Dirk Baltzly: ""Mandatory detention" is not really about protecting the public. It is about deterring other asylum seekers."
Deterring asylum seekers (more accurately; stopping the boats) is about votes. Both Labor and the Coalition evidently think that the issue uppermost in the public mind is "border security". It's really up to the electorate to convince them otherwise. We should blame, not the government, but ourselves.

I think mandatory detention is more to keep people where they can be found and deported if their claims are rejected.

I think the concern in most peoples minds is the numbers - we are looking at over 1000 per month now - and increasing. If current trends continue - it could be 20000 next year? This is not insignificant.

And I think the left really need to take a look at the political realities of the situation. If the current government cannot find a solution - then we will have an Abbot government which will have Labor over a barrel - they will probably have no politically feasible route but to support whatever draconian measures Abbot wants to instal. And he will want to instal as draconian measures as he can - because he will want to wedge Labour.

So come on Greens - support the Malaysia solution - because it will stop the boats. It will stop the issue from being politicised. It will give Labour the strength to resist Abbot. It will lead to better long-term outcomes for asylum seekers.

We have the right to decide who enters this country. For me, it boils down to what we're entitled to do in support of that right. If we're entitled to do whatever it takes, then the answer is clear; sink the boats and leave any survivors to their fates.
I see no solution to the refugee problem. Nothing, at least, that we're in a position to do. The way we've been going doesn't address the issue, but it has won elections.
Refugees are a global issue. Countries like Australia, on the receiving end of refugee flows, are in no position to control them. History shows that the stated aim to break the people smuggler's business model cannot be achieved without at the same time "breaking" the people smuggled. As Sinclair Davidson said: "Breaking the people smuggler's business model means breaking the people; that is policy design, not some unintended consequence."
Nobody wants to see people take the risks inherent in the boat trip from Indonesia, but we aren't in a position to stop them. Not without doing unacceptable harm ourselves. I'd love to stop the boats, but I'm loath to become a monster in the attempt. We have been responsible for monstrous things. We've put children behind razor-wire and driven genuine refugees to despair, mental illness, self-harm & suicide.
It could be argued that we have a responsibility to discourage people from risking their lives taking dangerous voyages on unseaworthy vessels. History has shown that our attempts to do so have done more harm than good. In truth, our attempts have been based more on selfishness and intolerance than concern for the welfare of desperate people. Assertions of concern are no more than political spin and self-serving rationalisation. Responsibility in that field rests with nations upstream in the flow of refugees. It could best be argued that our responsibility is to support those nations in discharging their duties. For those nations, the responsibility lies in dealing with the smugglers not the people smuggled.
It is commonly asserted that making Australia more attractive (or less unattractive) encourages people to risk their lives trying to get here. That led me to ask; is death worse than what we've been doing to refugees?
I'd rather deal with an unsustainable flow of refugees than continue with the monstrous legacy of the Howard years.

All true.

Not sure exactly what you mean by the 'monstrous legacy of the Howard years'. Do you mean the demonisation of asylum seekers? Do you mean TPV's? Do you mean privatising the detention centres and preventing access?

Basically - the left have to choose their poison. Either support the Labour policy - or you will get the coalition policy (and you will ensure the defeat of Labour next year - and I'm not sure - are the Coalition any chance of gaining control of the Senate with a landslide victory?)

And is Malaysia so bad really? Do they even have mandatory detention there?

To just out-of-hand dismiss utilitarianism is silly. We make utilitarian decisions all of the time.

I also don't agree with your Sinclair Davidson quote about breaking the people smugglers business. All you actually need to do is take the profit out of it (ie remove the reward). This is what the coalition proved. This is what the Australian people know. This appears to the Australian people to be what the left just don't get.

I don't know if people think they can sway majority Australian opinion by emotional hand-wringing? I don't think you can. Australians are very level-headed and more than a bit cynical.

Not sure I agree with the whole 'evil people smuggler' bit either. Looks more like desperate fishermen trying to earn a few extra bucks and people helping other people get what they want (for a fee of course).

Gary Murphy: "Not sure exactly what you mean by the 'monstrous legacy of the Howard years'." I mean the Diabolic extreme to which he took refugee policy. He managed to so subvert the situation that our perversion is difficult to cure.
Gary Murphy: "Either support the Labour policy - or you will get the coalition policy ...". Are you sure those are the only options?
Gary Murphy: "To just out-of-hand dismiss utilitarianism is silly." Is what we're doing utilitarianism? I think it's far nastier than that.
Gary Murphy: "Australians are very level-headed and more than a bit cynical." John Howard saw the truth about us and exploited it. It won him elections that could not have been won any other way.

The only other option I have heard canvassed is to let them fly here. Can you think of any others?

I think the real concern of the electorate is the numbers. They seem to be increasing rapidly to the point where we will not be able to cope with them. I think letting them fly here will result in huge numbers.

"What we're doing"? Do you mean the Malaysia solution? TPV's? Could you elaborate please?

If you mean the politicisation of the issue then I fully agree with you. And not resolving the issue will see this continue.

I think you are misinterpreting Howard's 2001 election victory. It resulted from a combination of 9/11 and asylum seekers. Howard was effective - not because Australians are racist (which I don't think they really are) - but because he invoked our fear.

BTW Howard only ever won by default - Australians never liked him.

Gary Murphy: "The only other option I have heard canvassed is to let them fly here. Can you think of any others?" Are you trolling?
There's a political party called "The Greens". Their policy is mentioned elsewhere in these comments.
As far as I know, the vast majority of asylum seekers do arrive by air. The "stop the boats" mantra is pure politics. If politics can be considered in any way pure.
It has been suggested (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3313602.htm) that, if we're really concerned about the welfare of refugees, then perhaps we could minimise their risk by sending our own ships.
The proposal has merits:
* reduced risk to the lives of refugees;
* demolishes the people smugglers business model;
* contributes to meeting our duty to support nations upstream in the refugee flow;
* Australia controls who comes, how they travel and when & where they arrive;
* cost-effective (if we minimise time spent in expensive detention).
Elsewhere, I've jokingly suggested that we could sink the boats or adopt the islander tradition of eating unwelcome arrivals. Either would be a more effective deterrent, more honest and more merciful than what we do to them now. The latter suggestion has the merit of turning a problem into a resource; pre-packaged asylum-seeker meat in the supermarket refrigerator - or perhaps the Soylent Green approach.
Gary Murphy: "I think the real concern of the electorate is the numbers. They seem to be increasing rapidly to the point where we will not be able to cope with them." That's the perception created by diabolically effective liars like John Howard and Tony Abbott. In a global context, the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia is actually tiny.
Gary Murphy: "I think letting them fly here will result in huge numbers." As far as I know, far more asylum seekers do fly in than come by boat. At least, that was the case the last time I saw any figures. Look it up yourself.
Gary Murphy: "... Do you mean the Malaysia solution? TPV's? Could you elaborate please?" More trolling?
We have been responsible for putting children behind razor-wire and for driving genuine refugees to despair, mental illness, self-harm & suicide. Your question baffles me; probably, intentionally.
Gary Murphy: "Howard was effective - not because Australians are racist (which I don't think they really are) - but because he invoked our fear." John Howard recognised weaknesses in the Australian character and worked out how to exploit them. Preying on our fears and whipping up mob hysteria are among his tactics. Tony Abbott learned at the feet of the master.

Trolling? I thought I was just discussing the issue. I was under the impression that that is what this forum was for. You started with the flippant "Are you sure those are the only options?" and your other comment was a little ambiguous.

I found the Greens policy:
http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/immigration-and-refugees

No mandatory detention and asylum seekers able to move freely through the community and find work.

Now it is my opinion (feel free to ignore it or rebut it - I don't profess any special knowledge) that that will lead to very large numbers of people flying to Australia and seeking asylum. Probably large numbers of people who aren't genuine refugees but just want to work in Australia. Now that might not worry some people - but if you an Australian struggling to find work and housing - it probably does.

"Pure politics". Well yes - but my point is that if you don't take into account the political realities of the situation - you could end up with some very perverse outcomes.

"razor-wire". A highly emotive term - but the detention facilities probably are unneccessarily harsh and the vetting process sped up.

Tony Abbott - no argument there. If he is prepared to politicise climate change he is probably capable of pretty much anything.

If you don't want to discuss the issue with me David - just don't respond to my posts.

So John, now you bring your lazy racist whine over to here where the grown ups write and think.

How about this then - I am beaten by Freddie, so I come and beat you in retribution. Is that the right thing to do?

In this case 90 refugees drowned last week because the government send messages but no call for a rescue for people in trouble for 41 hours, they did not even give the Indonesians the number to call the people on the vessel.

Now before you whine about Indonesian waters, the only Indonesian or any other national waters are 20 nm from shorelines, then it is international waters.

And under SOLAS it makes no difference as rescue is paramount.

Now because those people drowned the idea is to let people get here safely and then send them away because they didn't drown.

We are talking about elderly Tamil women who have suffered almost 40 year of their lives, babies, kids, young mothers, unaccompanied children fleeing the taliban.

And crossing other nations is irrelevant to anything, everyone has to cross other nations to be safe.

And the Afghans don't sail from Afghanistan, how could they?

The worst thing about this is the arrogant assumption that we Aussies can trade human flesh just because we feel like it.

So you are a philosopher. I find your opinions not more logically or coherently argued than that of my teenage daughters.
Does this mean that I can apply for advanced standing for them at your university? Just asking?

Yes but how many countries and how long can they settle there and still be legit refugees. There was one on the media who had arrived here after settling in the US and another Afghan refused who had lived in Iran, Greece, the UK Ireland and tried for Canada before becoming a boat arrival. That is not to mention Captain Amed or whatever he was called who successfully duped immigration. If he can so can anyone else. If you once lived in a war zone does that permit you to travel around the world until you get the best deal on offer and then cry "refugee"?

That is why a central aspect of asylum law was codified in the Dublin Convention also known as Dublin two that you must apply for asylum in or from the first country of safe haven. Just to clarify something, are you advocating open borders to anyone who can show some element of a refugee? There are millions out there

Evidence for there being no moral high ground? Yes there are many who are soaked and shivering, but there are many more who have comfortable dry houses. Sharing and caring is what humans do when they have not been indoctrinated with messages of scarcity.

The present situation is basically onshore processing by default. This is the preferred policy of the Greens but it is leading to mass drownings. This outcome was widely predicted and as such it can be called immoral.

The offshore processing (whether Malaysia or Nauru) is designed to punish and frustrate, not to help people in need. Again it could not be called a morally righteous policy.

The last option could on one level qualify as being on the moral high ground, however the outcome is again predictable and simply not realistic. This option is to set up reception centres for refugees and after speedy processing send them to countries that are obligated to take them under the UNHCR convention.
Unfortunately the number of people that would likely use such a system to get a better and safer life for their family would likely be in the tens of millions. Very few countries have signed the UNHCR, Australia being one of them.
To absorb enough people to end the demand would mean a very big Australia and the end of any chance of environmental sustainability.

I wish I could think of some better options but I can't. What do you think?

It is useful to keep in mind that there is never a single cause for any event. Many factors link together to cause an outcome. The conditions at sea at present and overcrowding of unseaworthy boats are two contributing factors to the tragic drownings.

There is also a rush to get as many asylum seekers onto boats while there is onshore processing. The UN creates conventions for the treatment of refugees so that there are guidelines for fair and moral treatment of people in distress, and not ad hoc arrangements made according to electoral temperaments.

I really don't know where the tens of millions are coming from. Most people prefer to remain in their own countries in their own culture. Generally people don't seek an alternative home unless the conditions at home are severe.

Our enviroment could support more people if managed better.

There is an interesting letter in the Canberra Times this morning by two people who helped Vietnamese refugees in the past. They point out correctly that the new wave of asylum seekers are different. Whole boatloads of adult males who have presumably left their women and children in the dangers zone where presumably they will be now in even greater danger.

Yes, of course, the new wave of asylum seekers are different. Because the situation and times are different to Vietnam.

We live in the present, in the current conditions.

People develop different strategies according to the different hostilities they are confronted with.

Steve Hindle: "The present situation is basically onshore processing by default. This is the preferred policy of the Greens but it is leading to mass drownings. This outcome was widely predicted and as such it can be called immoral."
Is there a moral way for Australia to prevent the drownings? There are worse things than dying. In the name of "Border Protection", we impose some of them on asylum seekers.
Australia is not in a position to prevent people smuggling. Our only moral option is to give as much assistance as possible to those who are in a suitable position; upstream nations.
Steve Hindle: "... set up reception centres for refugees and after speedy processing send them to countries that are obligated to take them under the UNHCR convention."
As I understand it, the centres already exist. What's missing is the resources to process asylum seekers in a reasonable time.
Steve Hindle: "... the number of people that would likely use such a system to get a better and safer life for their family would likely be in the tens of millions ...".
Says who?
Steve Hindle: "To absorb enough people to end the demand would mean a very big Australia and the end of any chance of environmental sustainability."
Will the demand ever end? As I see it, we're on a sinking ship. We have three options:
1. Cooperate to prevent the ship sinking.
2. Cooperate so the ship sinks on an even keel and we all go down together.
3. Push as many people as possible to one end, so it sinks first and our end stays above water a little longer.
We seem to have chosen option 3.

To circumscribe and simplify a situation in this fashion has been shown to have often fatal consequences as is regularly reported in the press.
http://www.news.com.au/national/good-samaritan-killed-in-crash-at-warwick-farm/story-e6frfkvr-1226398160244
http://www.southernhighlandnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/highway-truck-tragedy-drivers-case-adjourned/2548863.aspx
Your suggested approach means that those who suffer in silence will be ignored.

1. Risk assessment had not previously been mentioned as a concept in this discussion. I certainly consider that it should be a key concept in this discussion, along with others. To argue that only a minority of good samaritans are killed is an interesting point. However,I do not consider myself merely a statistic, nor do I consider my family a mere statistic.
I recall a university student who reached out to a dysfunctional person. This act of compassion led to the shotgun slaying of herself and her two sisters, when her compassion was misinterpreted. This occurred in the next suburb.
I always explain to my family that their first priority is personal survival.
Do you disagree?
2. In the discussion to date, and in the discussion in Parliament, the people under discussion have barely mentioned other refugees in the region, nor other ways of prioritising need other than geographical proximity facilitated by access to a large amount of cash.
Further to this the analogy that was originally used failed to mention the possibility of others that might be in need.
In addition, it also failed to consider the possibility that rendering what may have been conceived as temporary assistance to one person in need, becomes permanent assistance, and not just for the individual but family and relatives. (Heard of Captain Emad?)
3. It concerns me that the media so easily hijacks even academic discussion by a focus on available "vision" selected with the cuteness factor in mind. (The Kardashian phenonomen highlights the obscenity of this approach to reality.)
4. Thus the assistance given to the proximate needy would surely be better distributed so that it would provide more COST EFFECTIVE assistance to a larger number.
5. Granted that you seem prepared to follow a couple of more recent philosophers, I would suggest that Mo Ibrahim and his approach to assisting others is more up-to-date and relevant approach. Of course, it also suffers from the difficulty that it takes a practical approach, and of course, he is an African ...

I think you have mis-remembered your Maslow's hierarchy. He was studying the top 1% of healthy affluent college students as he did not want to produce "a psychology of cripples'. The theory looks at process permitted in fortunate circumstances. It's quite incorrect to talk about 'giving up comforts at one level in order to move to a higher level'. The first 4 levels are deemed basic needs, they need to be met ongoingly. Only those that have 'metamotivation' once basic needs at met (the deficeincy needs) go on to be driven by 'being needs' and move to being driven by high culture / self-actualisation and so forth.

Cheryl,
I am so pleased that you have managed to familiarise yourself with the theory of Maslow.
You state that "They do not want to know that people in other parts of the world suffer war and tyranny and sometimes have to flee for their lives."
I was wondering where you obtained that opinion? Do you have any evidence?
In my extended family, the general approach has been to advance rather than to flee in such situations.
Cowardice is not a quality I would like to see become a new virtue in our society.
I note that Australian defence forces have a recruitment problem. Some demographics have a very low representation.

Human beings are equipped with both flight and fight responses, because different responses are required in different situations.

Persecution cannot be fought if all the persecuted are killed. In that situation it would be allowing the persecutors to win. Fleeing a no-win situation enables a person, if an hospitable refuge country can be found, to live and fight another day.

It is lucky that my father and his brothers who trained with broomsticks did not have this approach in World War II, or you would not be able to spout such arrant nonsense.

Yes but non of them are coming directly from persecution to Australia, with the possible exception of Tamils who in any case could go back to Tamil Nadu their ancestral homeland only forty miles away they could virtually walk there at low tide.The have all found safe haven before they get here, think of Captain Amed who was running businesses in Malaysia but still got residency

Yes that is why there must be orderly processing not first to reach an industrialized country getting priority. A friend of mine, a couple of years ago was sent to eastern Nepal to process people who ten years ago had been expelled from Bhutan under an ethnic cleansing program, pressure had been put on Australia to take some because the UNHCR did not like people being in camps for more than ten years.

This business always reminds me of the story of the American tourist who found some children playing with an seagull with a broken wing, towing it behind them like a kite, unable to make them stop she bought the bird from them. Next morning her hotel was surrounded by children who has caught seagulls and broken their wings so they could sell them to the American lady

People of course are free to sponsor migrants to Australia I wonder how many reading this blog have done so