Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 22, 2013 at 6:21 am)Waratah Wrote: 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.
The only reason that we ever had mandatory detention was to deter the boats. It did work for a time, but it no longer works. The policy is now completely outdated - and that goes for "onshore" and "offshore" facilities.
Quote: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.
Our current policy dictates that people that we accept from boats come off our total tally for allowed refugee settlement, which is now capped at 20,000 (it was 13,000). So if 5,000 people come in by boat one year, then 5,000 less people will be accepted from offshore applications - ie camps. We designed this policy that enables "queue jumping".
Quote:3 I thought you were against the coalition policy of turning boats back to Indonesia. What does happen to asylum seekers in Indonesia?
I'm all for returning the boats to port. But what I'm not for is mandatory detention - it costs us a mint ($1 billion/year), and offers no advantages anymore. The asylum seekers should be allowed to live in the PNG community, and told to make an application to the government from there. We shouldn't look at applications on arrival, we should have a firm policy that all applications must be made outside of Australia, and that the applicants must live and wait outside of Australia while their claim is processed. Assess their claims the same way that we do for people in camps, let them live in the PNG community while their claims are processed, and make them aware that their applications will not be looked at if they come to Australia without a visa.
Quote: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.
No it's not. It's printed in Australia directed to Australians. Asylum seekers in Indonesia aren't reading Australian newspapers in Indonesia.
What is the point of have quotes of my post if you just ignore what I have written and stick to what you have said in your blog and not adding anything new.
Here are the main points I would like you to address if you are going to reply to me:-
* So what are you replacing it with(mandatory detention)?
* Scrapping(mandatory detention) will also not do anything to reduce boat numbers.
* Totally ignored my number 2 reply, but if you want number 2 to be about queue jumping(avoid what you were talking about as usual), fine. This new policy of the government will also stop queue jumpers to Australia.
* I did a quick search about Indonesian policy of refugees and asylum seekers and I think you will find that they have detention centres as well.
I think you will have to do more research next time when you think you have "better solutions".
* How are you going to turn boats around to port when Indonesian will not accept it. Boat people will force the issue by destroying boats and putting people lives at risk as has been done in the past. This is a coalition policy which you have said you are against. Make up your mind.
The ads are in Indonesian papers as well as far as I am aware. I would not be surprised by ads on the internet as well. I heard on the radio that there are indications that the new policy is working. So the information must be getting through.
