Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Psyber]

THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

A lovely sentiment, but one of those (as Shakespeare wrote of another ideal) "more honour'd in the breach than the observance", all around the world.

Origin From Shakespeare's Hamlet, 1602:

HAMLET Ay, marry, is't:
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the observance.

[tigerpie]

By Queue i mean the process that has to be gone through in order to establish individual cases circumstances.
People who are running from the law, I.E. Christoher Skases of the world dont slip through the cracks of justice by saying they are refugees.
Or a known terrorist or war criminal slipping through.
Wait your turn unfortunately.

[bulldogproud2]

By Queue i mean the process that has to be gone through in order to establish individual cases circumstances.
People who are running from the law, I.E. Christoher Skases of the world dont slip through the cracks of justice by saying they are refugees.
Or a known terrorist or war criminal slipping through.
Wait your turn unfortunately.

Tigerpie,
I would accept that if there was equal effort put into the checks of each person at the refugee camps. Unfortunately, what you and some of our politicians are implying is that it takes up to thirty years to check the credentials of a range of people. Now, any sane rational balanced person would realise that that is not the case. People are not selected for entry into a new country based on just the time taken to check their individual circumstances. As such there is no actual queue for those seeking refugee status. There is no such thing as equal rights for each individual asylum seeker in the refugee camps. The concept of 'waiting your turn' is totally foreign in the treatment of asylum seekers. Thus the idea of a 'queue' is a total furphy propagated only by those who do not want to see asylum seekers come into Australia. It is a defence mechanism they employ to allow themselves to feel better about denying access to asylum seekers coming by boat.
Cheers

[dedja]

exactly ... especially when the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive by plane, by that's not xenophobic enough for some to worry about.

[Q.]

Onshore processing for both plane and boat arrivals. Saves us a bucketload of cash.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Onshore processing for both plane and boat arrivals. Saves us a bucketload of cash.

Don't get processed if they are found to be entering via plane without valid reason do they?

[bennymacca]

More than 90% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees, compared to 44% of plane arrivals

A pretty good article on the governments own website, which the libs have repeatedly contradicted by doing such things as calling them illegals when they are not, and discriminating against boat arrivals in preference to plane arrivals.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

[bennymacca]

Onshore processing for both plane and boat arrivals. Saves us a bucketload of cash.

Don't get processed if they are found to be entering via plane without valid reason do they?

Of they are seeking asylum then yep, doesn't matter how they get here. And the majority actually come by plane, depends a lot on their country of origin

[bennymacca]

i seriously recommend everybody read that article if they want to be able to provide informed comment, but specifically on the issue of queues, here is an excerpt from the article (emphasis is mine). It paints a pretty clear picture as to why sitting patiently in a camp waiting is an option that most of the people arent willing to continue with, and could you blame them?

Are asylum seekers ‘queue jumpers’?

There is a view that asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive in Australia by boat, are ‘jumping the queue’ and taking the place of a more deserving refugee awaiting resettlement in a refugee camp. The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process. Paul Power, CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) notes that:

Implicit in this view is that Australia should not be bothered by people seeking protection under the Refugee Convention and that genuine refugees should go to other countries and wait patiently in the hope that Australia may choose to resettle them.[25]

The reality is that only a small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR and only 11 per cent of asylum claims were registered with the UNHCR in 2011.[26]

Once registered with the UNHCR, many refugees seek resettlement to a country such as Australia. Refugees do not have a right to be resettled, and states are not obliged under the 1951 Refugee Convention or any other instrument to accept refugees for resettlement. It is a voluntary scheme co-ordinated by the UNHCR which, amongst other things, facilitates burden-sharing amongst signatory states. Resettlement therefore complements and is not a substitute for the provision of protection to people who apply for asylum under the Convention.

According to the UNHCR, less than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees may be resettled in any given year:

Resettlement benefits a comparatively small number of refugees: in 2011 less than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees benefited from this durable solution … the number of resettlement places offered by States has not significantly increased over the years and has remained at around 80 000. Global resettlement needs, assessed at some 800 000, thus exceeded the number of places available by a ratio of 1:10.[27]

For refugees in protracted situations (in exile for five years or more) the UNHCR points out that there are limited options:

The absence of a solution for millions of refugees in protracted situations continues to pose a major challenge to UNHCR and its partners, to host countries, the refugees themselves and the international community at large.[28]

At the end of 2011 the UNHCR estimated that almost three quarters of the world’s refugee population under UNHCR mandate (more than 7.1 million) was trapped in protracted situations and for whom there was limited hope of finding a solution in the near future.[29]

[GWW]

So, whats the solution?

On-shore processing? Inverbrackie type arrangements? Straight into the community until processing done? What background checks to be done?

[tigerpie]

More than 90% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees, compared to 44% of plane arrivals

A pretty good article on the governments own website, which the libs have repeatedly contradicted by doing such things as calling them illegals when they are not, and discriminating against boat arrivals in preference to plane arrivals.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

We are trying to discourage people from getting in unseaworthy craft and trying to make it to Australia. Its a lot more dangerous than getting on a commercial airliner i would think? Therefore you are correct, they are processed differently.
To fly here you must have some supporting documents. Yes they may be bullshit but at least they lob with something that immigration can deal with.
Boat arrivals in some/a lot of cases have bugger all.
There must be a process or are you saying everyone who lands here by any means, and says they are a refugee we should just let them stay. Our population would explode in no time! Who wouldnt want to live here?
I think you missed my point!

[bennymacca]

So, whats the solution?

On-shore processing? Inverbrackie type arrangements? Straight into the community until processing done? What background checks to be done?

on-shore processing is the way to do it imo. that, and increasing our refugee intake a bit. not a lot, but a bit. i would think women and children could be settled in the community straight away pending their application, as they would be very low risk. and making it easier for asylum seekers to get to australia, so they dont have to resort to hopping on a boat. how we do that im not sure. if this problem was easy it would have been solved by now, but the inhumane response by this government is not the way to go.

To fly here you must have some supporting documents. Yes they may be bullshit but at least they lob with something that immigration can deal with.
Boat arrivals in some/a lot of cases have bugger all.

if you read the article, most of them dont have access to travel documents in the first place. If you are an afghan hazara (sp?), who are being persecuted by the taliban, barely literate, from a rural area, how do you go and get a passport? I know plenty of australians that dont have a passport, i only got one in my early 20s when i wanted to travel overseas for the first time.

you cant exactly lob in at your local government office and say i want a passport, when doing so will probably identify you as someone that said government has been persecuting and will probably get you killed. so not having travel documents in some cases makes them MORE likely to be determined as genuine refugees.

now obviously that makes it bloody hard to make a determination one way or the other, and that is why we need short term processing centres. i am 100% all for making sure they are genuine refugees, and if they are not, they should be sent back straight away.

but i think that it should be done onshore.

Inverbrackie type arrangements?

what is interesting about inverbrackie is that the local community were originally dead set against having a detention centre in their own backyard, but once it happened, it eventually garnered widespread support, to the point that when the libs said they would close it if they got into government, there was actually a campaign to keep it open, such was the positive impact on the community and local economy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/u ... rs/4988322

[dedja]

More than 90% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees, compared to 44% of plane arrivals

A pretty good article on the governments own website, which the libs have repeatedly contradicted by doing such things as calling them illegals when they are not, and discriminating against boat arrivals in preference to plane arrivals.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

I'll never understand why non-coalition members have never asked a coalition member to explain why they haven't misled parliament when they have repeatedly stated that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants.

Why the Greens haven't done this is staggering. Starting the next question time with that question to the PM would be a good start.

[bennymacca]

its a good question. maybe it has been asked, but something like that would gain less traction in the media than a three word "stop the boats" mantra

[dedja]

More than 90% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees, compared to 44% of plane arrivals ...

Equally true of those on the Tampa ... of course that episode started this whole sorry mess.

You'll never get an admission from the coalition that the vast majority of those on the Tampa were successful in their claim for asylum. Maybe that should be asked in question time as well?

[cracka]

So, whats the solution?

On-shore processing? Inverbrackie type arrangements? Straight into the community until processing done? What background checks to be done?

Didn't we have onshore processing at Villawood but some refugees didn't like the conditions there so they torched it.

[cracka]

So, whats the solution?

On-shore processing? Inverbrackie type arrangements? Straight into the community until processing done? What background checks to be done?

on-shore processing is the way to do it imo. that, and increasing our refugee intake a bit. not a lot, but a bit. i would think women and children could be settled in the community straight away pending their application, as they would be very low risk. and making it easier for asylum seekers to get to australia, so they dont have to resort to hopping on a boat. how we do that im not sure. if this problem was easy it would have been solved by now, but the inhumane response by this government is not the way to go.

To fly here you must have some supporting documents. Yes they may be bullshit but at least they lob with something that immigration can deal with.
Boat arrivals in some/a lot of cases have bugger all.

if you read the article, most of them dont have access to travel documents in the first place. If you are an afghan hazara (sp?), who are being persecuted by the taliban, barely literate, from a rural area, how do you go and get a passport? I know plenty of australians that dont have a passport, i only got one in my early 20s when i wanted to travel overseas for the first time.

you cant exactly lob in at your local government office and say i want a passport, when doing so will probably identify you as someone that said government has been persecuting and will probably get you killed. so not having travel documents in some cases makes them MORE likely to be determined as genuine refugees.

now obviously that makes it bloody hard to make a determination one way or the other, and that is why we need short term processing centres. i am 100% all for making sure they are genuine refugees, and if they are not, they should be sent back straight away.

but i think that it should be done onshore.

Inverbrackie type arrangements?

what is interesting about inverbrackie is that the local community were originally dead set against having a detention centre in their own backyard, but once it happened, it eventually garnered widespread support, to the point that when the libs said they would close it if they got into government, there was actually a campaign to keep it open, such was the positive impact on the community and local economy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/u ... rs/4988322

Only some local rednecks were but I think they were a vocal minority. I live in Woodside, never had & still don't have a problem with it, most people I spoke with had no problem with it when it first happened either. I also do deliveries there & it seems like a good place for processing & the refugees seem happy there. Both my kids went to school with some of the refugee kids & had a great relationship with them, even keeping in touch with some on facebook.

[cracka]

The fact that you are equating shopping checkout etiquette to a refugee camp where people get raped and get HIV is just a little ignorant. I really do encourage you to watch the go back to where you came from show, I'm sure it will change your mind.

Isn't that whom ever is in charge of that camps fault?

Surely if that is happening in the camps then the UN has an obligation to make them safer & with better accommodation.

[bulldogproud2]

I will just make four quick comments this time (unusual for me to be brief and quick *grins*)

Re the documentation issue: Asylum seekers are generally leaving their country of origin in a rush because of persecution. They are not going to wait six months to apply for and gain a passport!!

Secondly, re the risk of terrorists coming in via boats: There is pretty much no likelihood of a terrorist coming in this way. They have resources available to them and are not going to take the risk of a risky boat journey when they can use other means.

Thirdly, re asylum seekers coming by boat taking the place of those processed offshore via refugee camps: Australia is the only country in the world that only has one intake pool. We lump onshore and offshore asylum seekers together in the one figure. Every other country has a separate pool for onshore and offshore. All Australia has to do is change to two pools and the argument of those coming by boat taking the place of those from refugee camps is totally gone.

Fourthly, the argument put forward of not allowing asylum seekers to come by boat because of safety concerns is total hogwash, only made up by those not wanting them to come at all. All one has to do is arrange with Indonesia to have onshore processing carried on over there and have asylum seekers flown over instead of come by boat. This is a cheaper alternative to Abbott's Military Campaign (the only world leader to ever see the issue of asylum seekers as war btw!!!). Abbott has to come clean with the fact that this is what Indonesia asked for instead of the military intervention!
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

More than 90% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees, compared to 44% of plane arrivals

A pretty good article on the governments own website, which the libs have repeatedly contradicted by doing such things as calling them illegals when they are not, and discriminating against boat arrivals in preference to plane arrivals.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

We are trying to discourage people from getting in unseaworthy craft and trying to make it to Australia. Its a lot more dangerous than getting on a commercial airliner i would think? Therefore you are correct, they are processed differently.
To fly here you must have some supporting documents. Yes they may be bullshit but at least they lob with something that immigration can deal with.
Boat arrivals in some/a lot of cases have bugger all.
There must be a process or are you saying everyone who lands here by any means, and says they are a refugee we should just let them stay. Our population would explode in no time! Who wouldnt want to live here?
I think you missed my point!

Your words make it sound like most asylum seekers in the world are trying to get to Australia. We have an extremely low percentage of the world's asylum seekers try to travel here. I think from memory we are something like 44th in the list of countries that asylum seekers are heading to. Yes, there needs to be processing carried out but surely not the 30 years that some are facing!!
If we carry out the processing a lot quicker, you will find there would be less trouble in the processing centres too. Heck, if I am going to be behind barbed wire, cut off from the rest of society, for 30 years I think I would go bonkers too!!
Cheers