Have you seen the new government ad?

[Waratah]

---

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 The policy is now completely outdated - and that goes for "onshore" and "offshore" facilities.

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".

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.

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.

[Aractus]

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)?

Off-shore processing that doesn't include it - where the asylum seekers can live in the community, not in detention, in PNG or Malaysia, or Indonesia, or wherever, while we process their claims. We have legal obligations to process their claims, and to grant asylum to refugees. We have regional resettlement programs in place for bringing in people from camps, and we should extend that same program to Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG. It is deplorable that we hold genuine refugees in detention for 2-3 years before granting asylum.

* Scrapping(mandatory detention) will also not do anything to reduce boat numbers.

No, but it reduces the cost dramatically, and allows that money to be freed up to be used by other targeted programs that can be made to benefit people more.

* 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 don't believe so. I believe it will act as a deterrent. I will also point out to you that while most boats come from Indonesian ports, not all of them do, and every single one of them carries genuine refugees on board. The refugee convention, which you can read here prohibits us from settling people permanently against their will in a country like PNG in a variety of situations. For instance Article 33 Paragraph 1:

• No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member-ship of a particular social group or political opinion.

And what about Article 31 Paraghraph 1:

• The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Just those two paragraphs alone should show you that this "solution" is in clear violation of international law. And you should know how I feel about violating international laws - I've said many times what my opinion on the USA and their history of torture is.

* 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".

That's a matter for Indonesian policy.

* 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.

Indonesia doesn't have to accept it. We're well within legal rights to return fishing boats to the ports they left from. We're well within legal rights to close our ports too. Turning boats back to port sends a clear message, and it is one thing that can be done.

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.

The policy will work as a deterrent. But the policy itself is in clear violation of the refugee convention and in clear violation of international law. AFAIK the government spent $2.5 million advertising in Australian newspapers and on Australian radios, and that cost does not include the overseas campaign.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uMsi3cQFBI

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3808536.htm

[Waratah]

Off-shore processing that doesn't include it - where the asylum seekers can live in the community, not in detention, in PNG or Malaysia, or Indonesia, or wherever, while we process their claims. We have legal obligations to process their claims, and to grant asylum to refugees. We have regional resettlement programs in place for bringing in people from camps, and we should extend that same program to Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG. It is deplorable that we hold genuine refugees in detention for 2-3 years before granting asylum.

Still will not stop the boats if people know they will be able to come to Australia anyway.Not a better solution people still dying. Please do your research, we do take in people from Indonesian detention centres. Stop making shit up.

No, but it reduces the cost dramatically, and allows that money to be freed up to be used by other targeted programs that can be made to benefit people more.

So we agree that your "better solution" is not a better solution. Could you provide the costing of both situations. Love to see how it is dramatically cost less. We have all seen how liberal party will destort the truth with costings

I don't believe so. I believe it will act as a deterrent. I will also point out to you that while most boats come from Indonesian ports, not all of them do, and every single one of them carries genuine refugees on board. The refugee convention, which you can read here prohibits us from settling people permanently against their will in a country like PNG in a variety of situations. For instance Article 33 Paragraph 1:

• No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member-ship of a particular social group or political opinion.

And what about Article 31 Paraghraph 1:

• The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Just those two paragraphs alone should show you that this "solution" is in clear violation of international law. And you should know how I feel about violating international laws - I've said many times what my opinion on the USA and their history of torture is.

First off if they are not coming to Australia they are not queue jumping, so you can say what you believe all you like still will not change that fact. It is not a clear violation of international laws. I think you are reading something that is not there.

That's a matter for Indonesian policy.

The same policy you want to implement in PNG? Make up your mind.

Indonesia doesn't have to accept it. We're well within legal rights to return fishing boats to the ports they left from. We're well within legal rights to close our ports too. Turning boats back to port sends a clear message, and it is one thing that can be done.

So you totally ignore my statement about what has happened in the past. No point in having people in the community as you want if they are dead.

[KichigaiNeko]

I think it's all a bit silly. Australia has shitloads of room for millions more people. It's one of the most underpopulated countries on this planet, ffs.

Australia doesn't have "shit-loads" of room, unless you are thinking of sending these refugees to a place with no water no food and no infrastructure. Then fuck yeah Australia can kill off people like that

[Aractus]

A whistleblower who worked at the Manus Island refugee detention centre in Papua New Guinea has spoken out, condemning it as not even fit to “serve as a dog kennel”.