Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I wish I could say it's my pleasure to keep you updated (& that we're having this "dialogue" at all) RJB!

I expect that the new refugee policy is pretty much decided. I mean, such things don't happen in a day or 2 (following public consultation), do they?

Ah well ...

Better to be talking about it though....especially if Labor etc. ensure there is an informed dialogue.

0 Replies

I've got an idea. We should set up a semi-clandestine unit who works in Indonesia, and gets to know the whole people-smuggling network. Then, whatever the people smugglers are being offered per person, this unit offers a little bit more for not taking anyone. Compared to the cost of intercepting them, and 'processing' them through detention centres, the amount of money would be trivial.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Not bad jeeprs.

I still think the general Oz (over)reaction shows the hidden 'f*ck you jack I'm OK' that underlies the Australian psyche that lies just behind the 'fair go' window dressing.

The fact is that only 6% of migration to Australia in the last 6 months was from refugees (regardless of how they applied - through formal channels or on illegal boats), at that rate (to quote some dude I saw last night) it would take twenty years to fill the MCG, and that it is a tiny fraction of the people who intentionally overstay their visas, but we're not up in arms about that.

It seems we don't like foreigners who can't afford plane tickets.

I'm not opposed to incentives to move them into rural areas, and I've heard of successes with Afghan refugees in rural NSW, but I'm not convinced some of our rural brethren will be overjoyed at the prospect of a new subcommunity co-located with theirs, and I don't think it's right to expect new migrants to not group together for mutual support in a new country.

The fact is that our illegal migration issue is tiny compared to many other developed nations and our hysteria paints us in dark tones.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Yup. In total agreement with you, hinge. (though this should come as no surprise to anyone! Wink

)

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Quote:

I've got an idea. We should set up a semi-clandestine unit who works in Indonesia, and gets to know the whole people-smuggling network. Then, whatever the people smugglers are being offered per person, this unit offers a little bit more for not taking anyone. Compared to the cost of intercepting them, and 'processing' them through detention centres, the amount of money would be trivial.

Just one problem, jeeprs.
Whose "problem" which the asylum seekers (assuming they are genuine) then be? What happens to them next?

Please continue ... Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Oops!

Of course I meant whose problem will the asylum seekers then be ....?

0 Replies

well I was only semi-serious in case that wasn't clear. And it sure is a much bigger problem in Europe than here. It seems like osmosis to me - people will try and go wherever life is better (or possible, which it is not in places like Somalia and some other parts of the world). So if I had to advocate a sensible policy position, it would have to be increases in foreign aid and working with the UN to bring stability and development to those regions from which all these people are trying to escape. It is quite possible that in the next half century, the world will have displaced populations of hundreds of millions of people, due to climate change and over-population. That is one thing everyone should be thinking about. Of course, it seems an impossible task, but so to is the prospect of re-settling the tens of millions trying to escape poverty, disease and warfare.

As for the Australian situation, I would support a 'stop the boats' policy if it were possible to implement it realistically and humanely. I don't think it is good for people to know that if they reach the border, basically they are going to be re-settled in Australia, whether it's one person, 10, or a thousand. Once a leaky boat full of civilians is in, or even near, our territorial waters, then it becomes our problem. There is nothing you can do, other than bring them in. So I do support action to stop them coming, but I am under no illusions that this will be an easy thing to do. Of course, re-settling the numbers that are turning up at the moment would be logistically pretty trivial, but it is a matter of principle that just getting here qualifies you as a genuine refugee.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Quote:

well I was only semi-serious in case that wasn't clear.

Oh I know that, jeeprs. Smile

But I'm going to have to read your post properly later, because I have to run now. (Gotta drop my car off at a garage.)

Later.

0 Replies

From my just-arrived Crikey! dispatch.
Here it is.
(And we didn't even get 4 days of debate.)
No comment. (You you can easily guess what my response is, anyway ... :

Quote:

1.Gillard on asylum seekers: time for an East Timor Solution
Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

Australia will establish a revised “Pacific Solution”, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard flagging a “regional processing centre” for asylum seekers to be based in East Timor, to where asylum seekers who arrive by boat would be redirected as part of a "regional protection framework".

In an address to the Lowy Institute this morning, the Prime Minister moved to establish a tougher line on asylum seekers by announcing her intention to pursue an East Timor processing facility with President Jose Ramos-Horta, the New Zealand government and the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.

She also flagged that improved conditions in Sri Lanka now meant Tamil asylum seekers were likely to be sent home, and that negotiations were proceeding with the Afghan government on the repatriation of failed Afghan asylum seekers. Gillard also indicated unspecified measures to strengthen penalties for people smugglers whose actions lead to death, and committed to ensuring that successful asylum seekers would receive no "special treatment".

Gillard explicitly denied that the proposed East Timor facility would be "a new Pacific Solution", instead insisting it would be a "sustainable, effective regional protection framework", but the difference with the Howard government's approach of spending large sums of taxpayer money to send asylum seekers to locations such as Nauru for processing is unclear, beyond the promised involvement of the UNHCR.

The Prime Minister indicated that, in light of the UNHCR's overnight report indicating a significantly improved security and legal situation in Sri Lanka, most Tamil asylum seekers faced being put on a plane back to their homeland if they attempted to reach Australia, although acknowledging that case-by-case determinations would remain. The present suspension of claims by Sri Lankan asylum seekers, put in place by Kevin Rudd just under three months ago, would be lifted.

The present suspension of processing of claims for Afghan asylum seekers would remain in place, but Gillard appeared to suggest this awaited the resolution of repatriation arrangements with the Afghan government. She emphasised that nearly three-quarters of Afghan asylum applicants had been refused in recent months.

Gillard also sought to address the persistent community myth that refugees are given extensive and special taxpayer assistance. "When newcomers settle in our community, they accept their responsibilities as members of the community -- to learn English, enter the workforce, and send their kids to school like everyone else. Most refugees fulfil these obligations and are grateful to be able to make a new home in Australia ... But the rules are the rules. We will ensure refugees shoulder the same obligations as Australians generally."

What action this would entail remains unclear.

Earlier today, the opposition sought to further toughen its own stance on asylum seekers by indicating those who "deliberately destroyed" identity documentation would be denied asylum, an approach that appears unworkable given Australia's international commitments and the practicalities of establishing "deliberate destruction" in the context of escape from brutal regimes and people smuggling.

The opposition also proposed to move the Minister for Immigration back into asylum claims processing, suggesting the minister be given the right to intervene in any asylum claim. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration would also be required to sign off on all asylum claim determinations, rather than lower level officials, although the power could be delegated.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Quote:

As for the Australian situation, I would support a 'stop the boats' policy if it were possible to implement it realistically and humanely.

So do the new proposed arrangements better address your concerns, jeeprs?
Any one else have an thoughts?

(I promise to remain civil, even if we disagree. I really don't want to stifle discussion. Wink

)

1 Reply

@msolga,

I don't want to be, and am not, xenophobic about it. But realistically, it is quite possible you could have a situation in years to come where at any given time, there are one or two thousand people languishing in detention centers while the govt. works out what to do with them. So it is important to discourage the activity of people smuggling. And I think this is the approach the government is taking, so I support it. I think most of Abbott's policy, so-called, is simply bluff and bluster.

0 Replies

anyway, be that as it may, this East Timor proposal is just an idea and a kneejerk reaction at that. It has been announced in a hurry to placate the talkback lobby before anything has been actually put in place.

1 Reply

Good evening. I am, of course, watching this from afar.
I am curious about the Aus term "asylum seekers" vs the U.S. term "illegal immigrants." In our case the "boat people" or whatever are driven by purely economic necessity. But in Aus, as I understand it, there have been Sri Lankans and Afghans who are claiming to be escaping from political persecution. But maybe there are many who can't really be making that claim. Is that part of the issue?
As I understand it, Ms Gillard's East Timor "Regional Processing Centre" would replace something else not in Aus and also something in Aus. Shared with NZ and others and largely out of sight.
I am just getting up to speed on this and am looking forward to the cordial discussion of the issue here.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

there is a real difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. To begin with, you're not an illegal immigrant unless you're in the country without permission. Those arriving on Australian shores by boat are by definition not immigrants at that point, as they are not yet in the country.

This goes back to the 70's in Australia. At that time there were many boats arriving with persons displaced by the Vietnam and Cambodian conflicts.

The current influx seem mostly to originate in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, but there are others.

As to whether they are actually seeking to escape from political or military oppression, or simply economic refugees, is the nub of the issue, and frequently a very difficult thing to determine.

As many commentators will point out, though, the actual numbers of persons arriving by boat is very small. It has been (I think) somewhere in the vicinity of 1,200 since end of 2007. On any day, there are 50,000 people in Australian who have overstayed their visas.

As to 'offshore processing', I think the rationale is to dissuade people from taking the risk of getting on the boat and coming. Many of those who come, whether political or economic refugees, are in such dire straights that even the Australian legal system is perceived as a relatively safe haven, with the upside that it might culminate in residency.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Those arriving on Australian shores by boat are by definition not immigrants at that point, as they are not yet in the country.

That went over my head, I think.
Nice to meet you, jeeprs. I am realjohnboy. I am a political junkie . I chase around the world via the internet following events. I was (virtually) in Poland this past weekend and before that in the Philippines the week before that and in Germany for some minor provincial elections. I try not to meddle. Rather, I try to understand where people's heads are at.
A conclusion I have come to is that the world economy is a big issue on many people's minds. But a larger one, not unrelated, is immigration. In Europe, the U.S. and also Aus, it is there. Looming large.
Msolga has been very patient with me over the past few years regarding things Aus.
I appreciate hearing your take on things.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Good morning, RJB. Always pleased by you interest & your input. Smile

I'll do my best to respond, though keep in mind that one can not always be 100% objective in these things! Wink

Others may disagree with what I say & that's fine by me ..

First thing & critical thing. How asylum seekers arrive in Australia, As we are an island (as you know) most arrive by boat. (Compared to the US, where it's a border issue.) Often after perilous journeys at sea, from Indonesia. (The number of such journeys, organized by "people smugglers" in Indonesia, can vary a great deal, depending on our current relationship with Indonesia. Which at times has been quite tricky! So Indonesia's cooperation (or lack of) has been critical.)

The "problem" for various Australian governments is that once asylum seekers land on Australian soil they must be properly dealt with by our legal system, have their applications for asylum properly processed. To avoid having to deal with them in Australia, the Howard government implemented "the Pacific Solution". They would be detained at sea & transported to a detention centre in Nauru, so the UN could be involved in processing their claims. The Rudd government's policy was considerably more liberal (Nauru was closed down & most of the detainees were accepted as refugees in Australia.) Since then there has been an marked increase in the number of such refugee boats & Australia's response was to detain them on Christmas Island & to process their applications from there. As a result, the Christmas island centre has become rather crowded! Over-flowing, with more boats on the way.

So, even though the number of asylum seekers to Oz is actually very small, compared to the percentage of total migrants in recent years (at record levels), say nothing of compared to what other countries have accepted as a percentage of their populations, conservative politicians have been able to make great capital about Labor being "soft" on refugees & the "people smugglers". The Liberals have made much mileage over this issue, as Labor's internal polls would no doubt reveal. (Rudd, in one of his final statements before standing down as PM , declared that he refused to cave into the pressures from within the ALP to "tighten" Labor's policy on refugees. Moving to the right, to accommodate Labor's election prospects, in other words. And implied that this would occur if he was deposed as leader.)

(OK. Are you still with me? Sorry this is so long & convoluted! Neutral

)

When Julia Gillard became PM & Labor leader she declared that we must have a fair & frank public discussion on border control issues, people smugglers, etc. The end result, after 2 day's of public discourse, (& with some details still in the pipeline) is that asylum seekers will now be intercepted at sea & moved to centres in East Timor. (One of the newest democracies in the world & also one of the poorest countries in the world.) And that their applications will be processed there, not in Australia. And if they are deemed not to be "genuine" refugees, returned to where they came from. This arrangement will also requires the cooperation of New Zealand & other pacific countries, though I'm not certain of the details ...

Political implications: the question is being asked (by refugee advocates & the Greens, etc) is: is this another "Pacific solution"? Has the Labor Party pragmatically moved to the right in the hope of improving its election prospects? Opinions on this vary greatly. Me, I think it is a poll-driven move to the right. But I know others here will disagree & they are entitled to, of course. The thing is, yesterday the Liberals declared new refugee policies that were even tougher than new Labor's policy. So (to me) it's looking like there's been a shift to the right by both both major on this issue.

OK, over to the rest of you. I know we'll have areas of disagreement here & I'd be interested in a cordial discussion about them, too.
Also feel free to correct any of the details I've posted. I've tried to be as accurate as possible, but I may have gotten some details wrong.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Quote:

this East Timor proposal is just an idea and a kneejerk reaction at that.

The last reports I read this morning suggested it was likely to happen.

1 Reply

@msolga,

but even so, they went public with the idea after one phone call to the ET government. Hrmmph.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I suspect that East Timor's initial "not sure about this at all" reaction was something of an ambit claim, jeeprs.

They are extremely desperate for finances & development there. It's a desperate situation. A lot of social unrest.

Nauru was pretty skint when it agreed to the Pacific Solution, too.

1 Reply

@msolga,

well I guess. It is not too far from my slightly facetious suggestion yesterday. Besides, the climate is not to bad there. Maybe its not such a bad idea - they had to do something, after all.

1 Reply

Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know