It Might As Well Rain Until September

Discouraging people from taking the risks is definitely desirable. The question is – and yes this is the bleedin' obvious – how is it to be done? There are – again obviously – a few options. This is not a comment on the coalition policy but one way of deterring people is to make the conditions of arrival so terrible that they outweigh the threats that people are trying to get away from. I think that might be a bit extreme. And there are our international treaty obligations as well to think of and frankly our own view of ourselves as a humanitarian nation. Now this is not to use a bleeding heart tactic, I simply see that – depending on where people are coming from – it may not be possible to deter them short of sinking their boats. And no-one is proposing that. If effective deterrence is not possible then we need to look at other ways of managing the problem. In the political debate the coalition has put itself into the “get tough” basket and can't, even if it wanted to, get out of that particular basket. Labor is trapped, still effectively wedged, not wanting to be too tough but not wanting to appear soft either. I think they know there are other ways of dealing with the issue but those marginal seats in western Sydney won't hear anything other than the tough line.

Processing is extremely important. DIAC has its work cut out for it. In the various forms of detention centre they are involved in investigating the claims of new arrivals. I hope the process of investigating the folks who arrive by plane is just as thorough.

On-site/in-country processing does seem to be a better option. Clear the queues in the camps sort of approach. That might well be better than the tough deterrence tactic.

And yes, holding the boat arrivals and prioritising those in the camps may well be the way to go. The Migration Act does allow for indefinite detention so there's no legal obstruction (at present). We might find ourselves with more centres in more places which will be extremely expensive but it could be the best option, or perhaps the least worst option.

On the idea of moral superiority. I take the point. It's very easy to go all soppy or go completely tough on this issue if none of us have to deal with it. From a distance it's black and white and someone's view on this issue probably depends on their general political disposition. But close-up it's far more complex. The problem is that the issue will not be debated either in parliament or in public in a manner that looks closely at the issues. Like it or not this is a legacy of the Howard policy which saw a win for coalition when the Tampa arrived. Short term expediency won out, but Howard left us with a big political problem. Probably more of a problem for Labor than the coalition though.

 

of course it's immoral - it's politics! No, it isn't politics, it's simply the pursuit of power. It sounds like the coalition are using isolated instances in various places to bang the drum on this alleged criminal activity. No denying it happens, but the extent is the issue. I don't know the statistics but from my own experience here in SA there seems to be no huge outbreak of crime from settled asylum-seekers.

 

I agree. I don't think we can contribute a spike in crime to refugees, that is unfair and unfounded.

I would imagine that the one group that does come to mind would be the Sudanese. They are about 0.1% of the population and contribute around 1% of the crime, however most of that is in Victoria where there seems to be some organisation to their activities. Their crimes are quite violent though.

We had two African families in town and I assumed they were Sudanese, but one gentleman ( and he was a gentleman) quickly corrected me and said he was Angolan. He said the Sudanese and Somalians are terrible people. Terrible to their women. I passed it off as Continental discrimination, I mean why should Australians be the only racists ? I had dealings with this Sudanese family not long after and he was right, the man was an absolute nut job. Not nice at all. Very angry with the world and very angry with his new country. He believed they should get more money and live where ever they wish. He was very unhappy that he only had one bathroom in his government house and his because he lived over a km from the shops the government should pay for his taxi fare.

They have since moved to Melbourne after he made many enemies among his neighbors. The Angolan family are still here and we love them, great additions to our community.

Just two conflicting stories. This country is what you make of it. If you want to hate it and abuse its generosity it will respond in kind. If you love it and add to it's richness, it will again respond in kind.

 

Interesting slippery! Where I am we have a young family from Congo, who honestly fit in normally! I think it has a lot to do with community attitudes! I'd seen young newly migrant Turkish children who were happy go lucky and who were lovingly embraced by a school community turn "bad" once their involvement with the wider community began to expand! Unsurprisingly these guys were taunted, abused bashed because of their differences! This is where our communities can fail our migrants as far as I'm concerned! These young guys became heavily involved in crimes of violence! You don't have to wonder why! Like many race related issues, I think it is fair to say that a large percentage of Aussies are fairly tolerant, but it is the numbskulls who live off hate of anything different that need others to fiercely reprimand them!

 

TV don't get wrong but I don't prescribe to thought that we can blame others for our own actions. I for one know of the ignorance and fear that difference can cause and the ensuing abuse that can result from it. However you and you alone have every control over yourself, and two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that some migrants cop it rough does not excuse them for committing likewise crimes. Makes them no better than those that dealt them the same treatment, because it is rarely the people that deserve their anger that cop the retaliation.

you can not control the actions of others, but you have every ability to control your own.

 

So your saying if justice isn't forth coming then it is alright for perpetrators to continue doing what they are doing without consequence, the victim simply needs to get over it? There are larger scale examples including war that operate on the same principle! If the bully feels as though the world hates them because they're expected to simply get over it, it is solely their responsibility for how they're human emotion reacts! Our human minds and bodies can only take so much, especially if support mechanisms aren't in place! There is quite a large African community in southern brisbane, pretty sure Sudanese, anyway, they seemed pretty happy with australia, however, this particular individual with quite a calming persona stated something like: " it's disappointing when you encounter racism or discrimation, but there had been many positive experiences that cancel resentment out! Unfortunately, racism is still too common of an experience, because one bad racist a day, wrecks your whole day. It begins to have a negative effect on you, your emotions and whole well being, therefore tend to withdraw and find comfort in people of likeness mainly who are feeling the affects of the same issue! Yes, anger does well up naturally! There are laws in place to protect against racism and discrimination, but this doesn't stop the minor issues of abuse and covert racism!

We have pretty strong anti-litter and domestic violence campaigns, but you don't tend to see many anti-racism campaigns run over the television screen! Surely this would help curb ignorance which is the basis for issues in the first place! There my thoughts anyway!

 

True that both parties have locked this situation into a proliferation of bad policy that simply propagates the problem rather than resolve it. The only deterrent that seems to have any results against the trade of people smuggling is the hard line. This is line is extremely hard on the asylum-seekers but current efforts have absolutely no effect on the trade. I do consider that majority of people as TV have demonstrated would rather encapsulate the problems of Asylum-seekers into one big issue, so when you get a group of ignorant people who have high level of influence with a government such as the Western Sydney suburbs much is made of the scare tactics of influx of illegal immigrants.

Considering that (and I am not sure of the real figure) 1% or .1% of all asylum seekers are illegal immigrants, it seems stupid that costs in the billions are used just to detain asylum-seekers is incredible. Those arriving by legitimate means need to provide some ID of some description and obviously are far more easily traced as, again opinion, I believe they are processed far quicker than this particular method.

Refugee camps are far easier to clear queues but the family I discuss is in Indonesia and is not in a camp. I am also of the belief that there are many people in the same situation. Of course, I am being particular, but Eight years waiting and nobody raised an eyebrow when it finally hit the media a year ago. Yet, they still scream about long waiting times in Australia. Go figure, if they screamed about those who did the right thing and disadvantage those who circumvent those processes the people smuggling trade would be destroyed.

But the problem I see with any sort of approach to such a policy, is funding... The government has not got the funds to throw about (because they already have elsewhere) to bolster this type of policy. I find it stupid that not only the ALP and coalition are kicking this ball but the Greens as well. I would have thought that the Greens would not use this type of sleight of hand to promote their own pretence of morality.

Funding as stated above is real issue here.

Yes true, but while people simply remain ignorant they simply label anybody who opposes as racist bigots. As TV did with his comments

AND I QUOTE

How can one person consider the drowning of anybody a "laugh fest", But as you saw this very ignorance is welled up in the ideal that drowning is the fault of Asylum-seekers.

To consider a choice of what is morally correct in addressing the issue would have to demonstrate that those who deal with them in the same manner are amoral of ignorance that need to be told what to believe. This, in my belief is the result of Australian education gone wrong, in schools and universities when people do not get the right lessons and government interjects itself to tell the children what is right and wrong. Education is supposed to teach how to think not what to think. When a government corrupts a system to the point where people simply believe what they are told, the nation is in danger of collapse.

After that entire rant, people need to get more informed on the entire issue. The point TV now raises is also born of ignorance but is a valid point (NOT TV's IGNORANCE) To look at asylum-seekers and presume they are criminals and will break the laws of Australia in any greater measure than Australian's is ridiculous. But that being said deportation of those who do not wish to follow Australian law should possible considered, nothing to do with disposition. But obviously the lessons of the past get forgotten when you label groups of people as criminals (such as Vietnam vets) many will become criminal. Ignorance of the past lessons and behavioural reactions simply demonstrates the bigotry of many Australian people in this area.

 

If we see deterrence as the only response (and I need to add that I don't think you do, the “we” is our society in general) then we will continue to want to make it harder and harder in until it works. Taken to ridiculous extremes deterrence could mean shelling boats before they get into our territorial waters. That would probably be a breach of international law. But the exhortations to “tow them back” with the attendant physical dangers to both the boats and our Naval and Border Protection personnel are only a wee bit short of that extreme. Deterrence as regards the actual criminals who engage in people-smuggling might mean banging them up for very long sentences indeed. No problem with that though, it's where deterrence is rightly aimed.

The processing in sites around Australia is simply a way of handling the numbers. People have to be held until their status can be determined. From the little I know this can be a lengthy process for any individual.

Unfortunately I doubt if a clearing the camps policy would be invoked by any government now. I would think that many Australians would accuse the government of pandering, of not being serious about “keeping out illegals” and of bowing to the requirements of our regional neighbours. Like it or not this is, I believe, a direct result of the Howard policy after the Tampa event. I'd like to think that we, generally, would understand that it would be best for all if we helped to get people out of camps, out of countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia to mention only two, and processed in Australia and given refuge or flown back to country of origin. Now I don't think it's possible.

I share your pessimism on the bigotry. The issue has now been so politicised that I don't think the nation can possibly do some problem-solving and come up with more effective policies. I think the Coalition will struggle with this just as Labor has but for perhaps different reasons. In government the Coalition will feel bound to act using deterrence. It will escalate deterrence until just short of international criminal behaviour and then declare that it tried but it couldn't really do what it wanted because of outside agency. Labor will then, such is the nature of our system, fall on the government and attack it on the issue, forgetting that it too ignored other policy responses and went for the tough approach to court voters in critical seats. I would like to think that Labor in opposition would work with the government to find real solutions, but since that would reward the government and not the opposition I expect they will find it hard to do.

I do think the coalition in government will crack down on the conditions for people in detention though, that would be a huge, huge mistake.

 

Really, I only see 2 sides to this issue: We either take asylum seekers or we don't.

We either do what we need to do to get them here safetly or we simply deny them to access to australia!

Once we as a nation decide what we want to do then we can respond appropriately! So if the consensus is, lets welcome legitate arrivals with open arms, lets look at ways we can address safety issues from the end to which they start the arduous trip!

If we don't want them to come, we'll have to send a clear message that they are not welcome!

The whole argument is a twisted mess at the moment and people are seemingly trying to balance morality with immorality!

Can somebody post a poll on this dang issue....lol

 

True simple deterence is not the only action in a decent plan to eradicate the trade. processing faster out of the country before people get on the boats is important as the trade lives on the fact that they have the better option. Due to the ignorance of people who simply focus all attention on people who actually arrive by boat. The government promotes the ideal of boats and their capability to deal with boat people rather than dealing with the entire problem and people swallow it hook line and sinker. People discuss the Coalition method of turning the boats back but they do not really examine the process of the past to understand how many boats they turned back. This mindset (and that is all it is) makes the trade nervous and reduces the guarrentees they make. Their customers can no longer be certain that the best method is by boat.

Processing is necessary but simply clearing the camps is not the answer. In an ideal world one would be able to address the situation that forces refugees out of their homeland, but that would only end in the blame for unnecessary wars and accusation towards governments of murder and corruption. The fact that there is a need to be far more done before the refugee hits the boats is very important. The Tampa bay only aided the government of both sides to focus the attention of the people to the boat people and further consolidate the focus toward government sleight of hand.

Beginning the process should be the focus when they apply, and far more attention to be placed upon people who do apply at the first available access. It should not be necessary to wait for them to arrive in the country and people need to stop focusing on the people in Australia and begin to focus on the struggle to eradicate the reasons for need to take dangerous actions simply for the chance to be processed.

To put it simply MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE.

If the government is allowed to continue to pander to the ignorant, nothing will change. But should the people actually get themselves educated ( as the government is in no hurry to help) then maybe there will be chances for them to change the actions of government. BUT it appears to me that the people are happy in their own ignorance (in general) Governments will only address the areas that majority of the people focus their attention, so until they do change their own attitude governments will not.

True, and this is an unfortunate issue that has little to no effect on the trade of people smuggling but on the asylum-seekers themselves. While it is important to change the focus of the asylum-seekers from speed on arrival to speed of processing, hardening the process will make no change.

 

Again, this is the issue. By far it is not a black and white issue such as all government policies.

fact that Australia has decided to participate in accepting asylum-seekers seems to make your point redundant and without moral stance.



The fact that there are many different ways to apply and process and travelling to Australia are completely irrelevant to your point.

The fact that you seem to consider it an issue of morality as the government wish to make it is far more demonstrative to your understanding of the entire issue than to the reality of the situation.

 

Australians never decided to accept refugees or asylum seekers, because there was NO referendum on it.

300 politicians in Canberra decided to accept refugees and asylum seekers on behalf of everyone else in Australia, regardless of their opinion.

No one should be responsible for another person who makes an informed conscious decision to engage in criminal activity by paying illegal people smugglers $8000 to smuggle them into another country through a known backdoor process.

If these refugees/asylum seekers are so frightened for their lives, then why not go across land into Russia, and not endanger their lives and their children’s lives in a open sea voyage on leaky rickety boats to Australia.

What does Australia have that Russia doesn’t have that makes these asylum seekers risk their lives to get here?

Maybe Australia has a really easy welfare system, and free everything; coupled with an extremely gullible population who believe any “fairy story” they are told.

A woman and 2 kids = a $1500 per fortnight welfare pension - a yearly wage in the country they came from.

Anyone to suggest they are coming here for any other reason, is a simpleton.

The Government own report stated that over 85% of these boat asylum seekers were still on some form of welfare benefit up to 5 years after they arrived.

Asylum seekers are not the only ones that need to be sent back, some of these idiot do-gooders need to be shipped out with them. Otherwise Australia needs to think about changing its name to “refugee Island”.

 

Look Garry, people were basically concerned about terrorists and diseases, but totally dismissed those that were travelling by air! People also have this idea in their heads that asylum seekers are queue jumpers! How could it be more cue jumping than people who arrive by plane and decide to apply for refuge! The figures are 4 in 5 boat people are found to be legitimate as opposed to 1 in 5 plane arrivals. Anyway! If people are that bloody desperate and travelling by a leaky old boat is their only option then why the hell do australians want to crucify them........yes, yes, yes.....It is about the people smugglers! People use people smugglers as their secondary gripe to asylum seekers! It is all about fear and misconception! What can you do, obviously these people think, you are damnnned if you do and damnnned if you don't! If we are so concerned about their deaths at sea, then lets provide a bloody ferry or something! I'm sick of hearing about the people smuggling excuse.....it's the strawman in the whole argument!

 

The Coalition has constrained itself to taking a “tough” approach to the issue. It will say that it is being tough on the smugglers and not on the asylum-seekers but they will return the detention centres to the prison camps of the Howard regime. They will justify this to the xenophobic vote by arguing that asylum-seekers should not have access to free English language lessons, cable tv, internet access, international phone calls, well-equipped gyms, vocational classes, recreational activities and local excursions. They will suggest that these things have to be withdrawn or asylum-seekers will still want to come to Australia to live in the luxurious detention centres for a few years before being welcomed into the community.

The Coalition has to keep the focus on the boats and not on the other means of arrival. It was the Tampa that won the election for Howard and they know it. At the time Howard was confronted with Hansonism. In his shrewd manner he at once faintly repudiated Hanson and then grabbed her policies when he realised they were striking a chord with the electorate.

We really do have to abandon all current policies and start again. That won't happen.

 

We have a representative form of government which has no need of referenda for everyday policy questions.

No-one in Canberra or anywhere else has decided to accept anyone. What has been happening is that the government – of both persuasions – has followed its international treaty obligations. Howard did it to the letter of the law, Rudd and Gillard to the spirit of the law. Both the Coalition government and Labor government have run DIAC so as to process applications, again there are some policy differences between the two but there has never been a wholesale and uncritical acceptance of asylum-seekers.

Your comments about welfare are ridiculous. They live in Australia, not “where they came from” and are having to live in Australia's very high cost of living economic climate.

Why are so many still on welfare? Because they can't get work. Like many Australians who were born here.

 

Tampa, yes, and also, sadly and tragically, SIEV-X, helped win his election.

The tragic deaths of 353 asylum seekers at sea should have got Australians concerned and alarmed at the 'vicious' tactics the government was using to deter refugee boats - right down to firing cannons at them and demanding that the navy let one particular siev boat start sinking before they were permitted to rescue anyone. Despicable, deplorable stuff. And all this, without even beginning to talk of the 'scuttling' of refugee boats that was alleged quite a number of times.

What should have got Australians alarmed at the inhumane, despicable means the government went about to stop boats... didn't.

A dark cloud still remains over the Howard governments actions / inactions when SIEV-X when was in distress...

It was close to the election when 353 human beings lost their lives when SIEV-X sunk. Howard and Beasley went at each other trying to score election points.... while the plight of the 353 human beings that tragically lost their lives seemed to be way down the list of their concerns. An ugly, horrible time in Australian politics. A travesty for human rights. Howard whipped up a frenzy of hate in those years. And Gillard with her positioning on asylum seekers right now is appaling. It's a sad time in politics, for sure.

 

Firstly let us look at your queue jumping. As stated I know of a family who applied for asylum-seeker status at Australian consulate eight years ago, and still waiting for a response. if they took the boat they would have had an answer six years ago. Of course there is a queue, if not simply an administrative queue, and due to ignorance, preference is given to people who partake in an illegal trade that guaranties faster acceptance.

Do I hear you scream of injustice for the time taken to process that family???No, fact is nobody gave a second thought to their plight or similar families who are in the same predicament.

Do I hear the screams of how long it takes to process the detainee in Australia who arrive by Boat??? Without thought or reasoning they demand high turnover and due to numbers have many basic errors as the acceptance of the international criminal just past.

SO? This is your moral justification for berating everybody over the head with your opinion? A point totally irrelevant to the debate is justification?

As the government want you too. They come by boat because there is little to no alternative, In you haste to condemn people for demanding the government act on this point, your happy to allow criminal activity that has led to deaths of many just to please your pretence of morality (demonstrated by your justification).

As stated the issue is not black and white, as a small percentage arrive by boat but due to government created circumstances and ignorance of many. As you focus you efforts on condemning those that wish to stop the trade of people smuggling and stop the senseless death as the only debate. Fact is it is the only area of the debate you seem to know about and along with many ignorant people pretend their morals stop them from action.

Yes, the strawman of the issue.... Further demonstrating your ignorance and care of people who are in the predicament. This is the attitude the government want you to have so you will allow them to perpetuate the issue.

I am so glad you consider the death of anybody as a strawman issue... You should have started with that statement, I would not have wasted any time responding to your entire post... It disgusts me that this ignorance and bigotry comes from people who consider themselves to have any morals at all.

 

Yes, I have no doubt you are right. That is where all should demand for better and appropriate action. Provide better alternatives to the boats, provide better practices. Alas, as you see from TV on one side and others on the other, people will continue in their ignorant bliss on both sides of the debate.

I would hope that these people would be forced to be educated into these areas of detention. As I have previously state, Treat a person like a criminal they will have greater potential to be one. Again, history should be the education, but the ignorance of many will make that a pipe dream.

I disagree that the coalition needs to focus on the boat people, Both parties have perpetuated that ignorance and would appear to need that to keep it in play.

I to this day wondered why people condemned Hanson from the start, but after listening to her for a while, her bigotry (also born from ignorance) showed through. I mean her original speech was prefaced with the words "many people think..." when you listen to the speech, without the ignorance of bigotry, you see that what she said then, still exists today. People did feel the way she pointed out, and that needed to he changed. Again I blame the education system for the creation of that ignorance.

Alas, unfortunately I believe you are right. As TV demonstrates, many do not care about this and would rather score political points on the issue and not address it. While this ignorance continues to perpetuate, people will continue to die and people will continue to pat themselves on the back as being such upstanding citizens.

 

Politics??? It is a sad day for Australian humanity. This is the problem IMHO, we are still politicising the problem rather than facing it. Simply turning the boats back is not a resolution to the problem. Hard line on the boats should be the minimal address of the problem.

Now while I will be condemned, I do believe off shore processing is some of the answer for several points both for the government and asylum-seekers. Not the current system but a far more utopian system.

Let us say the government approach the governments around the world where people are most likely to get in the boats to sail to Australia and ask to create settlements (not camps, or detention centres but settlements) to house asylum-seekers for the time needed to process them. Using local people to staff and assist overseen by Australian representatives. This would need to have government, military and police of the nation to assist at a cost to Australia. This would have small injection into the countries economy further aiding that country. Then anybody who requests asylum or refugee status can be brought to these settlements from around the world. Once in the settlement the people can be given jobs, that they are paid for, in improvements to the settlement and after a while to surrounding districts. As they are wishing for status in Australia, needs to detain these people are redundant only to the point of protection thus reducing resources needed. Due to the fact it is unnecessary to detain people they can move about clothing and feeding themselves rather than just sitting about being treated like a criminal. Business within the confines would not be allowed, forcing the people to buy from the local area. This would provide further injection into that economy, I am sure most governments would jump at that along with other assurances.

All sounds great, but this utopia would need much detail for it to work and so it appears to be a pipe dream. But this would give the asylum-seekers community acceptance and pride rather than feeling criminally unaccepted by the wider community. People who come from such environments are far more likely to join the community rather than isolate themselves from it.

However, even after all that, it is important not to simply bash asylum-seekers from the boats with the hard line, alternatives need to be introduced so they do not have a need to get on the boat in first place.

By the way, blaming Howard for the problem is simply stupid, ALP has their hands dirty with thousands of deaths. Your comment simply is blind to the truth that both sides play this game and people continue to ignorantly be lead by them.

 

And further to that Garry it would allow education to be administered for readiness upon their arrival. Things like language, culture, and any other everyday skills that they would need once they arrive into our society. Although this may not break down all the barriers, it would go a long way to ease the initial burden these people face upon arrival in a totally foreign society.

 

Very much so, education not only at the language and culture but to trades and services as well. Many immigrants I have spoken to have been well established in trades throughout the world. In Australia however, they need to go back to education to have their qualifications accepted. This could be done while waiting, cost would be far less meaning that if they are refused little is wasted. One thing is that collaboration with countries were settlement is established on education could very well be beneficial to both countries. If anybody considers Australia has the best education system, I suggest they look at the ignorance of this topic.

However, the barriers will become more evident soon as people digest the scenario. Keep reading this and you will see what I mean. Some people will never be happy with anything done, unfortunately I am cynical enough to believe there is a greater percentage in Australia like this.

But I digress, there are many benefits to a program similar to this, but if administered for political gain, the program would suffer badly. Also, no longer would the turn back the boat policy. Simply throw them in a plane and land them at the settlement and place them in the administrative queue when they arrive. Then, the low life criminal element would not be able to promote their industry with any guarantee and people would far more prepared to apply at consulate.

ALL that said, it would involve spending money (not as much as they do now) overseas which the government has been reluctant to do. As can be demonstrated by the people who remain overseas waiting for their answer to the processing of their application.

 

labor party watchdog??? Amazing so many desperate right wingers still crying leftist propaganda at the ABC. The bias is not only completely right its off the chart right. Of course it has to be for any of the stinking lies the LNP and its backers want to have aussies buy are to have any credibility, which they still don't. The fact that your right wing rhetoric is still flooding our media, social media and discussion forums is indication enough for me that you fear your lies are not selling. That fear is justified. No matter how much money and lies you pour into your propaganda campaign aussies will still turn up to vote for the best government we have possibly ever had. Its certain that the LNP from Abbott down have absolutely zero to offer and to suggest that anyone would vote for a proven, self admitted incompetent liar with not a single policy is honestly "crazy talk".