Did he not say my "alternative is community processing and working with other countries that didn't sign the refugee convention to transport refugees here"? How does that diverge from what I wrote?

What is it about the Malaysia solution that makes it so morally pure and saintly compared to the Liberal party's policy? It involved taking people who came to Australia and involuntarily sending them to a country which isn't a signatory to the refugee convention and where their human rights aren't guaranteed. Its ultimately purpose was to stop the flow of boat asylum seekers to Australia, which means people would be left to languish in countries like Indonesia which provides little welfare, education, healthcare etc. How's that any different from stopping boats directly and taking refugees from the UNCHR pool of applicants on the basis of need rather than geography? Don't you like black skinned refugees?

If Labor genuinely cared about deaths at sea they would've implemented the same policies they tore down which were proven to work, rather than trying to obtain political advantage by coming up with their own flawed, unproven and more expensive policy that most likely would've failed anyway.

You said take all of them and grazorblade never said that.

I know the angle you're going for but I can't take you seriously when you post absolute crap like that.

rusty you flog :lol:

-PB

I think it's a valid point. There seems to be some innuendo among those opposed to the governments policies , such as the greens, that middle eastern refugees shouldn't be resettled in countries like PNG, Nauru and Cambodia, perhaps because those races don't mix very well together, that the idea of arabs going into an Asian country like Cambodia and learning the language and becoming a positive contributor to the society isn't likely, and that they would have a better chance in a predominantly white country like Australia. It's perhaps just a subtle unconscious form of racism I noticed, but racism nonetheless.

[youtube]dHMJ3xM6gjI[/youtube]

The mental gymnastics to come to this conclusion is impressive. Don't think there might be a simpler explanation?

So Shorten has announced Labor's alternative to the Coalitions dreadful PaTH program:

Roffffff

-PB

Debate is on ABC news right now

Already sick of this moderator.

Heard this all before

Opposed, but ousted Abbot lolol

Shorten "the troof of the matter is..."

That twat from news.com.au lol

-PB

Big win by Bill.

Huge win by Malcolm.

Sure looks huge to me. :)

news.com.au is a lefties haven according to rusty :lol:

Q and A audiences always give the win to Labor

Election 2016: Bill Shorten declared winner of live Facebook debate with Malcolm Turnbull
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/technology/2016/06/17/17/37/malcolm-turnbull-and-bill-shorten-face-off-in-live-facebook-debate#sFQSZQ2qzPj2qkGc.99

Probably won't translate into anything useful though.

-PB

missed that my comment was replied to being in a different time zone
but mcjules did a good job replying in my absense haha

refugee issues are tough
the polls I have seen suggest that an overwhelming majority of australians believe that most "boat people" aren't genuine refugees

Hopefully the political winds eventually change on this issue

I'm still not sure what the practical aspects of your policy would be. Givme there's millions of asylum seekers trapped in Asia how many would you bring here and how would you bring them here? What would the cost be? (a real cost not a platitude like "we can't afford not to bring them here")

the community processing part of the policy would have negligible cost compared to detention centers which also are trivial in terms of percent of gdp
if one's aim was the cheapest policy that would be just community processing for whoever happened to arrive here and claim asylum

the regional part of the plan of working with other signatories of the un refugee convention to transport refugees from non-signatory nations to signatory nations* would have a cost which I would expect to be comparable to our current policy and negligible compared to gdp. If you want some specific estimate with numbers I could give you that....but someone would have to pay me academic wages for about 12 months to do the policy costing (or employ a bunch of people to do it in less time)



*that sentence is a mouthful

How do you know the cost would "negligible"? You still have to a) get them here safely, b ) run them through the proper security and health protocols, c) support them financially once they are released into the community, possibly for the rest of their lives d) pay for services such as language courses, mental health, etc. The cost would be millions per refugee over their entire lifespans.

"working with the other nations" is a brilliant strategy.
As pm I would work with other nations to end poverty. I would work with other countries to end cancer and disease. If I was Pm I would work with Russia and Iran to ensure nuclear disarmament. We can achieve anything by working together and with each other.

Shorten raises spectre of Orlando shootings in debate of same gay marriage plebiscite

I don't think anyone can take you seriously either when you think a few rogue imams preaching hate isn't anything to worry about:)

the community processing part of the strategy has no cost.
The life long benefits vs increase in tax revenue side is murkey but looks to be negligible either way. Here is a summary from the moderately right wing economist magazine http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688938-europes-new-arrivals-will-probably-dent-public-finances-not-wages-good-or
by contrast putting refugees in detention centers has long term costs without the offset of additional tax revenue.
The working with other signatories to transport refugees safely from non signatory nations to signatory is the only part which would have a cost but I doubt it would be as much as detention centers even if Australia paid 100% of the transportation costs


Even if we paid a 100% of the transportation costs it would still be a negligible effect as a percent of gdp. Working with other signatories in the region would get that below 100%. How much lower? That is unpredictable until you try it

To have an increase in tax revenue, you actually have to have these people job ready. I think that's the hurdle. How much will it cost to get them to the point where they become independent and not reliant on government assistance and where their contribution is a positive to the tax revenue system? Can you expect them to come in here and support themselves within a year? 2 years? Who knows.

One thing I've seen was to set up support services in regional centres with declining populations and labour shortages. Get them working part time in the agriculture industry and part time learning the language/culture/getting job ready. Kills 2 birds with one stone. Places with labour shortages get the workers they need, asylum seekers gain entry to the country and a job. It would also be cheaper to house them there as accommodation would be cheap compared to say, Sydney where it's $1mil for a run down 3 bedroom house.

The hurdle here is whether or not its 'fair' to force them into regional areas. I see no issue but I can see that people would have one.

Most refugees remain unemployed up to 10 years since arrival. Those that do end up paying tax usually work menial jobs and still receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. There is also significant costs in transporting, processing, vetting, housing, training, providing healthcare and education. There's also community costs as well such as longer wait times for social housing, increased crime rate, cultural tensions, increased competition for jobs, rising extremism, terrorism etc. But by far the biggest cost is the impact of having possibly millions of flocking into Asia and flooding our borders, hoping to ride the Australian gravy train which will increase all of these costs tenfold. Build it and they will come.

Trying to spin this as some sort of economic boon is incredulous.