I guess the argument here is once the word gets around that hopping in a boat headed for Australia is more likely get you a couple of years in a detention centre than the new life they are hoping for, then that should be enough to curtail the practice. So there shouldn't be too many people detained beyond whatever time it takes for the message to get around.

but they are being released into the community on temp visa's so not many detained like previously......please correct me if i am wrong...however i thought the majority were being placed?????

Very true, for Indonesia to refuse their boats and citizens entry they are effectively deeming them stateless; denying them of a basic human right...that being said turning back people who claim asylum contravenes the UN refugee convention of which Australia is a party to. So to cry foul if Indonesia does not accept the boats is hypocrisy of the highest order.

yes but to claim asylum you have to prove your identity....and this is being ignored by this pathetic government who are so inept that they will lie about anything to anyone.....

Leave Labor alone. They're not inept at lying.

Rudd announces deal to send all asylum boat arrivals to Papua New Guinea

No asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will be allowed to settle in the country, PM says

Lenore Taylor, political editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 July 2013 18.37 AEST

All asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement and none will be allowed to stay in the country, the prime minister has announced, as he sent out a draconian pre-election message that Australia’s borders are closed to refugees.

In what he said was “a clear and undiluted message to every people smuggler in the world that your business model is basically undermined”, Kevin Rudd said the new rules would apply initially for one year and there was no limit on the numbers of asylum seekers PNG would take.

In return, the government announced new aid to PNG for hospitals and universities and said it would pay unspecified “resettlement costs” for the refugees as well as bearing the costs of the expansion and upgrade of the Manus Island processing centre. Rudd said only that the package would “not be inexpensive” but no cost details were immediately available.

Refugee advocates said the substandard conditions in PNG’s Manus Island detention centre, the very high crime rates in the country and “daily pervasive human rights abuses” were evidence the new arrangements contravened Australia’s basic obligations to help refugees who come here.

The Greens leader, Christine Milne, said it was a “day of shame for Australia” and accused Rudd of “lurching so far to the right that he has leapfrogged Tony Abbott in terms of cruelty”.

Milne said it was “appalling” that Australia would “pay our most impoverished neighbour” so it could “dump” people there without any chance of safety or work or a decent life.

The Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, said the crackdown was “a promising development in offshore processing” which he welcomed, but said Australians should not trust Labor to stop the boats or implement the crackdown.

Under the new agreement between Australia and PNG, asylum seekers who arrive from Friday will have health checks and immunisations on Christmas Island and then, within weeks, will be transferred to Manus Island and “other centres” in PNG as yet unspecified.

The immigration minister, Tony Burke, who recently moved women and children off Manus Island because of substandard conditions, said families would not be sent to the centre until it was upgraded. PNG politicians suggested Friday its capacity would increase from 600 to 3,000.

Human rights lawyers are foreshadowing a legal challenge against the dramatic move, but the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said he was certain it was entirely in accordance with Australia’s domestic and international law obligations. He said PNG had now “withdrawn” the reservations it had lodged with the UN to the refugee convention.

Rudd said there was no cap or limit on the number of asylum seekers PNG had agreed to take, but he expected over time as people smugglers “got the message” the rate of arrivals would slow.

Rudd also announced a new international conference of immigration transit countries and said, as boat arrivals slowed, Labor would consider increasing the humanitarian intake from 20,000 to 27,000.

Papua New Guinea’s prime minister, Peter O'Neill, was with Rudd at the Brisbane announcement and was later briefing Abbott and the Coalition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop.

There are now just 200 asylum seekers in the detention centre on swampy, tropical Manus Island in northern PNG, which was established in 2001 as part of former prime minister John Howard’s “Pacific Solution”. It was closed in 2004 when there were no more detainees and reopened in 2012 when the Gillard government resumed offshore processing.

Conditions on the remote island have been controversial, with the UN high commissioner for refugees recently finding that, while improving, they were still below required international standards.

"Cramped living quarters were observed, while asylum seekers reported issues with the heat, privacy, hygiene and access to medical services,” the UNHCR found.

Guardian Australia recently reported that the joint Australia-Papua New Guinea committee set up to oversee processing on the island had never met.

Also contributing to hopes that the flow of asylum seekers will slow is news that the Indonesian government has agreed to Rudd’s request to make it harder for Iranians to enter the country, in a move that could slow the passage of asylum seekers planning to board boats bound for Australia.

The new directive from the Indonesian justice minister, Amir Syamsuddin, to deny Iranians the right to buy temporary visas upon arrival, addresses an issue raised by Rudd in recent talks with the Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The asylum crackdown is the third and final piece of policy repositioning Rudd wanted to complete before calling an election and comes after he brought forward the end of the fixed carbon price and dubbed himself the carbon tax “terminator”.

Rudd has also proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing the election of Labor leaders, in order to rebut Coalition claims that the “faceless” men could again dump him if Labor was voted back in. Those rules are expected to be endorsed at a special caucus meeting in the Sydney suburb of Balmain on Monday. Balmain and the central Queensland town of Barcaldine are claimed as the “birthplaces” of the ALP.

With pre-selections in all but a few very safe Liberal seats completed by Sunday and the opinion polls showing Labor’s electoral resurgence is holding, the way is now clear for Rudd to call an election as early as next week.

The changes announced on Friday were the latest in a series of asylum policy switches by the ALP.

When he was dumped as Labor leader in June 2010, Rudd appealed to his party not to “lurch to the right” on asylum policy.

Two weeks later, in the lead-up to the last federal election in 2010, Julia Gillard tore up Rudd’s policy and proposed the “Timor Solution”, proposing Timor Leste as the site for an offshore processing centre. That idea was rejected by the Timorese government.

After the election, Gillard proposed an exchange of asylum seekers for processed refugees from Malaysia, but that plan was struck down by the high court and Labor was unable to get parliament to support the legislation necessary to validate it. Gillard then convened an expert panel and, on its recommendation, shifted policy again to resume offshore processing on Manus Island and Nauru – as had long been advocated by the Coalition.

None of the policy lurches succeeded in stemming the flow of asylum seekers arriving by boat. More than 15,600 have arrived so far this year, filling detention facilities and leaving almost 17,000 people living in the community, in poverty, with no work rights and no idea when their claims are going to be heard.

A dramatic shift in asylum policy in 2001 helped Howard turn around poor polling and win the November federal election, after he refused permission for the MV Tampa to enter Australian waters with its cargo of rescued asylum seekers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/19/kevin-rudd-asylum-boats-png

You’ve been misled on boat people: Here are the facts

JULY 18, 2013 6:36 PM

At present, both major political parties favour the use of punitive measures that theoretically stem the arrival of boat people. This theory supposedly creates the facade that if Australia purports a harsh enough regime, hypothetical arrivals will cease, seeking instead their chances with the Taliban. In any case, it’s not the Australia we should strive for.

The etiquette of the checkout at Coles is not how it works when you are running for your life.

In the midst of this seeming solution, neither the government nor the opposition has considered the legitimacy or humanity of their approach. Neither has given the public an accurate and honest explanation, meaning they’ve instead been grievously misled by false statements and gross sensationalism by opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, and most recently by Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr.

It’s useful to start with a few basic facts: something which neither major party seems willing to do.

The debate about asylum seekers was poisoned from the beginning by the Howard government, which spoke ominously about “border control”, and referred to boat people as “illegals” and “queue-jumpers”. By that bit of dog-whistling, then-prime minister John Howard conveyed the idea that boat people were a risk to our community: that they had committed an offence by coming here and that they had behaved with some degree of moral obliquity.

Asylum seekers do not commit any offence by coming here. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every person has the right to seek asylum in any territory they can reach. It is a dismal reflection of the state of politics that Mr Morrison frequently refers to asylum seekers arriving by boat as “illegals”. He knows it is a blatant lie, but he also knows that it works.

As for “queue-jumping”, leave aside that there is no queue where boat people come from, the etiquette of the checkout at Coles is not how it works when you are running for your life.

“Border protection” is a grossly misleading term, used by both major parties. It implies that boat people are a threat to us. They are not. We do not need to be protected from asylum seekers: they need to be protected from their persecutors.

Border control is a legitimate concern, but is irrelevant to the discussion. About 4 million people arrive in Australia each year by orthodox means: they come for business, holidays, study etc. If 25,000 a year arrive without authority, it is absurd to suggest that we have “lost control” of our borders. Our borders are close to watertight. Even if this year’s rate of unauthorised arrivals continued (which is unlikely, given our history and geography), 25,000 unauthorised arrivals per year means that border control is effective in 99.3 per cent of cases. That is pretty good.

So what should Australia do with people who arrive here by boat seeking asylum? At present we spend from $200,000 to $450,000 per person per year to detain them on an indefinite basis. The cost depends on whether they are held in a metropolitan detention centre (cheapest) or a remote or offshore place (most expensive).

I believe it is reasonable that unauthorised arrivals should be detained initially for preliminary health and security checks. That detention should, however, be capped at one month. After that, while their refugee status is being determined, they should be released into the community on conditions that will ensure that they remain available for processing and (if necessary) removal. They should be allowed to work and live in dignity.

While their refugee status is being determined, they should be required to live in designated rural or regional areas: there are plenty of country towns that would be happy to receive them and benefit from their arrival. This approach has the advantage of being decent, humane, and vastly less expensive than the present approach. Nor does it damage people by subjecting them to the further mental trauma of not knowing when their indefinite detention will end, making their transition to becoming productive members of society, if and when they are determined to be owed protection, much easier.

Australia has signed the Refugee Convention. Indonesia has not. Asylum seekers who get to Indonesia live in perpetual fear of detection. In Indonesia, asylum seekers who are assessed as refugees may wait 20 or 30 years before they are offered a place in a third country. In the meantime they’re unable to seek employment and their children are deprived an education. Not surprisingly, some of them – those with initiative and courage – take a chance with a people smuggler and arrive in Australia.

Some reading this will think: “Well, they should wait their turn.” But what would you do? If you and your family faced persecution at the hands of the Taliban, would you wait in Kabul for a bullet; or hide in Indonesia for years on end waiting for another country to offer you protection? Or would you run for your life, and do whatever it took to get you and your family to safety? I know I would get to safety by hook or by crook. And if I got to a convention country, I would ask for protection.

Ask our politicians what they would do if they faced the same choice?

Why further punish an already vulnerable minority for their actions – when those same actions simply reflect our shared sense of humanity and our fierce instincts for survival.

Julian Burnside is a lawyer and human rights advocate. He will be speaking in Sydney with Dianne Hiles at Redfern Town Hall on Wednesday, July 24 as part of the event A New Way: New Politics, New Policies.

http://worldobserveronline.com/2013/07/18/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts/

Called it.

I should totally be the Prime Minister.

lol you did.

Ruddies out-libbed the libs.

Abbott is just stuttering rofl.

-PB

Will this post get this thread to 200 pages?

I think there should be two questions about refugees coming by boat,
How can we help people who are fleeing for their lives?
How can we stop people drowning when their boats sink?
I think the obvious answer is to help them before they get on the boats.
Give them something that is better than getting on boats, I suggest setting up a joint Indonesian Australia facility in Indonesia with those that are found to be refugees brought to live in Australia. Those who still attempt come by boats can be flown back to where they came from.

Practicalities man... What can we do in a foreign and unstable country to prevent desperate people trying to secure a future for their family?

This whole situation makes me upset to call myself an Australian.

Y'know what, if you're going to shut the borders to asylum seekers then you may as well close the doors completely and block ALL immigrants. Basically what Rudd is saying is "you must be at least upper-middle-class or better to obtain residence in our country".

Don't discriminate because of financial endowment. All or nothing.

This but in saying that, it costs shitloads to come over on a boat so you could argue that they had the money to go through correct and official avenues.

-PB

To come here through legitimate avenues you'd be looking at say $1500 for a plane ticket, somewhere to stay is going to cost you another say $2000 (whether that's staying in a hotel, first month's rent/bond, whatever), your visa application from a first world country sets you back around $500, you've also got cost of living (let's say $30/day?) So there's another $200/week, plus you've got to prove you've got $5,000 in your bank account before your Visa is approved. So all up coming to Australia through legitimate channels seeking long-term residency sets you back in excess of 9 grand. People smugglers only charge around 10k/head to come here by boat and the government feeds and shelters you for the 3 months it takes for your visa to be processed (so 12 weeks living expenses ($2400) plus three months rent & bond (say $3000)...It's probably cheaper to come here on a boat.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
What correct and official avenues?
You seriously think the country they are so desperate to leave is just going to send them an exit form in the post?

The UNHCR. There was an articles on one of news sites today that specifically talked to an ex-asylum seeker who voluntarily went back to Indonesia rather than wait on one of the Island detention centres, he was going to try another boat, but now he's going to sign up with the UN.

Unlikely

I dunno. I think it's got a chance.

I must say I'm quite disappointed in the policy. As a country I really think we should be doing more. I think it's going to be a nightmare to implement as well. But so far from what we've heard from the Libs, I feel like this is the better policy.

The way in which Abbott has turned such a worldwide crisis into this three word gimmicky slogan has been nothing short of a disgrace.

That's a bit rich given Abbott's policy.

What more can we do? We already resettle the second highest number of refugees per capita. We can increase our UNHCR annual intake but that isn't going to stop the deaths at sea. The refugee problem isn't Australia's to solve, there's about 42 million displaced people globally and we're always going to be small fish in terms of providing the solution. Rather than blowing our trumpets by having a weak, feel good policy that people smugglers love to exploit and inevitably results in more deaths at sea, we should do the smart, pragmatic thing and refuse illegal vessels entry into Australia. That would break the people smugglers model, empower the UNHCR to do their jobs more efficiently and most importantly stop all those poor families drowning at sea. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, whereas with all these wimpy humanitarian attitudes it's just killing people and facilitating people smuggling. That's where the real disgrace is, these moral sick purists putting policy above life.

Edited by rusty: 22/7/2013 11:22:52 AM

=d>

I find the fake concern of boat people from the LNP and it's supporters really disgusting, almost as disgusting as Rudd's "veer to the right"

While I agree with the points your making - after all, if someone crashes their car into your yard it's not your fault - that doesn't excuse the current attitudes of our incumbent political leaders (both Rudd and Abbott). More needs to be done to put pressure on Indonesia to stop these people from leaving Indonesian waters in vessels that aren't even designed to float in my bathtub let alone open seas. The finger needs to be pointed at the source of the problem, not the end product.

I think fake concern is better than the ALP and Greens blatant disregard for human life.

I get the feeling Abbott is a realist and pragmatist, at least he's not wasting time shedding crocodile tears and is out there talking about solutions. I doubt there will be much progress putting pressure on Indonesia, they aren't even signatories to the refugee convention and they are happy to get asylum seekers off their hands onto ours. I think if Abbott gets in they will cooperate with Australia on turning boats around, as they will realise that will stem the flow of asylum seekers passing through Indonesia on route to Australia.

Rudd was in Balmain this morning. :D :D :D :D :D

Shame it was at 8am for a meeting, and was gone before I woke up. :( :( :cry:

The Greenie Hippies had the local PORS unit out in force at Town Hall.





Edited by Heineken: 22/7/2013 01:11:33 PM

So they do more than just stand in front of the home end at Football matches?