      Read more
    33. Peter Monaghan

      Self-employed

      In reply to Robert Attila

      As an Eastern European, you will be aware of what happens when circumstances breed everyday executioners.

      report
    34. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Robert Attila

      These are the sorts of distortions and nonsense that turn the asylum seeker debate into a vehicle for politicians to frighten people and get themselves elected.

      There are no floodgates open to anyone who wants to come. You have to be prepared to undertake a hazarous and unconformtable journey and meet the standard for genuine refugees. In the 10 years since 2002 an almost constant number of around 13,000 people have been granted Humanitarian visas each year about one third of the number of overstayers…

      Read more
    35. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "Was I wrong to assume that the “They” were asylum seekers or refugees?"

      No you were correct, and I have pointed you in the direction of a source quoting Indonesian military and immigration figures referring to them as illegal immigrants as recently as 2 days ago and indicating that they were arrested and will be deported. If one source isn't enough I have no reason to believe that any number of other sources will satisfy you and I see no reason to waste my time offering you more.
      Indonesia clearly considers these people to be illegal immigrants and it's their opinion that matters in their jurisdiction.

      All you have provided is the observation that Indonesia amended their immigration law recently, without any detail on the specific amendments that relate to these people.

      report
    36. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      Agree 100% with (I) US CIA etc have a lot to answer for. Howard sided way too easily with Bush. etc.

      The reason we import more peoples from 'similar' cultures is because of quicker assimilation. Quicker assimilation means lower likelihood of alienation or civil strife, & i would assume therefore cheaper to become self sufficient.I cant speak for anyone other than myself but... . time for bed, missus calling, will respond tomorrow hopefully or w/e.

      cheers
      rob

      report
    37. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Did you factor into your ‘math’ the time taken to grant a visa or that the ‘target’ number of visas for each year is set by the government and that once the quota is filled the process usually stops. Visas were still being issued at the end of March 2013 (1121) even though no new claims were processed after 13 August 2012.

      report
    38. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Incredible! You base your assessment of how the Indonesians regard and treats asylum seekers on an item in an English language newspaper in Jakarta.

      The term "illegal immigrants" was not even a direct quote. Do you think that the direct quotes were exactly what the military officer said or did he perhaps speak in Indonesian? Indonesian officials and the Indonesian language media rarely, if ever, use the word “immigrant” (imigran) but describe people whose claims have been assessed as refugees…

      Read more
    39. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "The passage of the law against people smuggling has nothing to do with the legality of refugees"
      Ken, let's see how that works another way:
      "The passage of the law against heroin trafficking has nothing to do with the legality of drugs.

      report
    40. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "Did you factor into your ‘math’ the time taken to grant a visa or that the ‘target’ number of visas for each year is set by the government and that once the quota is filled the process usually stops."

      No, it's moot. If arrivals exceed places and we accept them at current rates the quota is defeated. Our intake will increase, but that's been forced on us by the smugglers and illegals. They are now dictating our humanitarian intake policy.

      report
    41. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to David Thompson

      Simple ! It is a feature of both the Migration Act in Australia and UU6/2011 in Indonesia. Both laws include provisions for asylum seekers and people smugglers

      Go to the Migration Act and you will see that the carriage of asylum seekers is illegal (Section 233A) but you will find nowhere in the Act that makes arrival for the purposes of applying for asylum illegal.

      Use or possession of heroin and the traffiicking of heroin are both illegal.

      It is not a matter of logic but law.

      Why is it done? To try and stop asylum seekers though the back door (without contravening the principles of the Refugee Convention incorportated in the Migration Act). People smugglers are not protected by the Convention.

      If you read Indonesian I will give you similar clauses in UU6/2011. I can't advise you on Indonesian law about heroin

      report
    42. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Do you have any idea how the system works. Take the year ended 30 June 2012 as an example;
      The government set targets

      13750 places in the Humanitarian program
      12% of places for Woman at Risk visas.

      And this was the outcome:

      13759 visas were granted. 6718 visas under the offshore component (refugee resettlement) and 7041 visas under the onshore component (boat and air arrivals).
      13.7 % of places were Women at Risk (part of the offshore component)

      The 6718 offshore visas granted…

      Read more
    43. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      If by "they" you mean asylum seekers then the answer is: some of them are arrested and deported but only ibecause they have committed a crime including admitting using false documents. I have pointed out to you before you need to exercise care when you read "arrested". Since UU6/2011 was passed people are "arrested" (menankap) and placed in "rumah dentensi imigrasi" immigration detention houses under the same conditions that boat people are held in immigration detention in Australia.

      report
    44. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      "Plus, I don't imagine that you'd think it appropriate if, in an emergency (such as refugees suffer), your neighbour's idea of "putting you up," temporarily but indefinitely, meant confining you in the middle of a desert behind razor wire, separated from your family, and from your children while they are abused after being thrown into adult quarters with inadequate protection."
      Peter, indeed. but no "neighbour" is going to do that.

      report
    45. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      Peter, you seem to be getting the point; even if unwittingly. Of course it is human nature to help out your neighbour in the next suburb in times of need, and vice-versa. In fact, it is this very neighbourliness that builds social capital, and thus strong and secure societies. But in the main, this thread, and certainly your own posts are not concerned with anything like neighbours. We are talking about the opposite of neighbours. The topic is 'strangers'. ;)

      report
    46. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Ken, the delays in processing these illegals are an unsustainable fiddle and you know it. These people are here, they are in the community and are supported by this country through various do-gooder/bleeding heart groups and advocates. They are settled, protected dependants - refugees in all but name who, barring a policy change, will certainly be formally recognised sooner or later. If annual arrivals continue to exceed grants by around 18,000 on an ongoing basis....well, again, you work it out.

      How utterly ridiculous to suggest they are detained at all, let alone indefinitely. Most of them move about freely and have the right to request repatriation at any time.

      report
    47. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "some of them are arrested and deported but only ibecause they have committed a crime including admitting using false documents."

      But those Sudanese didn't have fake documents. They had no documents! Arrested for having no documents, Ken. They will be deported. What do you suppose is going on there? Is their presence there legal?

      report
    48. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Oh I wish I had your childlike belief in the absolute accuracy of a single short newspaper report. What a simple life. Let me help you

      The direct statements of the officer (translated into English) were:

      “The nine Sudanese citizens are currently being held in the office's quarantine facility,”
      “They said the documents were lost when their boat sank,”
      “We don’t know when they will be deported as they are still in quarantine,
      Where does the officer say they were arrested or that they were…

      Read more
    49. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      So the 8,797 people reported as being in Immigration Detention at 30 April 2013 are a figment of DIAC's imagination? You really should complain to the Auditor General.

      The length of the processing time is largely caused because people like you raise all sorts of hue and cry when even small mistakes are made and accuse DIAC of letting "these people" loose in the community to commit God know what illegal acts.

      You assume that the current high levels of arrivals will continue on indefinitely…

      Read more
    50. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "DIAC know that the pool of people wanting to come to Australia is very limited and is being rapidly drained by the high arrival levels. Their own annual statistics show this. They are expecting arrival levels to drop in the immediate future. Their own annual statistics show this. They are expecting arrival levels to drop in the immediate future."

      Do you have to support your assertions with sources, or does that only apply to me?

      report
    51. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      The Annual Reports of DIAC detail the number of applications for Humanitarian visas that they receive worldwide. This is the number of people that want to come to Australia as refugees. In the latest edition, at page 127

      "In 2011–12, 42,820 people lodged applications under the offshore program, compared with 54,389 in 2010–11. This was a decrease of 21 per cent and was due to the reduction in self-referred applicants"

      I have given you this text only because I am working with the report right…

      Read more
    52. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Sorry about the mangled quote.

      "When the arrival levels drop, a couple of years with humanitarian visa targets around 20,000 (which both parties have endorsed) and the backlog is gone."

      The increased intake includes a minimum of 12,000 for refugee component. I don't see much relevance to clearing any backlog of boat people if we're already approving 7,000 a year. The whole point of it is to make our humanitarian intake program more accessible to people who DON'T come by boat.

      report
    53. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Again with the old media reports in this case more that 4years old! Keep the faith!

      Unfortunately Maroloan Barimbing's response is completely obliterated by the voice over from the reporter Geoff Thompson. But I can tell you from the length of his answer that he said a hell of a lot more than the words Thompson quoted namely
      'We haven't decided whether they are refugees or not, but from an immigration point of view they are illegal visitors, and the law says they will be deported.'

      How are…

      Read more
    54. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      "But the critical point is you are still expecting us to believe that a one line statement by an obscure Immigration official quoted in a media report either defines or overrides the LAW of Indonesia as written and practised."

      The law of Indonesia as practised - arrest and deportation.

      report
    55. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I don't understand your comment,

      "The increased intake includes a minimum of 12,000 for refugee component"

      Last year 13,759 visa were issued to refugees, 6718 visas for offshore refugees including Women at Risk and 7041 visas for onshore refugees. The 20,000 target that Labor endorses is in place for this year is all for refugees and has no mandated onshore/offshore split. With i quarter to go it seems to be on target with a similar split to last year.

      Has the Coaliton modified its target policy again and I missed it?

      But as I said before that the number of arrivals will drop (and hence the future demand for onshore visas) and THEN the backlog can be cleared.

      report
    56. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      It was straight from the "expert" panels recommendations. You're absolutely out of your tree if you think arrivals will drop significantly without a radical policy change.

      report
    57. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell
    58. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      IMMEDIATE arrest and deportation? Jailed? I can't find where I said that. As you know, their law enforcers are famously corrupt up there, which could go a long way to explaining under enforcement.

      You missed some arrests:

      "“We were finally able to arrest them after their vessel became stranded at Batakte Beach,” Kupang Police spokesman Adj. Comr. Marzuki said as reported by Antara news."

      http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/07/03/kupang-police-detain-87-asylum-seekers.html

      More arrests here:

      http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/28/police-arrest-illegal-afghan-iraqi-immigrants.html

      By police, no less! For failing to possess proper immigration documents! What the hell is going on there?

      report
    59. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      More arrests:

      Bandung Police arrested 123 illegal immigrants from Iran that were staying overnight in two villas in Ciwidey, Bandung regency, West Java, while waiting to be dispatched to Australia by a boat from Cijayanti Beach, Cianjur regency.

      "Those foreign citizens were arrested on Wednesday under the supervision of Bandung Police as well as the immigration office," West Java Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Martinus Sitompul said on Tuesday, as quoted by Antara News Agency."

      http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/06/20/police-arrest-123-illegal-immigrants-bandung.html

      report
    60. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Illegal EXIT?!

      "A senior official said the Immigration Directorate General is in the process of deporting 13 Iranian illegal immigrants who attempted to leave Indonesia without going through immigration.

      “They were trying to avoid immigration on their way out,” Immigration directorate-general spokesman Maryoto Sumadi told The Jakarta Post on Thursday."

      http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/02/09/13-iranians-deported-illegal-exit-attempt.html

      He's senior that guy, too. Not some obscure nobody. Deported for illegal exit! What's that all about, Ken?

      report
    61. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Quote “The law of Indonesia as practised - arrest and deportation”
      “Do you concede that they arrest and deport these people?”

      You are now reaching the bottom of the barrel if you are going to rely on the “they are corrupt” argument and I won’t dignify it with a comment.

      If the police did “arrest them” for illegal activities why did they not put them in jail?
      Instead they “they will be handed over to immigration authorities for further processing,”
      And “We are now waiting for the police to transfer them to our detention center,” Silvester [an Immigration official] said.”

      I have warned you before about the Indonesian word “menangkap” and the English word “arrested”

      Again neither the police nor the immigration official mentioned “proper immigration documents”

      report
    62. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Again, note that Sr. Comr. Martinus Sitompul said they were “foreign citizens” not illegal immigrants only the reporter used this term.

      Again key words are Keys words “Afterwards, they will be handled by the immigration officer,"

      Aagian the warning about the word "arrest"

      report
    63. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Key words “trying to avoid immigration on their way out”

      Contrary to Chapter XI –Criminal Acts, Article 113
      “Any person who knowingly avoids entering or leaving Indonesian territory except through an inspection by immigration officials at Immigration Check Points as set forth in Article 9 (1) shall be punished with a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of Rp 100,000,000 (one hundred million rupiah).”

      If you mistrust my translation please tell me and I will post the Indonesian language version and you can have it translated at leisure. th

      There is an almost identical clause in Australia’s Migration Act

      Still no mention by official of “illegal immigrant”.

      report
    64. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I am done playing this diversionary word game until you answer these questions that I asked

      What were these people doing in Indonesia for a full year if, as you insist, “these people” are illegal and subject to immediate arrest and deportation?

      Furthermore what are 176 more of “these people” languishing in immigration detention centres in NTT or being transferred elsewhere because of lack of space. Why have they not been sent packing under your definition of Indonesian law?

      And these additional…

      Read more
    65. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"You are now reaching the bottom of the barrel if you are going to rely on the “they are corrupt” >argument and I won’t dignify it with a comment."

      Is it your position that corruption is not a problem in Indonesia? That's just divorced from reality.

      >"If the police did “arrest them” for illegal activities why did they not put them in jail?

      Ask the police, not me. They're the ones bragging about their arrest.

      >"I have warned you before about the Indonesian word “menangkap” and the English word “arrested”"

      This all boils down to you suggesting every one of the dozen or so reporters in question is unable to use the English language to report events accurately. That isn't at all persuasive. They're clearly familiar with the words "detained", "transferred" and "handed over".

      >"Again neither the police nor the immigration official mentioned “proper immigration documents”"

      Are you suggesting the report is inaccurate or dishonest?

      report
    66. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"Again, note that Sr. Comr. Martinus Sitompul said they were “foreign citizens” not illegal immigrants >only the reporter used this term."

      Nothing prevents them being both. The keyword would be "arrest", and being a "foreign citizen" per se would not be grounds for arrest. It is instructive that the reporter chose to use the same word for the handling of the smuggler. He got "arrested" too. How about that!

      report
    67. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      You're conceding that they engaged in an act of migration that contravenes the law, but don't accept that it constitutes illegal migration? That is plainly nuts.

      How exactly do you define "illegal migration"?

      report
    68. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"What were these people doing in Indonesia for a full year if, as you insist, “these people” are illegal >and subject to immediate arrest and deportation?"

      Now really, I never said immediate. You must stop that. Why weren't the Boston bombers arrested immediately? It took the police days to find and arrest them. Why was Bin Laden on the FBI Most Wanted list for over 10 years? Answer: because it takes time and resources to detect breaches of the law and then enforce it.

      >"Is the UNHCR delusional…

      Read more
    69. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Your answers and analogies are arrant nonsense simply constructed out of the air.
      In none of the examples you used from the JP were the people unknown or invisible to the authorities.

      The Afghan were known to the police for a year. Do you honestly believe it would take the authorities a year to determine they were in transit and this transit was illegal. How this transit is illegal you will have to show me.

      It is no secret that the people who come to Australia are drawn from those who run…

      Read more
    70. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Please read the post, What is illegal is not clearing Immigration Control on entering or leaving. They committed a crime not for any act of migration but the manner in which they departed. If an Indonesian citizen had done what they did, it still would be crime

      If you come back into Australia without coming through Immigration control you have commited a crime. Are you then an illegal migrant?

      Illegal migration is entering or staying in a country that is contrary to the law.
      Arriving in Indonesia and Australia to claim asylum is not illegal in either country.
      There is a legal difference between "arriving" and "entering".

      report
    71. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"The Afghan were known to the police for a year. Do you honestly believe it would take the authorities >a year to determine they were in transit and this transit was illegal. How this transit is illegal you will >have to show me."

      The were deported at their own request after being held for a year. Clearly it HAD been determined that their presence was illegal. They were arrested on their way here, presumably without checking out - another illegal exit.

      >"What is a secret are these people who…

      Read more
    72. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"They committed a crime not for any act of migration but the manner in which they departed."

      FFS. Departing one country bound for another is not migration? Now I've heard everything. I can't believe the mental hoops you people can jump through to cling to your beliefs.

      >"There is a legal difference between "arriving" and "entering"."

      Really? For arguments sake, maybe. But entering is the issue here. Everyone is question here either does so or tries to.

      report
    73. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      You are amazing! You make absolute assertions based on a total ignorance of how the Indonesian immigration system works and a total misinterpretation of English language media reports. Let me explain how the system works.

      There are two streams of arrivals of about equal size (as in Australia).

      The first stream arrives irregularly by boat and are detained by authorities. These are your entries by boat from Malaysia. At this point people make a claim for asylum. This claim negates any irregularities…

      Read more
    74. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Again you expose your ignorance.

      I depart the country regularly. This is not migration but I have to clear immigration control.

      Read Divison 5 of the Migration Act (Sections 165 to 175) and you will see that you "arrive" before immigration clearance and you "enter" after immigration clearance. Same in Indonesia.

      Not for aguments sake but solid black letter law, It is this legal no mans land that allows boat people to make asylum claims in both countries since you must be physically present in a country to make a claim,

      report
    75. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      ">Not for aguments sake but solid black letter law, It is this legal no mans land that allows boat people >to make asylum claims in both countries since you must be physically present in a country to make >a claim"

      Sure, and to be clear, I don't have a problem with them making a claim in Indonesia and staying there while it's processed. What is illegal, amongst other things, is their method of departure for Australia, as you conceded before. Your movements in and out of Australia are noted, but they're not a helpful analogy.

      report
    76. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"There are two streams of arrivals of about equal size (as in Australia)."

      That is a gross simplification and misrepresentation of the movement of illegals. There are people who enter illegally, by boat from Malaysia amongst other places, and disappear without having made a claim for asylum, people who depart illegally without having made any claim for asylum, and people who do both. People who do either or both are the illegal immigrants. Discussion of the legal status of people who register…

      Read more
    77. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Again you are wrong both as to the facts and to what I have conceded. Who is putting words into whose mouth?
      Leaving Indonesia to enter Australia illegally is not against Indonesian law. What is against Indonesian law is not clearing Immigration Control.
      To make it easy for you to understand there are is an exact analogy.
      The Australian government has made it clear they are opposed to the so called West Papuan Freedom Flotilla going to Indonesia. But even though the Flotilla have admitted they plan to break Indonesian immigration and other laws The government has also made it very clear that they have no power to stop them leaving Australia since they have cleared immigration in Cairns.
      But of course Australia of course is right to do this but Indonesia is wrong for taking the exactly the same course

      report
    78. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"What is against Indonesian law is not clearing Immigration Control."

      Yes, that is correct. Their migration from Indonesia is illegal. They are illegal migrants.

      That's a specious analogy. What do you suppose would happen if a people smuggler reported to immigration control? Would they clear him to engage in illegal people smuggling? Perhaps if he paid an adequate bribe. But you're a bit sensitive about discussing that problem, aren't you?

      report
    79. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      How about you show me how you know that the passengers don't clear Immigration Control?

      As I have tried to get into your head before, smuggling people INTO Indonesia and Australia is illegal, the passengers are not. Carriage of anyone outward bound is not. Crew are required to clear themselves and their vessels through Immigration control. If they told Immigration Control and told them he was taking people to Australia nothing would happen. Remember Indonesian crew of boats intercepted by Australian authorities are eventually returned to their home ports. Nothing happens to them.

      I am "sensitive" about discussing corruption in Indonesia only because, like two thirds of what you say, it is a diversion and your sneering references convince me that you know even less about an even more complex issue. This is why I will comment no further.

      report
    80. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Where do you get all this information? You will have to identify your sources before it is in any way believable.

      People who make a study of the movement of asylum seekers who arrive irregularly and who speak to refugees and officials in Indonesia agree that very few arrivals are undetected. Why? Firstly, because most arrivals want to claim asylum and present themselves to authorities. Secondly, foreign arrivals stand out like the proverbial and ALL residents including expats must have an identity…

      Read more
    81. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"How about you show me how you know that the passengers don't clear Immigration Control?"

      Does that seem at all likely to you? Don't answer yet.

      >"As I have tried to get into your head before, smuggling people INTO Indonesia and Australia is illegal, >the passengers are not. Carriage of anyone outward bound is not."

      You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

      http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-jails-australian-pakistani-people-smugglers/

      Let's think this through, Ken. What's involved in migration?

      -depart a country
      -travel
      -enter another country and stay

      If entering and staying in the destination is illegal, it is illegal migration.
      If travelling is illegal, it is illegal migration.
      If departing is illegal IT IS ILLEGAL MIGRATION!

      report
    82. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      >"How about you show me how you know that the passengers don't clear Immigration Control?"

      Do you believe their immigration controllers actually know when most of these boats depart for Australia and clear them to do so, but say nothing to Australian authorities? Or do the passengers give false information to immigration controllers?

      report
    83. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"foreign arrivals stand out like the proverbial"

      But a fishing boat full of them departing gets waved through immigration?

      report
    84. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      You are the one doing the seerching for a change. What is your answer and where does it come from?.

      report
    85. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I have made nothing up.

      You know it all. You go the source of the story and get the complete details. You go to the Indonesian immigration law UU6/ 2001 and see why the report doesn't gell in its current form. I'm done doing your research for you. You simply ignore it and move on to a differrent straw man full of air and based on hor media reports.

      Your logic is completely flawed.

      If I am non-citizen with Australian residency and a return visa, outward bound from Perth Airport…

      Read more
    86. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      I am not responding to irrelevent comments.

      Which information in the paper you have quoted contradicts my point that most arrivals by air and boat end up in the UNHCR system and that very few arrivals remain undetected?

      I have corresponded with Antje Missbach and Frieda Sinanuwith about this paper and a later one in ‘Inside Indonesia’ and discussed their research into people smuggling routes and they have never said anything about hordes of people completely bypassing the system to go directly to Australia. You can ask them if you wish, their contact details can be found at University of Melbourne Law School

      report
    87. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      How did you read the full story in 'The Australian'? It was locked.

      Did you read this bit in the story:

      "But because they tried to leave Indonesia illegally, by fishing boat RATHER THAN THROUGH AN IMMIGRATION CHECKPOINT they were subject to automatic deportation."

      Again don't go through immigration control - illegal. Does this passage imply that if they had gone though immigration control they would have been OK

      or does this passage

      "The 13 deportees had made the error of being…

      Read more
    88. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"I have corresponded with Antje Missbach and Frieda Sinanuwith about this paper and a later one in >‘Inside Indonesia’ and discussed their research into people smuggling routes and they have never said >anything about hordes of people completely bypassing the system to go directly to Australia."

      Asylum applications to the UNHCR in Indonesia in 2012:

      7,188

      http://popstats.unhcr.org/PSQ_RSD.aspx

      Boat arrivals in Australia in 2012:

      17,202

      http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/boatarrivals#_Toc347230718

      report
    89. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      I have a subscription.

      report
    90. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      >"Does this passage imply that if they had gone though immigration control they would have been OK"

      Hypothetically, yes, but that seems like quite a big if. I don't see a fishing boat full of Arabs passing the smell test. No pun intended.

      ">Your haven't been caught being selective have you? "

      Yes, I am most certainly being selective. I have said consistently that I refer to a subset of these people as illegals, specifically, the ones who make no application for protection in Indonesia and who breach their immigration laws to reach Australia.

      report
    91. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      OR who breach their immigration laws, I should say.

      report
    92. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      So what! What about the thousands who arrived in Indonesia years before 2012 and have been reident waitng for processing and resettlement. Even your trolling through the popular press has turned up the fact that srays of 2 to 5 years or more are common.

      report
    93. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Quick calculation of UNHCR applications in Indonesia, E&OE

      2007 - 287
      2008 - 385
      2009 - 3308
      2010 - 3905
      2011 - 4052
      2012 - 7188

      Boat arrivals in Australia during the period - over 30,000

      I can give this a thorough going over in Excel for you tonight, taking the running total of the asylum seeker population in Indonesia into account, but common sense should tell you that it isn't going to work out for you.

      report
    94. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      When you do your sums you will remember to subtract the boats that arrived from Sri Lanka (the fourth largest group of IMA) without transiting in Indonesia and those who come directly from Malaysia, Burma and Vietnam without transiting in Indonesia.

      And you will remember to to use a total of 17,202 people not 17,202 boats.

      report
    95. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      Indeed Peter. Many were shot in the street, hence why mum etc only went outside only if absolutely necessary. They grew their own food in those days so didnt have to go out much, though grand dad worked at the railway yard so had no choice. As such he was arrested & was only saved from execution for being hungarian because his mgr vouched for how nice & generous he was. My other grand dad was not so lucky, being in a small village he & all the hungarian males over 14 were 'disappeared'. You dont…

      Read more
    96. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      I didnt say the flood gates r open NOW. I asked everyone pro-unlimited immigration to explain how they would pay for the millions that would suddenly comes here.

      I have little doubt that if teh world knew that Aus was suddenly open for anyone to emigrate here than millions would do their best to do so.

      Europe/UK etc would be overrun quickly if they had an open door policy. Many if not most would be economic refugees.

      I wonder if immigrants r taught our laws & culture before being released…

      Read more
    97. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Robert Attila

      I was trying to point out that a competely egotistical view has been promoted in Australia that every refugee in the world would come here if we let them. This is complete and utter nonsense

      Anyone with a knowledge of refugees will tell you that the vast majority of refugees in the Middle East want to stay as close to the borders of their home country because their first priority is to return home. Palestinian refugees are the classic example. The vast majority have been clustered around the…

      Read more
    98. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Actually, I don't think there's anything to be gained by me rehashing the figures. If you look at the time series data at the UNHCR and compare it to the number of applications over the period, it is patently impossible that most boat arrivals here ever applied to the UNHCR in Indonesia. Anyone who's interested can confirm that:

      http://popstats.unhcr.org/PSQ_TMS.aspx

      I must say, for a student you don't seem to be possessed of much intellectual curiosity.

      report
    99. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Ah! I think you have at last realised that the issue has far more complexities complex than your simplistic media and politician driven "they are all illegal immigrants, Indonesia is causing all the problems" model can handle.

      You know nothing about my intellectual curiosity and my psyche can survive your opinion of it.

      report
    100. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      I've realised that you don't have much of a clue about the law, the numbers or the movement of illegals through Indonesia into Australia.

      report
    101. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      My psyche will also survive your unsubstantiated assertions. I take comfort in my old football coach’s advice, “When they start playing the man instead of the ball you know you’ve got’ em beat

      report
    102. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Maybe you should have paid more attention to your maths teacher's advice. You inability to grasp basic arithmetic has brought you undone here.

      If you want a detailed expose here you're going the right way about getting one.

      report
  9. R. Ambrose Raven

    none

    Brutal social policy is not merely evil in its own right. It also poisons society.

    "Boatpeople” have become a source of neurotic hysteria, exposing a cesspit of xenophobia and racism. That the “boat-people” generally are desperate people fleeing conflict is irrelevant to tirades so contemptuous of basic facts. Haters and racists don’t need Robben (sorry, Manus) Island, they need a long stretch on the couch with a psychoanalyst - perhaps one of the stature of Sigmund Freud given his focus on the study of desire, fantasy and neurosis.

    Note for instance haters’ ignoring of similar numbers of asylum-seekers who come by air, or visa overstayers.

    report
  10. Leigh Burrell

    Trophy hunter

    "Asylum tide swamping solution

    KEVIN Rudd's plans to halt the influx of asylum-seekers are buckling under the weight of nearly 3000 new boat arrivals and the failure of his regional people-smuggling summit to produce any concrete measures, as another five people drowned off Christmas Island...

    Yesterday's summit came as lawyers for the Iranian asylum-seeker challenging his removal to PNG confirmed they would move the matter from the Federal Court to the High Court, casting more uncertainty on the future of Labor's PNG Solution.

    Barrister Mark Robinson SC, acting for the 27-year-old known by the pseudonym S156, expressed confidence the challenge would invalidate what he said was the government's "silly" PNG policy."

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/asylum-tide-swamping-solution/story-fn9qr68y-1226700969273

    report
    1. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Morning Leigh,

      We've done a fact check before on the possibility of a legal challenge to the govt's "PNG Solution" and whether it's likely to go the same way as the Malaysia Solution in being knocked off by the courts: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-hard-would-it-be-to-defeat-the-png-asylum-seeker-deal-through-the-courts-16306

      And I have to say - for someone who declares himself to be "Enemy" of The Conversation, you certainly visit & post on our pages a lot... Are you secretly a little bit of a friend of ours?

      report
    2. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      Thanks for you reply. I do enjoy the site but I can't seem to change my profile details any more. I had assumed that was my punishment for all my tomfoolery.

      report
    3. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      That's good - you are a friend!

      If I get a chance, I'll take a look and see if there's any way to change it... May not be possible, but will let you know if it is.

      report
    4. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      Hey Leigh try posting a reply to this - I had a play with your profile & tried changing your job to Trophy hunter. Bit silly and not a fan of not using real jobs, much prefer you put down a real occupation. but you had it there anyway and this is partly a test...

      Enemy of The Conversation didn't show up anywhere obvious that I could change, so wondering if the change in job title will show up

      Otherwise I guess you're stuck with the old label!

      report
    5. Leigh Burrell

      Trophy hunter

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      I have a feeling it won't work but thanks for trying. How come you academics can tell us what the climate will be like in a hundred years, but you can't fix my profile? :)

      report
    6. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Leigh Burrell

      Well, perhaps if you had one of our many smart climate scientist or academic writers on the case, it might have been sorted for you, using their excellent computer modelling and analytical skills... :P

      But instead you got me, a journalist working here in Qld, far from our IT boffins based in Melbourne. So not as easy to wander over and ask them to look into things like this. But I am curious about it, so next time I'm down there, if I remember will ask them.

      report
  11. Peter Monaghan

    Self-employed

    The arguments against refugee admissions remind me of many Americans' insistence that English be officially declared the "official" language of states and even the whole country. Those are the majority's haughty attempts to impose themselves and their bigotry on minority populations – and to condescend to "let them speak Spanish at home."

    Here, however, is the reality about those who insist that English, as the language of the majority – of "we real Americans" - be the "official" language: They…

    Read more
    1. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Peter Monaghan

      Last doco i saw (ABC) said boat tickets were $10k. Dont recall if it was for a family or per seat.

      report
  12. Michael Rogers

    Retired

    The higher degree of rejection of asylum seekers arriving by air being rejected may be due to them having compromised there application by making false declarations on their visa application. I don't believe that you can get a visa to Australia if you state that the reason for your visit is to seek asylum under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Perhaps an immigration official/lawyer/fact checker could confirm this?

    As it is, airlines face heavy fines if they transport anyone to Australia…

    Read more
    1. Stewart Scott-Irving

      Education Consultant

      In reply to Michael Rogers

      Thankyou Michael. A much needed comment for such a potentially? divisive and over zealous Morrisson-lead commentary. While it is not a simple issue, I would hope that Australia would lead the required sensitivity and sensibly handled process in a world torn apart in so many countries. The UN itself does seem to have been tested on so many fronts and it is time an international peacekeeping and refugee handling body was more supported and utilised by those who claim to be members. The refugee situation is our GHC.... Global Humanitarian Crisis.

      report
  13. Greg North

    Retired Engineer

    There is another factor of disparity that may not be so easily determined and that is the government pressure that was put on a couple of years or so ago to speed up assessments and have people in detention for lesser amounts of time.
    If that pressure was fed through to immigration people doing initial assessments, it could well be that assessments were made with limited information.
    What many people unfamiliar with visa application processes may be aware of is that people from various countries…

    Read more
  14. Stewart Scott-Irving

    Education Consultant

    Thankyou Michael for your contribution... please pass this on to our ALP and Coalition reps.

    report
  15. John Crest

    logged in via email @live.com.au

    So we DO take more than our fair share.

    report
  16. Dianna Arthur
    Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Environmentalist

    Keep the FactChecks coming.

    I was unsurprised to find that more people arriving by plane were found NOT to be genuine refugees than the desperate measures used by people arriving in boats.

    Now, can we save mega amounts of money by assessing boat arrivals onshore? The savings can then be used to establish new migrants in their new country. Win/win. Except for bigots.

    :)

    report
    1. Robert Attila

      Business Analyst

      In reply to Dianna Arthur

      Dianna, pls be careful about calling people bigots. You arent telepathic so just because people do not agree with you doesnt automatically make them bigots nor make your definition of 'bigot' correct. In fact it makes the so called 'moral' more like hypocrites & bigots themselves, ie uncharitable to those that disagree. After all everyone has the right to an opinion without being slandered. And having an assumed high moral ground doesnt guarantee technical correctness (so to speak) whatsoever…

      Read more
  17. Matt Dawson

    Communications & Research Officer

    This is a great analysis. I am interested in Sara's review in which she says:

    "Australia is the first country in our region that some asylum seekers reach where they are able to access refugee status determination processes."

    Does this mean that Indonesia does not have a refugee resettlement program? And if so, what are their international legal obligations to asylum seekers who reach their country?

    Also I found this acronym a bit confused - "Non-Irregular Maritime Arrivals (Non-IMAs), meaning people arriving by plane."

    Shouldn't it be Irregular Non-Maritime Arrivals (INMA) because they are arriving by plane.

    report
    1. Liz Minchin
      Liz Minchin is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Queensland Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Dianna Arthur

      If George Orwell could read half the reports produced by governments or big businesses these days... I wish there was a KPI for killing off bad acronyms!

      report
    2. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Liz Minchin

      Actually I think the acronym borders on genius, as it perfectly encapsulates the obsession with boat-arrivals above and beyond the refugees who arrive by plane.

      report
    3. Sara Davies

      Senior Research Fellow, International Relations at Griffith University

      In reply to Matt Dawson

      Hi Matt, Indonesia has an obligation under customary international law to not forcibly return anyone who is at risk of persecution, torture or death. But, the country is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention nor 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. There is no refugee intake scheme in Indonesia. So for refugee status determination purposes (in Australia), having been in Indonesia does not count as a country of first asylum, for now. Cheers, Sara.

      report
  18. Ken Alderton

    PhD student, former CEO

    Two key sentences in this article need clarification

    1. “People arriving at an Australian airport and claiming asylum are placed in detention in Australia, and have their claims heard by a migration officer in the first instance…”

    According to the DIAC publication “Asylum Trends – Australia – Annual Publication: 2010-1” page 5, more than 90% of non-Irregular Maritime Arrivals (non-IMA) hold valid arrival visas of other types at the time of their application for protection. This means to me…

    Read more
    1. Sara Davies

      Senior Research Fellow, International Relations at Griffith University

      In reply to Ken Alderton

      Hi Ken, May I please reply to your second point. That review was on the protection obligations determination (POD) process and I am sure it does inform the review process. I believe the review focus is also focused on the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). Sara.

      report
    2. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO

      In reply to Sara Davies

      I also believe this is so but cannot find out any detail of whether further work will be done (or published) in view of Bob Carr's unflattering comments about the process. There are some indications of a turf war between DFAT and DIAC. Hence my qualification "part of the review"

      report
  19. Michael Leonard Furtado

    Doctor at University of Queensland

    Thanks, Alex and Sara, for your inestimable contribution to the discourse, which has languished within the ideological realm for far too long at the expense of truth and justice.

    Until quite recently, and even now in the various Coalition circles in which I mix, it has been put about that Julian Burnside's figure of 90% of arrivals being overturned on review and allowed to stay, was an exaggeration. Even Bob Carr, in his masterful skill at making black appear white, fudged these figures, in Labor's historic recent policy about-turn.

    Now that Scott Morrison's own figures concur with Burnside's, the only logical response in the interests of factuality, is to commend the policy substance of Burnside and his refugee advocates as being the only kind that can stand up to Morrison's truthful but knee-jerk reactionary dog-whistle.

    report