Is there a case for setting up designated refugee camps in Malaysia / Indonesia so that their living conditions could be improved.

I found this link on another article about refugee living conditions in Malaysia:

http://repository.forcedmigration.org/show_metadata.jsp?pid=fmo:5596

An impressive panel, but are they the only experts we need? Check this piece by Stuart Waters who raises some very interesting ideas. http://www.twyfords.com.au/news-and-media/our-blog/new-thinking-in-engagement-the-key-to-an-enduring-refugee-solution

I am always puzzled as to the resources and focus that is put on people claiming refugee status that land in Australia.
If one takes a global view then to me it always seems a curious use of resources.
The asylum seeker industry seems curiously focused on predominantly wealthy, young men, and to encourage this demographic.
Would it not be more appropriate to focus resources on camps in countries of first entry, and to educate as many as possible there, and to allow those at most risk and who could benefit most to then move to Australia.
Could the experts comment on the morality of self-selection.

True refugees in Australia are the people who occupied this land mass for more than 40k years.

They have no place to go and they are the most disadvantaged people on this planet like the Inuits and Red Indians etc.

The refugee conventions and laws etc are very old hat and out of date.

Some groups are exploiting these so called 'humanitarian" laws and practices with the help of powerful institutions (include governments and their intelligence services) for their own objectives.

There are tens of millions of refugees all over the world and they rely on hand outs from poor countries to survive. If we are really sorry about refugees we should take refugees from these places in a first come basis. We did this by taking refugees from African and South American countries.

At the moment we have a moral obligation for the refugees from Afghanistan as we are there to save them.

We have no special obligation to any other group who comes here claiming refugees other than to send them back or send them to the refugee camps where we get refugees in an orderly manner.

Let our emotions be based on the plight of all refugees in the world, not on a few who appear on our shores claiming asylum after pressing the remote of a bomb that blew up innocent civilians before leaving for asylum.

True refugees in Australia are the people who lived here for more than 40k and they are the most disadvantaged people on the planet like similar people in Canada and US etc. Unfortunately they have nowhere to go to seek refuge or asylum.
There are millions of refugees in the world who are much worse off than the ones who land here dead or alive. They are rotting away in places like Africa, South America and Asia.
We should not favour those who land here just because they are the ones we see, hear and feel. We should look at all refugees in the world with exactly the same consideration.
We did this by taking refugees from South America as well as from Africa.
There are two main groups of people who come here at the moment.
We have a moral obligation to those who come from Afghanistan as we are there to save them. At least we should entertain them until we fix Afghanistan with the help of our mates.
Anyone else who land here should be returned or send to the places we take refugees in an orderly manner like places from Africa. This will help them to understand who is really a refugee is and those who support them will learn what a refugee is.
There are powerful institutions, including governments and their intelligence service behind these asylum seekers. Some of them have pressed the remote that exploded a bomb killing civilians before they left to seek asylum.
The current refugee and asylum conventions, laws and practices are out of date and we should seek them to be changed. The same powerful institutions are exploiting these laws to achieve their own goals.

I think the big issue with the so-called asylum seekers is that most board the boats in Indonesia. Once they have reached Indonesia, they are quite safe and are no longer in danger of the persecution they might have suffered in their home countries. also, for the muslim asylum seekers, Indonesia is a much better religious and cultural fit than Australia. A female muslim counsellor said it all on SBS's Insight one night, in saying... "but Australia has the wonderful Centrelink who pays for everybody". Their reasons for coming here are strictly financial, else they would apply through proper channels, and not destroy their papers.

COMMENT TO A PANELIST POST ELSEWHWRE

"Refugee arrival trends across the decades from Indo-China in the 1970s, the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka today, reflect contemporary crises. We can no sooner predict where the next group of refugees will emerge from than we can their demographic profile.”

The writer is either not aware or is stating a blatant lie. The so called refugees from Sri Lanka are not just arrivals of today.
This takes me back almost thirty years to a rally at the former city square in Melbourne opposite the Town hall. The meeting was organized by the local socialists lead by Direct Action. I was one of the onlookers listening to the lies being said by the speakers how bad the Tamils in that country are treated by the majority and are being killed.
A man standing next to me asked me about what is going on. I explained to him that this a meeting held by socialists to support Tamils in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to migrate here as refugees. He asked me why Australia is not allowing Afghans to come as refugees when the USSR forces are killing them and millions of them are refugees.
He said he was a descendant of the Afghan Camel drivers who came here a long time ago.
I am sure more than twenty thousand Tamils and other Indians arrived in Australia claiming to be refugees from Sri Lanka during the eighties. Tens of thousands went to France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, US and hundreds of thousands to Canada during the same time.
The so called refugees from Sri Lanka are a unique lot and show how certain institutions can mislead the West including Australia.
The Tamils and other Indians in Ceylon are not different to those in Mauritius, Fiji, South Africa, Malaysia and other countries of the former British-Indian Empire now the Indian Empire. It was built by British violent aggression and oppression and Indian non-violent aggression and oppression. People react to violent aggression as it is visible but wounds of non-violent aggression are not visible but the suffering is worse (ask a Dalit) .
I am sure the panelists are well versed with some aspects of Tamil terrorists (Tamil rebels) in Sri Lanka. These terrorist were trained in Palestine Refugee Camps and in Tamil Nadu in India during the late Seventies and early eighties by the “Third Eye” the most secretive and ruthless intelligence service in the world.
They had two objectives and one of them was to send Tamils and other Indians to the West as refugees. This type of work never ends and is a work in progress.
I have to agree “and Sri Lanka today, reflect contemporary crises”.

.

It appears any argument about whether the boats can be turned back is now over with the promise of joint Indonesian - Australian patrols http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/jakarta-agrees-to-joint-patrols-for-asylum-boats/story-fn59nqld-1226433393250

What would be the purpose of sabotaging or scuttling your craft if you are going to be picked up by an Indonesian vessel and taken back to Indonesia?

The problem of asylum seeker deaths at sea is about to be solved without any academic input at all!

An interesting development in that an asylum seeker boar has been in contact with the Australian Marine Safety Authority saying its engine is broken and it is taking in water. It is to the North West of Bali, which means to the North of the Indonesian Archipelago http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/asylum-boat-in-distress-off-bali/4155326
"AMSA told Indonesian rescue authorities, but they failed to find it and called off the search overnight, saying they were ill-equipped to deal with the situation
"

From the backgrounds of this `Expert' Panel, it appears to be extremely heavily weighted towards sympathisers with the rights of asylum seekers and not with those who can examine the impact on Australian society of unrestricted and unlimited immigration.

It is long overdue that this issue is looked at from an Australian viewpoint.

Firstly, world history and current events around the world demonstrate that multi-ethnic groups occupying the same country/territory inevitably results in social instability and violent conflict. e.g. Yugoslavia, Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, etc etc. Ethnic enclaves are already formiong in Australia as they have done in France, Britain, Holland, and Germany and many are demanding religious and cultural changes by the majority populations, rather than their integration and absorption into the existing cultures.
The second major issue is the impact of continuing immigration of all forms on the Australian infrastructure. There are already major issues of lack of affordable housing, inadequate public transport and road networks, overwhelmed medical and health services, limited employment opportunities, insufficiencies of water and power,etc. What also has to be considered is the impact of expanding these facilities and amenities on the environment with the loss of farmland, bushland, and paddocks as cities and towns grow ever outwards. Many native animal species, birds, and insects are already under threat of extinction caused by urban growth and many thousands of native animals are being slaughtered (culled) to enable human population expansion. (this has been one of the major impacts of population growth in Britain in the last 50 years).
So the question is, what kind of Australia do we want in the future and how does immigration fir into this?. Then, and only then. we can we make reasoned decisions concerning how many and which immigrants are permitted to enter Australia.
Do we want to risk creating a society constantly engaged in internal violent concflicts,?. How much of Australia's flora and fauna do we intend to destroy to advance the human population?.
I'm quite sure this `Expert' panel will give little, or no, consideration to these factors.

Just a gentle reminder that i and thousands of other Australians have been overstayers as we travelled the world working here and there. It is somewhat hypocritical to attack overstayers with vehemence when young Australians (many of us were young once) have been doing the same.
That said this issue is a red herring to the discussion at hand.

So toxic and polarised have many Australian attitudes become towards asylum seekers arriving by boat that the minute the discussion starts there is an explosion of anger in all directions.

It seems to me that the that we need to focus on how best to save lives which was the stated intention of the expert panel.
For starters could i advance the case for Australians grappling with this idea that somehow we can avoid any asylum seeker ever landing on our shores if we just get the politics right or elect the right party and all will be solved.
Why do we think that we should not have asylum seekers knocking on our door when every other country from time immemorial has had people coming to them when in trouble.
What is this exceptionalism that we think we can avoid the responsibility which falls on all others? Where does it come from? Why do we think we are so special that we should not be expected to open our doors and take our share ?

Pamela Curr - "Why do we think we are so special that we should not be expected to open our doors and take our share ? ".
I would venture to suggest that Australians have a number of concerns regarding the current situation and which are not being addressed.
Firstly, those who apply for legitimate immigration to Australia have to undergo very stringent tests before being accepted including health examinations for diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS etc), Criminal revords, and possible Terrorist activities and associations. Diseases such as smallpox. typhoid, severe Flu pandemics, etc are still rampant in some countries. Australians have therefore the right to be protected from such diseases and the possibility of an epidemic from such diseases.
Secondly, how can criminal records of illegal entrants be checked when they have destroyed their ID documents?. Australians have the right to be protected from criminal conduct by anyone entering the country.
Thirdly, how can past terrorist activity and sympathies be checked?. Some terrorists have already found their way into Australia and Australians have the right to be protected from such persons. Britain has already paid a heavy price for not excluding those with links to terrorism.
Unless and until you and other advocates for unrestricted entry can give assurance to Australians that they are being protected from such possibilities, then there will always be antipathies towards those who seek illegal entry into Australia.

To those who worry about asylum seekers bringing in disease. Every year 14 million plus tourists come into Australia without health checks. The movement of people is a fact of life. Asylum seekers are no more likely than tourists to have communicable diseases less likely in the case of some diseases such as AIDS which have not afflicted all countries equally.
On arrival asylum seekers by boat have a medical check before they are released into the community. People coming by air don't have checks.

Secondly re ID docs. Asylum seekers come by boat precisely because they cannot get on a plane because they cannot get a visa. Most have dodgy passports at best which the people smugglers take back on arrival in Malaysia or Indonesia so that they can be recycled for others. Those lucky enough to have a passport are told by smugglers that they should throw them out because Australia will send them back if they have a passport. Actually arriving without docs is the worst thing but they do not know this. Many may have an ID document so they do not have nothing. Also in the refugee process asylum seekers send for documents from home to prove their case. Don't believe everything that the aggrieved DIAC employees leak to Tabloid media. No one gets a refugee visa with out proof.
There is a special unit called NIVA National Identification Verification Unit who trawl through peoples lives, ask questions in home countries ( which puts people at risk ) and has all manner of data bases to find out who people are. Even when they get evidence and documents they may say that they don't believe them. A girl from an African country was left in limbo for years because a forged document said that she was from a middle eastern country. NIVA chose to accept this evidence instead of the commonsense evidence before them that a black African girl speaking a particular language does not look like ans is unlikely to be a Middle-eastern girl.

As for terrorists- well why would you get on a boat and be subjected to minute appraisal if you wanted to come to Australia to commit a terrorist act. Rather fly in by air on a tourist visa and pass through without trouble. AND since when has Australia had any terrorist activity despite multiple warnings from Canberra. Apologies for typos.

Dear Sir,i have an irrelevant question.I am married with Jinat Afroza through our personal choice.Her father has not recognized it.Her father is powerful and thana aamir(president) of Bangladesh-Jamaat-Islami ,Satkania thana,Chittagong district,Bangladesh.They attacked me two to three times to kill me.Now i and my wife want to live.Our country is not safe at all for us.How we can find a better way to live?Sir please suggest me.Now we are in Bangladesh.