From your blog
1 Ok you want to scrap it. So what are you replacing it with? That is the hard question to answer I think. Maybe we just dump them in the simpson desert and whoever survives is accepted?(NOT, only joking) Scrapping will also not do anything to reduce boat numbers.
2 I don't think how hard it is to apply for asylum is the problem, it is the sheer number of asylum seekers and the amount allowed for resettlement. I saw a documentary about a refugee camp and this one couple had been there for 17 years before they got approval to settle in Australia and they were not a couple anymore but a family. Maybe if we increased quota to say 100,000 or more it might start making a dent in the waiting times.
3 I thought you were against the coalition policy of turning boats back to Indonesia. What does happen to asylum seekers in Indonesia?
It's an ad to let people know that if they travel to Australia by boat without a visa they will be going to PNG. Simple straight forward message. I think if you wanted to settle in Australia you would either lookup online or go to a consulate for info, not an ad. If you were a member of the greens, yes you could complain about government ads, but come on this is minor compared with some liberal government paid campaigns. Of course it was done for political gain, but it also might work to stop boats.
Quote:Are there better solutions? I believe so. We want to stop the boats arriving from Indonesia, not stop accepting refugees. So what follows are my ideas as a strong solution to this problem, while accepting our humanitarian obligations.
First, scrap mandatory detention altogether. It's outrageously expensive, and offers no real benefits to us or to the asylum seekers.
Second, make it much easier for refugees to apply for asylum from Indonesia before they leave on a boat.
Third, turn boats back to Indonesia, and boats that do arrive should be sent to Papua New Guinea, where refugees will not be held in detention but will be given the opportunity to apply for asylum there in exactly the same way that they could have applied from Indonesia. This effectively removes any benefit of coming on a boat since your application has to be made in the same way.
1 Ok you want to scrap it. So what are you replacing it with? That is the hard question to answer I think. Maybe we just dump them in the simpson desert and whoever survives is accepted?(NOT, only joking) Scrapping will also not do anything to reduce boat numbers.
2 I don't think how hard it is to apply for asylum is the problem, it is the sheer number of asylum seekers and the amount allowed for resettlement. I saw a documentary about a refugee camp and this one couple had been there for 17 years before they got approval to settle in Australia and they were not a couple anymore but a family. Maybe if we increased quota to say 100,000 or more it might start making a dent in the waiting times.
3 I thought you were against the coalition policy of turning boats back to Indonesia. What does happen to asylum seekers in Indonesia?
Quote:The government ad you see in the background is obscene and offensive. It doesn't inform would-be refugees as to how they can legitimately apply for asylum in Australia, and secondly it is printed in Australian newspapers as "free" political advertising for the upcoming election - and that should concern everyone. The government has no right to spend taxpayer dollars for election ads. And I think it just proves that this policy is designed for political gain more than it is anything else, why else would you need to run propaganda ads to try and convince the public that your policy is right?
It's an ad to let people know that if they travel to Australia by boat without a visa they will be going to PNG. Simple straight forward message. I think if you wanted to settle in Australia you would either lookup online or go to a consulate for info, not an ad. If you were a member of the greens, yes you could complain about government ads, but come on this is minor compared with some liberal government paid campaigns. Of course it was done for political gain, but it also might work to stop boats.
