Have you seen the new government ad?

[Aractus]

And before you fob this thread off as "humour", I actually do want to discuss the new asylum seeker policy. This is what the official government ad looks like:



The parody I made above is for a blog article I'm writing today. As you can clearly see I had no problem finding the same font that the government used.

That aside, the new policy is to no longer accept genuine asylum seekers arriving by boat into Australia, and instead to settle them into Papua New Guinea. The policy certainly has its advantages, not the least of which being that it should actually work to stop the boats. And that will mean that people won't drown trying to get to Christmas Island on overcrowded Indonesian fishing boats, and it will mean that the huge cost to the government in processing boat arrivals will finally be available for other uses, for instance we could spend it on foreign-aid.

Thoughts?

[Waratah]

At the moment I think the agreement is good and I hope it achieves what they set out to do. To many people have died. I don't think it will stop everyone attempting the dangerous trips because some people are that desperate.

Politically it has been one of the best moves I have seen by any party. The coalition as far as I am concerned has failed to cover this move but quite honestly I can't see how you can after already stating a policy which is not good enough IMO. It really come from nowhere. The coalition has been harping on about asylum seekers, as they should have since it has been a weak spot for ALP. The coalition decided to go the "tough on asylum seekers " stance, by saying they would tow the boats back and if people died it is not their fault it is the "people smugglers fault".

If you are a swing voter which policy would you choose?

If I was the coalition I would drop "asylum seekers" as a election issue, unless they are able to do some great spinning.

Your parody ad is fine but I am sure the coalition would not want to be associated with it, but I could be wrong. Did you say that you are a member of the Liberal party?

[NoraBrimstone]

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.

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

You think its about place, my dear friend? No, people do not wish to give a portion of their wealth to outsiders. Who would, really?
Especially if they do not contribute to the country the least bit.
For example they could welcome me, as I have a profession that can be of value in Australia perhaps. But what do asylum seekers have other than the fact that they're a reliability?

[Aractus]

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.

Actually no we don't, we are at capacity. But we can certainly accept way more refugees than 13,000 per year. I made my page now:

http://blog.aractus.com/boat-people.php

Here's the crust of my argument - our policies are fucking bullshit, and we need to update them for the current times!

[Cato]

As soon as I clicked on this thread Men At Work came on (listening to my 80s pop Pandora station). I now believe in all gods.

[Waratah]

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.

Actually no we don't, we are at capacity. But we can certainly accept way more refugees than 13,000 per year. I made my page now:

http://blog.aractus.com/boat-people.php

Here's the crust of my argument - our policies are fucking bullshit, and we need to update them for the current times!

Cannot read the blog due to the background.

[Aractus]

Ok I believe I've fixed the issue now by the use of a kill background link.

Your parody ad is fine but I am sure the coalition would not want to be associated with it, but I could be wrong. Did you say that you are a member of the Liberal party?

Yes I am, however as you can clearly see I disagree with the Coalition policy as well.

Politically it has been one of the best moves I have seen by any party. The coalition as far as I am concerned has failed to cover this move but quite honestly I can't see how you can after already stating a policy which is not good enough IMO. It really come from nowhere.

It's certainly not good enough when we're settling genuine refugees into 3rd world countries and not into Australia. And it appears that it still comes off our "humanitarian quota". So if 4,000 people arrive by boat and get permanent residency in PNG, that's 4,000 less people that we will process off-shore and give permanent residency to in Australia! Kevin Rudd is the one who came up with this dreadful policy.

[Waratah]

From your blog

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?

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.

[Aractus]

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.