"Yet the ABC seems obsessed with - and hostile to - the Coalition’s successful policies, which have stopped the boats and the drownings. It seems to take offence on Indonesia’s behalf and gives massive coverage to any grievance or claim of cruelty."

Not sure they are any more than I am

If the boats have stopped Why are we spending money on drones or lifeboats or naval personnel crossing into Indonesian territory?

If there are no drownings thank goodness but do we really know when the Minister and his operatives are not telling us.

If any injury occurred as the naval boat and the migrant vessel collided and a migrant grabbed the exhaust pipe to get balance they might well blame the navy for their injury, its all hypothesis but we dont know.

I know. I will stop thinking because the minister in a minority party has a mandate to do what ever he likes.

Thank goodness the ABC tries to find things out and reports them, its a little difficult when the Minister wont supply facts to support his obligatory trust in his staff, perhaps he needs to re visit the Children overboard or Godwin Grech episodes of the Howard govt in order to see that not all department advice is correct. Perhaps if he released the information as Cassidy gave him an opportunity to do we would be more overjoyed with the action.

  On 17/02/2014 at 02:10, dpositive said:

"Yet the ABC seems obsessed with - and hostile to - the Coalition’s successful policies, which have stopped the boats and the drownings. It seems to take offence on Indonesia’s behalf and gives massive coverage to any grievance or claim of cruelty."

Not sure they are any more than I am

If the boats have stopped Why are we spending money on drones or lifeboats or naval personnel crossing into Indonesian territory?

If there are no drownings thank goodness but do we really know when the Minister and his operatives are not telling us.

If any injury occurred as the naval boat and the migrant vessel collided and a migrant grabbed the exhaust pipe to get balance they might well blame the navy for their injury, its all hypothesis but we dont know.

I know. I will stop thinking because the minister in a minority party has a mandate to do what ever he likes.

Thank goodness the ABC tries to find things out and reports them, its a little difficult when the Minister wont supply facts to support his obligatory trust in his staff, perhaps he needs to re visit the Children overboard or Godwin Grech episodes of the Howard govt in order to see that not all department advice is correct. Perhaps if he released the information as Cassidy gave him an opportunity to do we would be more overjoyed with the action.

One correction dpositive, Utegate occurred during Rudd's time as PM.

However, I'm with you on most of this. I think the lack of transparency is one of the most disturbing things about this entire episode. The pro-detention/pro-Abbott forces trumpet this policy as having stopped drownings but we have no idea what really is happening. People are being shipped off to foreign countries to live in ramshackle accommodation run by private security firms who get to enrich themselves off this policy. Journalists cannot access these detention centers in Australia or overseas. Journalists are also not getting any information regarding a policy which gets trumpeted as a success but we have no idea as to how it is being undertaken. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face:this kind of practice occurs in banana republic dictatorships.

The policy that is being run here is: die somewhere else. The government could work with Indonesia. Hell, in the best case scenario, we could set up a processing center in Indonesia. However, that will never happen under the current regime as naked cruelty and dog whistle politics reap electoral dividends.

  On 17/02/2014 at 02:26, Colin B. Flaubert said:

One correction dpositive, Utegate occurred during Rudd's time as PM.

However, I'm with you on most of this. I think the lack of transparency is one of the most disturbing things about this entire episode. The pro-detention/pro-Abbott forces trumpet this policy as having stopped drownings but we have no idea what really is happening. People are being shipped off to foreign countries to live in ramshackle accommodation run by private security firms who get to enrich themselves off this policy. Journalists cannot access these detention centers in Australia or overseas. Journalists are also not getting any information regarding a policy which gets trumpeted as a success but we have no idea as to how it is being undertaken. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face:this kind of practice occurs in banana republic dictatorships.

The policy that is being run here is: die somewhere else. The government could work with Indonesia. Hell, in the best case scenario, we could set up a processing center in Indonesia. However, that will never happen under the current regime as naked cruelty and dog whistle politics reap electoral dividends.

why should the gov work with indonesia to have special processing centres?

we already have a refugee program which is bi-partisan

that program includes a process for orderly legal refugee immigration

that program already has processing centres and an approved process

making an exception for indonesia (which hasn't signed up to the UN refugee program) will just encourage more refugees with money to fly to indonesia and bypass the agreed processes in place for all

  On 17/02/2014 at 03:04, daisycutter said:

why should the gov work with indonesia to have special processing centres?

we already have a refugee program which is bi-partisan

that program includes a process for orderly legal refugee immigration

that program already has processing centres and an approved process

making an exception for indonesia (which hasn't signed up to the UN refugee program) will just encourage more refugees with money to fly to indonesia and bypass the agreed processes in place for all

Yeah good points DC

The only response I can give" why should the gov work with indonesia to have special processing centres?" is because what we have done so far doesn't seem to work all that well.

There is no incentive for Indonesia to stop the people they dont want either and they know that they can flick them on They are not the destination of preference.

I suppose the only solution I have stated previously, to process people on shore, is that we should be able to do it better being a more advanced and concerned nation. We then might be able to figure out a better way to stop the people coming at the source. I saw a program on the migration into Britain who are also an end destination for many migrants through Europe, they all wanted a better life for their kids and better education.

Maybe by improving our processing and administration, educating migrants and returning them to their original country we might slow down the whole damn process.

And Yes

I think that is the premise of the UN processes.

I guess the despots and dictators are winning.

Unfortunately there are many innocent bystanders caught in the crossfires.

This could be a new job for the about to be unemployed workers of our Automotive and manufacturing industries. I suppose we could be developing this new industry and this could be the master stroke of the Abbott government, but they seem unlikely to tell us.

  On 17/02/2014 at 03:04, daisycutter said:

why should the gov work with indonesia to have special processing centres?

we already have a refugee program which is bi-partisan

that program includes a process for orderly legal refugee immigration

that program already has processing centres and an approved process

making an exception for indonesia (which hasn't signed up to the UN refugee program) will just encourage more refugees with money to fly to indonesia and bypass the agreed processes in place for all

Because the bulk of 'illegal maritime arrivals', as Scott Morrison likes to call them, come here mostly come from Indonesia. If the issue is we want people to stop getting on boats in the first place, we need to nip that issue in the bud. The point with the processing center is that it would be just that: a processing center. People would be assessed if they were genuine refugees or not before they make the trip to Australia.

As you point out, Indonesia isn't a signatory to the refugee program. A lot of people in Indonesia do have UNHCR status but face an uncertain wait for resettlement. In many cases, it can be in the number of years. In the meantime, they are stuck in a country where they cannot work, send their kids to school and face arrest if they are discovered. If we can come up with an arrangement with Indonesia that allows them to enforce their laws (as distasteful as I find them) whilst allowing people to settle without getting on boats in the first place, then I view that as a win.

The vast bulk of those arriving by boat have been proven time and time again to be legitimate refugees as is shown by the final grant rate indicated in this chart. Therefore, I would suggest this voyage many of them are taking is not being done lightly or frivolously. This will allow us to get on the front foot and get the processing done before people have to get on boats and risk their lives.

I must question the last bit DC. Are you suggesting somehow that people are going from Indonesia to Australia on a whim?

  On 17/02/2014 at 04:26, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I must question the last bit DC. Are you suggesting somehow that people are going from Indonesia to Australia on a whim?

no i am suggesting the reason they go to indonesia in the first place is to pay smugglers to get them into australia

and setting up a processing centre there will encourage more refugees to fly to indonesia

what is so hard to understand that we already have a proper (UN sanctioned) process with processing centres

the proper process is being bypassed and this would only exacerbate it

the lack of indonesian UN sanction is also a barrier as it would be their processing centre not an UN one

there are 35 million refugees (in and out country) in the world

the vast majority are desperate and in a miserable position - that is a given

those in indonesia are no different or more worthy

(Increasing our quota is another debate)

  On 17/02/2014 at 04:44, daisycutter said:

no i am suggesting the reason they go to indonesia in the first place is to pay smugglers to get them into australia

and setting up a processing centre there will encourage more refugees to fly to indonesia

what is so hard to understand that we already have a proper (UN sanctioned) process with processing centres

the proper process is being bypassed and this would only exacerbate it

the lack of indonesian UN sanction is also a barrier as it would be their processing centre not an UN one

there are 35 million refugees (in and out country) in the world

the vast majority are desperate and in a miserable position - that is a given

those in indonesia are no different or more worthy

(Increasing our quota is another debate)

I think you will find as well that a lot of the people who are making their way to Indonesia are making the journey through a few countries. It's not a straight line from Sri Lanka, Sudan or Afghanistan. Take the Hazara people of Pakistan/Afghanistan as an instance. For them to get to a country that (in theory at least) settles refugees, they potentially need to go through India (not a signatory to the UN convention), Bangladesh (one of the world's most impoverished nations), Myanmar (military dictatorship and I am guessing not a signatory) or Thailand (a country that is LEGITIMATELY struggling with housing Burmese refugees). It's a bit hard as well to go straight to your Australian embassy in the Swot valley as well when it's controlled by the Taliban.

What is a bit contradictory about your argument is that if these people are legitimate refugees and have the money to fly straight to Indonesia, why don't they just fly straight to Australia? As has been pointed out earlier, it isn't illegal to seek asylum on shore in Australia. If they are legitimate refugees, a fair and humane process should allow them to be resettled.

The second but lesser point is that are you suggesting that refugees with 'money' (however you wish to describe it) are lesser than those that don't? I don't think political persecution discriminates between people's bank balances.

You have mentioned the stuff on how we have a bi partisan settlement framework. It seems a little odd that you are intimating there is a problem but suggesting the framework is sound and shouldn't be touched. Clearly, the coalition think differently hence why they are blatantly ignoring the UN convention.

EDIT: Sorry, I got Laos (another country Hazara or Sri. Lankan asylum seekers would have to brave to get to Australia) and Myanmar mixed up. Of course, Myanmar is a dictatorship but Laos is Communist.

the reason they don't fly direct to australia is the carriers won't let them board without a passport and visa etc

they obviously have the money because an airfare is cheaper than what they pay the smugglers

i have never said that their money makes them less deserving, but it does act as an incentive to get to indonesia and hence pay smugglers

by bi-partisan i'm sure you understood that i was talking about that part of the program that sets a quota and administers the approved process for accepting refugees

the rest of your post was just interesting detail but adds nothing to justify bypassing the established legitimate refugee processing program

labor going soft on people smugglers has cost lives, large amounts of money, more misery and fattened the bank accounts of smugglers and corrupt indonesian officials

Hey Frog,

Here is a blast from the past. Not about Abbott but about his mentor.
http://youtu.be/WHvwVlyhqjM

  On 17/02/2014 at 05:31, daisycutter said:

the reason they don't fly direct to australia is the carriers won't let them board without a passport and visa etc

they obviously have the money because an airfare is cheaper than what they pay the smugglers

i have never said that their money makes them less deserving, but it does act as an incentive to get to indonesia and hence pay smugglers

by bi-partisan i'm sure you understood that i was talking about that part of the program that sets a quota and administers the approved process for accepting refugees

the rest of your post was just interesting detail but adds nothing to justify bypassing the established legitimate refugee processing program

labor going soft on people smugglers has cost lives, large amounts of money, more misery and fattened the bank accounts of smugglers and corrupt indonesian officials

The first question I will ask is that airlines bound for Australia will not allow asylum seekers onto their air crafts without papers but foreign ones will allow them onto flights bound for Indonesia? I don't want to get accusatory but do you have proof of that?

I would also add that just because you arrive by plane with papers then that doesn't necessarily makes you a legitimate refugee. I have seen other numbers that have shown the amount of people who arrive with 'papers' are more likely to be found to be not legitimate refugees as opposed to people who arrive by boat.

I believe there is a problem in people getting onto boats to come to Australia. However, I find it interesting that you used the word 'exacerbate' in regards to this issue. Using this word, it would imply that this is a big problem. Can I ask why you believe it is a big problem?

  On 17/02/2014 at 05:31, daisycutter said:

the reason they don't fly direct to australia is the carriers won't let them board without a passport and visa etc

they obviously have the money because an airfare is cheaper than what they pay the smugglers

i have never said that their money makes them less deserving, but it does act as an incentive to get to indonesia and hence pay smugglers

by bi-partisan i'm sure you understood that i was talking about that part of the program that sets a quota and administers the approved process for accepting refugees

the rest of your post was just interesting detail but adds nothing to justify bypassing the established legitimate refugee processing program

labor going soft on people smugglers has cost lives, large amounts of money, more misery and fattened the bank accounts of smugglers and corrupt indonesian officials

I think you will find that for many of these refugees, the money is gathered by their families and communities... they are NOT wealthy people in many cases.

  On 17/02/2014 at 05:49, Colin B. Flaubert said:

The first question I will ask is that airlines bound for Australia will not allow asylum seekers onto their air crafts without papers but foreign ones will allow them onto flights bound for Indonesia? I don't want to get accusatory but do you have proof of that?

I would also add that just because you arrive by plane with papers then that doesn't necessarily makes you a legitimate refugee. I have seen other numbers that have shown the amount of people who arrive with 'papers' are more likely to be found to be not legitimate refugees as opposed to people who arrive by boat.

I believe there is a problem in people getting onto boats to come to Australia. However, I find it interesting that you used the word 'exacerbate' in regards to this issue. Using this word, it would imply that this is a big problem. Can I ask why you believe it is a big problem?

i don't have proof re flying in to indonesia, only what i've read. regardless they seem to get into indonesia fairly easily and they do have reasonably large sums to pay the smugglers

i don't have an issue with refugees having money, just pointing out that it helps them to bypass the official refugee processes and creates an ugly market for people smugglers

re exacerbating the problem, i didn't say big or small just a problem, big was your addition. repeat. there is a process. use it.

i accept that not all of the 35 million refugees in the world necessarily have access to our refugee process, but that would be impossible

i'm sure you would accept that all those accepted through the officially sanctioned processes are worthy

  On 17/02/2014 at 05:53, hardtack said:

I think you will find that for many of these refugees, the money is gathered by their families and communities... they are NOT wealthy people in many cases.

ht i don't begrudge them their money at all, honestly. it's probably poor recompense for what they have lost

but the people smuggling industry runs on that money and that's a fact

  On 17/02/2014 at 06:06, daisycutter said:

i don't have proof re flying in to indonesia, only what i've read. regardless they seem to get into indonesia fairly easily and they do have reasonably large sums to pay the smugglers

i don't have an issue with refugees having money, just pointing out that it helps them to bypass the official refugee processes and creates an ugly market for people smugglers

re exacerbating the problem, i didn't say big or small just a problem, big was your addition. repeat. there is a process. use it.

i accept that not all of the 35 million refugees in the world necessarily have access to our refugee process, but that would be impossible

i'm sure you would accept that all those accepted through the officially sanctioned processes are worthy

My next question is that you have clearly stated above that there is a problem. However, you believe that the framework in place is adequate. So which is it? Is the framework we work in adequate or does it require changing? I am of the belief that, yes, it does require changing and in fact, a complete overhaul. It requires us to work with our regional partners in order to give people a legitimate chance to settle here before they get on a boat.

My initial point earlier regarding how asylum seekers get to Indonesia still stands. It's not a case of them jumping on a plane and then arriving in Indonesia one day because they felt like it. It's a case of living an existence of uncertainty with very few options as to where you settle. UNHCR recognition doesn't mean much if you are in a country with no respect for refugee rights like the one's a lot of refugees have to pass through. In that sense, the queue line that gets trotted out is mostly a myth. You have UNHCR recognition and that says you are a refugee waiting to be resettled but that doesn't mean much if you are in a country like Indonesia or Malaysia where you will be arrested if you are discovered, and you may have to live like that for an amount of time numbering in the years. Clearly, many refugees are not able to access the process you have mentioned and this needs to be fixed.

I ask if you think it is a problem due to the fact that while there is an issue (people potentially drowning at sea), this belief that we will be 'flooded' with claims is fanciful at best and at worst overblown. Since the start of the Syrian civil war, Turkey has taken in half a million Syrian refugees. 1.6 million Afghan refugees are housed in Pakistan. If the policy I mentioned earlier were implemented, it may result in an uptick of refugees but nothing close to what those countries are experiencing. It would also save lives and not keep people in long term detention in inhumane circumstances.

P.S. Some of the stories I have heard coming out of Manus Island and in the old days, Woomera, would make your hair turn white.

work with our regional partners? hah! that old chestnut.

the indonesian government knows where the refugees are, they know who the smugglers are and they could shut down the people smuggling tomorrow if they wished to

they are not dumb and their intel is good. trouble is too many are corrupt and making a nice dollar on the side

you don't get into bed with fleas (esp. unsanctioned [for good reasons] ones)

i already agreed that many refugees can't access our official processes. like i said there are 45 million. are you suggesting we develop a humongous process where they all have equal access

there are many refugee migrants from the same countries as those now in indonesia who managed to access our processes

  On 17/02/2014 at 08:17, daisycutter said:

work with our regional partners? hah! that old chestnut.

the indonesian government knows where the refugees are, they know who the smugglers are and they could shut down the people smuggling tomorrow if they wished to

they are not dumb and their intel is good. trouble is too many are corrupt and making a nice dollar on the side

you don't get into bed with fleas (esp. unsanctioned [for good reasons] ones)

i already agreed that many refugees can't access our official processes. like i said there are 45 million. are you suggesting we develop a humongous process where they all have equal access

there are many refugee migrants from the same countries as those now in indonesia who managed to access our processes

My question would be to that is has this ever been tried? All we have gotten so far is a provocative stance from Canberra towards Indonesia. I will admit it will be hard (the Indonesian past time is being offended) but let's at least start making overtures. If they were so comfortable with refugees being on their shores, why do they have a detention system similar to ours?

We can continue with a policy that has been abusing human rights and blowing out budgets so we can keep a few thousand people from reaching Australia or we can take an approach that costs less and respects the people who are trying to make it to our shores.

As I have said previously, I am happy to be proven wrong anytime if the numbers are accurate. Can you tell me the make up of the numbers from our refugee settlement program and the channels they went through? No accusation in that but I would like to know.

The last part is clearly hyperbole. Of those 45 million refugees, do you assume they all want to come to Australia? That's a pretty big assumption. Of all the developed countries in the world, the two nations who take the most refugees are the US and Germany. We are a chosen destination for some (who are unfortunate enough to come here on the assumption that we will be merciful) but as the numbers show, we are far from the most preferred destination for refugees.

Let's deal in the realities of the situation here. Our refugee intake for 2012-13 was 20 thousand (including maritime arrivals). The overall immigration intake for 2012-13 was 190,000. This makes refugees about 10% of our overall immigration intake. We could increase the amount we take in and create an orderly settlement scheme as was done in the Fraser years or we continue with a barbaric, wasteful policy that costs 8 times more than having the current inhabitants of processing centers being on Centrelink.

Here is another government who has a policy of 'sending people back'. Some food for thought.
http://youtu.be/1g4sMrOoJA0
P.S. I took some time off from being an evil red ragging pinko and have temporarily turned on my communist overlords to post this doco.

  On 17/02/2014 at 10:51, Colin B. Flaubert said:

P.S. I took some time off from being an evil red ragging pinko and have temporarily turned on my communist overlords to post this doco.

So it was YOU under my bed all along!

Take a look at my AV and count your blessings that I no longer am under there.

I think we should pause to congratulate Tim Wilson, policy director of the IPA and advocate for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, on his new appointment as Human Rights Commissioner.

I have no doubt he will do an outstanding job of defending the freedoms of Andrew Bolt.

*cue Benny Hill music*

  On 18/02/2014 at 01:13, P-man said:

I think we should pause to congratulate Tim Wilson, policy director of the IPP and advocate for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, on his new appointment as Human Rights Commissioner.

I have no doubt he will do an outstanding job of defending the freedoms of Andrew Bolt.

*cue Benny Hill music*

This is another thing that worries me. The complete politicization of the public service and government sector. It started under Howard and appears to be continuing under Abbott.

There you go Hoody, it's all kosher now.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/craig-thomson-found-guilty-of-fraud-theft-charges-20140218-32xay.html

We now know he is a thief, that's if we didn't know before.

Thomson is a disgrace (and deserves time in jail).

So is this guy:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcohol-lobby-link-to-dumping-health-body-20140217-32wft.html

It's supposed to be the Ministry for Health, not the Ministry for Poor Health or the Ministry for the Alcohol Industry. Just as well Furnival resigned as he is corrupt.

  On 18/02/2014 at 04:51, mauriesy said:

Thomson is a disgrace (and deserves time in jail).

So is this guy:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcohol-lobby-link-to-dumping-health-body-20140217-32wft.html

It's supposed to be the Ministry for Health, not the Ministry for Poor Health or the Ministry for the Alcohol Industry. Just as well Furnival resigned as he is corrupt.

No, that will be construed as The Age typically denigrating the right, whereas RF's link provides proof that Thomson is a disgrace because even The Age tells us so.

  On 18/02/2014 at 05:01, hardtack said:

No, that will be construed as The Age typically denigrating the right, whereas RF's link provides proof that Thomson is a disgrace because even The Age tells us so.

Unlike you I believe criminals should be punished and if he's committed a crime then I hope he goes to the slammer to spend some time with Thompson. You must be terribly disappointed that Thommo was found guilty.