One of the biggest issue lefties try to sweep under the carpet is their acknowledgement of fault.

Gillard tells us the problem exist because Abbott won't vote for the Houston recommendation.

Others blame the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that does not explain why there were only 154 illegals by boat in 2007

The Afghan & Iraq war does not explain why under Labor since 2008 6,000 Sri Lankans arrived and were returned

Can any leftards admit why illegal boats increased after 2008?

It's not difficult. They changed the policy, that would have made a big difference, probably not the only reason but it's certainly a big one.

The policy is pretty much what the pacific solution was again but the boats still came and continue to do so.

Thats the issue now.

Simple - the reason for the unflux of boats is due to Rudd scrapping temporary protection visa's and Gillard refusing to reinstate them. Those visas were probably the most effective part of that policy, with offshore processing the second-most effective component of the Pacific Solution. Those visas provided safe haven to those who needed it until it was safe for them to return. It didn't give them the ability to work toward permanent residency, which is what the vast majority of the 34,000 people since 2008 want.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

It's not difficult. They changed the policy, that would have made a big difference, probably not the only reason but it's certainly a big one. The policy is pretty much what the pacific solution was again but the boats still came and continue to do so. Thats the issue now.

Kudos to you for acknowledging a change in Labor's policy have triggered this increase of 34,000

But you've left out several important factors

(1) The horse has bolted - there it's more difficult to catch them second time around

(2) The Houston recommendation is SIMILAR to the Pacific Solution - that's why it's not working

The Houston recommendation is a cheap last season imitation Rolex compared to the original Pacific Solution

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

Simple - the reason for the unflux of boats is due to Rudd scrapping temporary protection visa's and Gillard refusing to reinstate them. Those visas were probably the most effective part of that policy, with offshore processing the second-most effective component of the Pacific Solution. Those visas provided safe haven to those who needed it until it was safe for them to return. It didn't give them the ability to work toward permanent residency, which is what the vast majority of the 34,000 people since 2008 want.

The only issue with that kind of argument is stats like these presented in this article

The numbers on Temporary Protection Visas are clearer. They were introduced in 1999 and ended in 2008. There were 11,206 issued. When they were abolished, 88% of temporary visa holders had already been granted permanent status. Just over 1000 people were still on TPVs when they were abolished; 815 of these were made permanent afterward. Of the 11,000 or so TPVs issued, 379 holders had left Australia in the interim; that is, “temporary protection visas” ended up being temporary for 3.4% of those issued them.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/what-happened-as-a-result-of-tpvs-and-the-pacific-solution/

Doesn't seem like they are much of a deterrent really.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:12pm: Simple - the reason for the unflux of boats is due to Rudd scrapping temporary protection visa's and Gillard refusing to reinstate them. Those visas were probably the most effective part of that policy, with offshore processing the second-most effective component of the Pacific Solution. Those visas provided safe haven to those who needed it until it was safe for them to return. It didn't give them the ability to work toward permanent residency, which is what the vast majority of the 34,000 people since 2008 want. The only issue with that kind of argument is stats like these presented in this article The numbers on Temporary Protection Visas are clearer. They were introduced in 1999 and ended in 2008. There were 11,206 issued. When they were abolished, 88% of temporary visa holders had already been granted permanent status. Just over 1000 people were still on TPVs when they were abolished; 815 of these were made permanent afterward. Of the 11,000 or so TPVs issued, 379 holders had left Australia in the interim; that is, “temporary protection visas” ended up being temporary for 3.4% of those issued them. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/what-happened-as-a-result-of-tpvs-and-the-pacific-solution/ Doesn't seem like they are much of a deterrent really.

It does make sense because the numbers quoted does not differentiate between those arriving illegally by boats and those arriving by other means

The arrivals by boats were 1500 between 2002-2007

Therefore it stands to reason your 11,000 TPV recipients came from another source

We are only referring to the reasons why boat arrivals have increased

Can you rule out the possibility that the number includes asylum seekers?

Particularly since large numbers of those that came were resettled here anyhow.

Maqqa, do the Libs pay you penal rates for working weekends?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Can you rule out the possibility that the number includes asylum seekers? Particularly since large numbers of those that came were resettled here anyhow.

A lot of them are - but alot are not

Since 2008 - there are over 6,000 Sri Lankans being returned from a group of 34,000 boat arrivals

Compare this to 1500 boat arrivals between 2002-2007

So what does that say about Labor's policies since 2008?

You can say that we are catching more of them - but the processing criteria have not changed under either governments

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Maqqa, do the Libs pay you penal rates for working weekends?

Do the LAB pay you  cheep man ;) ;)

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Maqqa, do the Libs pay you penal rates for working weekends?

Are you perhaps jealous because you do it for free.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:24pm: Can you rule out the possibility that the number includes asylum seekers? Particularly since large numbers of those that came were resettled here anyhow. A lot of them are - but alot are not Since 2008 - there are over 6,000 Sri Lankans being returned from a group of 34,000 boat arrivals Compare this to 1500 boat arrivals between 2002-2007 So what does that say about Labor's policies since 2008? You can say that we are catching more of them - but the processing criteria have not changed under either governments

Look at my first post in this thread maqqa. I am not really in disagreement about that.

Now, if TPV's were so effective perhaps you can produce the stats to back that claim up. For example, how many asylum seekers were handed TPV's and how many of those were subsequently sent home?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:24pm: Can you rule out the possibility that the number includes asylum seekers? Particularly since large numbers of those that came were resettled here anyhow. A lot of them are - but alot are not Since 2008 - there are over 6,000 Sri Lankans being returned from a group of 34,000 boat arrivals Compare this to 1500 boat arrivals between 2002-2007 So what does that say about Labor's policies since 2008? You can say that we are catching more of them - but the processing criteria have not changed under either governments Look at my first post in this thread maqqa. I am not really in disagreement about that. Now, if TPV's were so effective perhaps you can produce the stats to back that claim up. For example, how many asylum seekers were handed TPV's and how many of those were subsequently sent home?

I've never said TPV was the be all and end all.

Remember - this is about boat arrivals.

Total arrivals (Pacific Solution) = arrivals x (1,500 + air)

Total arrivals (Rudd/Gillard) = arrivals x (34,000 + air)

Your TPV figure of 11,000 is inclusive of arrivals by boat and by air

Assuming Air arrivals are the same - if arrivals for 2002-2007 was only 1500 - you would have to say it was pretty effective

I can't figure out how you are getting to that point but either way, given the policy now days and the pacific solution are all but the same (asides from tpv's, althoughi have read the current alternative is worse), what are the libs offering that is different that will stop the boats?

Clearly rehashing the pacific solution won't work, and in your answer, remember about the conventions and our obligations.

Oh, and have a go at bringing up some actual stats regarding how many TPV's were given to asylum seekers and how many of those were actually sent home.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

I can't figure out how you are getting to that point but either way, given the policy now days and the pacific solution are all but the same (asides from tpv's, althoughi have read the current alternative is worse), what are the libs offering that is different that will stop the boats? Clearly rehashing the pacific solution won't work, and in your answer, remember about the conventions and our obligations.

Total Arrivals = arrival by BOATS + arrivals by AIR

boats and air because that's the only viable way to get to Australia

arrivals by BOATS with TPV policy - 1,500
arrivals by BOATS without TPV policy - 34,000


As for the convention and obligations - were there any court challenges under the LIBs Pacific Solution?

And you are right - the Houston Recommendations are a rehash of the Pacific Solution

We need the people who knew and implemented the Pacific Solution - not a cheap copy

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:54pm: I can't figure out how you are getting to that point but either way, given the policy now days and the pacific solution are all but the same (asides from tpv's, althoughi have read the current alternative is worse), what are the libs offering that is different that will stop the boats? Clearly rehashing the pacific solution won't work, and in your answer, remember about the conventions and our obligations. Total Arrivals = arrival by BOATS + arrivals by AIR boats and air because that's the only viable way to get to Australia

Not relevant.

Now, what are the libs offering that is different (asides from tpv's) and if you are still running the argument that TPV's were effective, how many TPV's were given to asylum seekers and how many of those were subsequently sent home?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

Oh, and have a go at bringing up some actual stats regarding how many TPV's were given to asylum seekers and how many of those were actually sent home.

But the 11,000 TPV stats were given to TOTAL ARRIVALS


Total Arrivals = arrivals by BOATS + arrivals by AIR

Cool.

Now, can you address the questions? If you don't know what it is you are talking about it's ok to say so.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:54pm: I can't figure out how you are getting to that point but either way, given the policy now days and the pacific solution are all but the same (asides from tpv's, althoughi have read the current alternative is worse), what are the libs offering that is different that will stop the boats? Clearly rehashing the pacific solution won't work, and in your answer, remember about the conventions and our obligations. Total Arrivals = arrival by BOATS + arrivals by AIR boats and air because that's the only viable way to get to Australia Not relevant. Now, what are the libs offering that is different (asides from tpv's) and if you are still running the argument that TPV's were effective, how many TPV's were given to asylum seekers and how many of those were subsequently sent home?

You dismiss it as irrelevant - but the stats don't lie

boat arrivals with the TPV policy was 1,500

boat arrivals without the TPV policy is 34,000 and counting

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Cool. Now, can you address the questions? If you don't know what it is you are talking about it's ok to say so.

We are talking about policies impacting the number of boat arrivals in this thread

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:54pm: I can't figure out how you are getting to that point but either way, given the policy now days and the pacific solution are all but the same (asides from tpv's, althoughi have read the current alternative is worse), what are the libs offering that is different that will stop the boats? Clearly rehashing the pacific solution won't work, and in your answer, remember about the conventions and our obligations. Total Arrivals = arrival by BOATS + arrivals by AIR boats and air because that's the only viable way to get to Australia Not relevant. Now, what are the libs offering that is different (asides from tpv's) and if you are still running the argument that TPV's were effective, how many TPV's were given to asylum seekers and how many of those were subsequently sent home? You dismiss it as irrelevant - but the stats don't lie boat arrivals with the TPV policy was 1,500 boat arrivals without the TPV policy is 34,000 and counting

Well then, i am sure you can produce the stats regarding how many tpv's were given to asylum seekers and how many were subsequently sent home to show the effectiveness of the particular TPV part of the policy.

You can can't you? Don't tell me after all of this you don't actually know.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Cool. Now, can you address the questions? If you don't know what it is you are talking about it's ok to say so. We are talking about policies impacting the number of boat arrivals in this thread

Ok then, that's the second part of the questions you are desperately avoiding.

What are the libs offering that is different to what we currently have, given both the current policy and the PS are very very similar now, that will stop the boats.

Don't forget our international obligations when answering.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Cool. Now, can you address the questions? If you don't know what it is you are talking about it's ok to say so. We are talking about policies impacting the number of boat arrivals in this thread Ok then, that's the second part of the questions you are desperately avoiding. What are the libs offering that is different to what we currently have, given both policies are very very similar now, that will stop the boats. Don't forget our international obligations when answering.

So now we are moving onto - how will the LIBs fix this

(1) Fully implement the Pacific Solution
(2) The Pacific Solution was implemented between 2002-2007 without any court proceedings to our international obligations. Compare that to Gillard's position in the last 5 years I would say the LIBs got it right
(3) Saying Labor's Houston Recommendation is similar to the Pacific Solution therefore should work exactly like the Pacific Solution is disingenuous. This is like trying to say a soy-milkshake is similar to a milkshake therefore should taste the same

Ok then, explain to me what the main differences are between a full implementation of the PS and what we currently have.

Should also point out that no appeal to the HC about the PS doesn't mean it's all good either. It means just that, it wasn't challenged.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Ok then, explain to me what the main differences are between a full implementation of the PS and what we currently have. Should also point out that no appeal to the HC about the PS doesn't mean it's all good either. It means just that, it wasn't challenged.

(1) No I am not going to dissect the PS for you against the 22 Houston Recommendations. Enough to say that the PS has a record of working and the HR does not based on stats

(2) If one gets court challenges and the other one does not - should tell you which one meets our obligations better

http://humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/migration20060522.html

A 2006 Report by the Australian Human Rights Commission showed that of the 1509 Asylum Seekers sent to Nauru by that time,
[list bull-redarrow]

586 were granted Australian resettlement (39%),

360 resettled in New Zealand(24%),

19 resettled in Sweden(1.2%),

10 in Canada(<1%) and

4 in Norway(<1%).

482 Asylum Seekers (32%) were deemed not genuine refugees and sent home


This shows that an illegals looking to country shop Australia has a 39% chance of success on the $10k they spent

You can add turn the boats back as one of the other deterrents

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

It's not difficult. They changed the policy, that would have made a big difference, probably not the only reason but it's certainly a big one. The policy is pretty much what the pacific solution was again but the boats still came and continue to do so. Thats the issue now.

I disagree.

Howard didn't let these boatfuls onto Australian soil, they were sent to Narau and only given temporary visas. If Howard's rules are returned, the boat arrivals will dry up.

Incidentally, I doubt that Gillard takes orders from anyone (dumber than herself). Maybe from the exceptionally union heavies and I'm damned sure Abbott will do what he sees fit about the carbon tax, illegals and he'll let women make up their minds about abortion.

Catholic he may be but not unaware that some women have financial agendas when it came to their annual drops to the Welfare purse.

Why did illegal boat numbers increase under Labor?

Maybe something to do with boat registration laws?

olde.sault wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:00pm: It's not difficult. They changed the policy, that would have made a big difference, probably not the only reason but it's certainly a big one. The policy is pretty much what the pacific solution was again but the boats still came and continue to do so. Thats the issue now. I disagree. Howard didn't let these boatfuls onto Australian soil, they were sent to Narau and only given temporary visas. If Howard's rules are returned, the boat arrivals will dry up. Incidentally, I doubt that Gillard takes orders from anyone (dumber than herself). Maybe from the exceptionally union heavies and I'm damned sure Abbott will do what he sees fit about the carbon tax, illegals and he'll let women make up their minds about abortion. Catholic he may be but not unaware that some women have financial agendas when it came to their annual drops to the Welfare purse.

That's about as good of an admission you are going to get from the left

To stretch this analysis to the difference between onshore and offshore processing may be pushing it

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Ok then, explain to me what the main differences are between a full implementation of the PS and what we currently have. Should also point out that no appeal to the HC about the PS doesn't mean it's all good either. It means just that, it wasn't challenged. (1) No I am not going to dissect the PS for you against the 22 Houston Recommendations. Enough to say that the PS has a record of working and the HR does not based on stats (2) If one gets court challenges and the other one does not - should tell you which one meets our obligations better

You won't because you are relying heavily on tpv's and you can't produce any stats to back up any argument along those lines.

As for your second point, no, it just means it hasn't been tested in the HC as yet.

Anyone who remains unaware that regardless of party, the so-called 'leaders'

WHOM WE PAY

take their orders from elsewhere and the agenda of the ACTUAL destroyers of Australia is to flood this land with many, diverse and opposing cultures in as short a time as possible

If you don't know that, you need to quit blathering in political fora

PZ547 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Anyone who remains unaware that regardless of party, the so-called 'leaders' WHOM WE PAY take their orders from elsewhere and the agenda of the ACTUAL destroyers of Australia is to flood this land with many, diverse and opposing cultures in as short a time as possible If you don't know that, you need to quit blathering in political fora

I think we found corporate whiny's friend.

I'll tell you why refugee number increased under Labor- it's because they wanted it that way. The modern Labor Party is full of upper middle class ultra lefties who want to save the world. They couldn't care less about working class aussies though. BIG MISTAKE!!!

olde.sault wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 1:00pm: It's not difficult. They changed the policy, that would have made a big difference, probably not the only reason but it's certainly a big one. The policy is pretty much what the pacific solution was again but the boats still came and continue to do so. Thats the issue now. I disagree. Howard didn't let these boatfuls onto Australian soil, they were sent to Narau and only given temporary visas. If Howard's rules are returned, the boat arrivals will dry up. Incidentally, I doubt that Gillard takes orders from anyone (dumber than herself). Maybe from the exceptionally union heavies and I'm damned sure Abbott will do what he sees fit about the carbon tax, illegals and he'll let women make up their minds about abortion. Catholic he may be but not unaware that some women have financial agendas when it came to their annual drops to the Welfare purse.

What happened to those asylum seekers who were given tpv's?

How many went back? Maqqa can't seem to produce these kinds of stays to support an argument along those lines.

Are you able to advise me what happened to those people?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

What happened to those asylum seekers who were given tpv's? How many went back? Maqqa can't seem to produce these kinds of stays to support an argument along those lines. Are you able to advise me what happened to those people?

I am going on the 11,000 TPVs figures you gave us

How can you use 11,000 TPV to compare when only 1,500 arrived by boats

What we know when TPV was in place - only 1,500 BOAT arrivals.

No TPV - 34,000+ BOAT arrivals

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

The numbers on Temporary Protection Visas are clearer. They were introduced in 1999 and ended in 2008. There were 11,206 issued. When they were abolished, 88% of temporary visa holders had already been granted permanent status. Just over 1000 people were still on TPVs when they were abolished; 815 of these were made permanent afterward. Of the 11,000 or so TPVs issued, 379 holders had left Australia in the interim; that is, “temporary protection visas” ended up being temporary for 3.4% of those issued them. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/what-happened-as-a-result-of-tpvs-and-the-pacific-solution/

Crikey is a leftist looney website it is not a credible source.


Quote:

The pacific solution was a cynical,costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise introduced on the eve of a federal election by the Howard government. The department of immigration and citizenship expended $289 million between sept 2001 and june 2007 to run Nauru and Manus offshore processing centres A total of 1637 people were detained at Nauru and Manus facilities, of those who were resettled 705 were resettled in Australia Labor minister source instead of dopey leftist looney source- www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/ce08014.htm

705 of the 1637 illegal boat arrivals  were resettled into Australia which means only 43% of those who arrived by boat during the pacific solution were resettled into Australia.


Quote:

Boat arrivals in Australia- 2001- 5516 people 2002- 1 person 2003- 53 people 2004- 15 people 2005- 11 people 2006- 60 people 2007- 148 people 2008 - 161 people Government source instead of leftist crappola source- www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals

Why did you cut a bit out of that?


A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia.

So 70% were resettled?

Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

705 of the 1637 illegal boat arrivals  were resettled into Australia which means only 43% of those who arrived by boat during the pacific solution were resettled into Australia.

The TPV had the following characteristics

(1) Offshore processing
(2) Threat to tow boats back
(3) TPV
(4) Result is 43% strike rate of landing in Aust for country shoppers


Under Labor
(1) Onshore processing = 100% strike rate for the $10K spent
(2) Threat to tow boats to Australia = 100% success for people smugglers
(4) Result 34,000 boat arrivals
(3) Permanent residence eg Capt iPad

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's?

but only 43% settle in Australia

remember that they paid money to get to Australia

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:15pm: What happened to those asylum seekers who were given tpv's? How many went back? Maqqa can't seem to produce these kinds of stays to support an argument along those lines. Are you able to advise me what happened to those people? I am going on the 11,000 TPVs figures you gave us How can you use 11,000 TPV to compare when only 1,500 arrived by boats What we know when TPV was in place - only 1,500 BOAT arrivals. No TPV - 34,000+ BOAT arrivals

Mate, if you can't answer the actual question just say so.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:18pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:15pm: What happened to those asylum seekers who were given tpv's? How many went back? Maqqa can't seem to produce these kinds of stays to support an argument along those lines. Are you able to advise me what happened to those people? I am going on the 11,000 TPVs figures you gave us How can you use 11,000 TPV to compare when only 1,500 arrived by boats What we know when TPV was in place - only 1,500 BOAT arrivals. No TPV - 34,000+ BOAT arrivals Mate, if you can't answer the actual question just say so.

How is that relevant to the discussion?

when TPV was in place - only 1,500 BOAT arrivals.

No TPV - 34,000+ BOAT arrivals

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:23pm: Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's? but only 43% settle in Australia remember that they paid money to get to Australia

And?

If they were all given tpv's the very large majority didn't have to go home.. I know some went to NZ. Hardly a massive punishment, where did the others go and why will that strike rate stop the boats?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:25pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:23pm: Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's? but only 43% settle in Australia remember that they paid money to get to Australia And? If they were all given tpv's the very large majority didn't have to go home.. I know some went to NZ. Hardly a massive punishment, where did the others go and why will that strike rate stop the boats?

They paid $10K for a result of settling in Australia

Only 43% achieved that result - 43% of the 1600

Even if we applied the 43% to Labor's numbers - it's 43% of 34,000

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:25pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:23pm: Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's? but only 43% settle in Australia remember that they paid money to get to Australia And? If they were all given tpv's the very large majority didn't have to go home.. I know some went to NZ. Hardly a massive punishment, where did the others go and why will that strike rate stop the boats? They paid $10K for a result of settling in Australia Only 43% achieved that result - 43% of the 1600 Even if we applied the 43% to Labor's numbers - it's 43% of 34,000

And?

They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home.

It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line.

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's?

Only 43% of boat arrivals were resettled into Australia despite labor trying to spin it into a higher figure.

705/1637=43%

705 out of 1637 probably got a TPV, the leftists are not too bright.

Labor closed down  refugee processing centres that resettled refugees into other countries, is that something leftists are proud of when they spruik off about how humane they are?

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

And? They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home. It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line.

43% achieved the goal of getting to Australia

if you paid $10K for a diamond but were told the cubic zirconia you got was "somewhere thereabouts" you'd be pissed

so don't try to increase the success rate by mixing the 2 numbers

the $10K was to get onto mainland Aust

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:23pm: Why did you cut a bit out of that? A total of 1637 people were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, of whom 1153 (or 70 per cent) were ultimately resettled from the OPCs to Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled, around 61 per cent (705 people) were resettled in Australia. So 70% were resettled? Not a bad strike rate.. Were all of the 1637 given tpv's? Only 43% of boat arrivals were resettled into Australia despite labor trying to spin it into a higher figure. 705/1637=43% 705 out of 1637 probably got a TPV, the leftists are not too bright. Labor closed down  refugee processing centres that resettled refugees into other countries, is that something leftists are proud of when they spruik off about how humane they are?

All I am asking is how many got tpv's and how many were sent home to ascertain how effective they actually were as a deterrent.

Seems you can't answer that either.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:34pm: And? They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home. It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line. 43% achieved the goal of getting to Australia if you paid $10K for a diamond but were told the cubic zirconia you got was "somewhere thereabouts" you'd be pissed so don't try to increase the success rate by mixing the 2 numbers the $10K was to get onto mainland Aust

How many were given tpv's and then sent home maqqa.. This is the question you continuously avoid.

As I have said on another thread on this? Why do we have 2? The John Howard solution should be installed as soon as the Liberals are in office.

Refuel em, re provision them, then turn them around.

Once the people smugglers know they aren't going to set a single soul on land it will die on the vines.

People aren't going to stump upwards of 20 grand if they don't make it here. Word spreads fast in the people trade.

red baron wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

As I have said on another thread on this? Why do we have 2? The John Howard solution should be installed as soon as the Liberals are in office. Refuel em, re provision them, then turn them around. Once the people smugglers know they aren't going to set a single soul on land it will die on the vines. People aren't going to stump upwards of 20 grand if they don't make it here. Word spreads fast in the people trade.

That's not what Howard's solution was though.

Think they should use maqqa's boats at $10,000.
Red's boats cost $20,000+.

Any advance on $20K????

;)

TPVs and offshore processing worked a treat last time.
A return to the previous Libs policies might just do the trick again and stop the refugee influx.

If they don't then I suspect that if Mr Abbott implements a few of his other alternatives for "stopping the boats" then we'll become an international pariah complete with sanctions - probably nothing too severe as we have too much cr@p in the ground that people want, but perhaps sporting sanctions to the point where the Sheffield Shield becomes our highest level of cricket played.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

arrivals by BOATS with TPV policy - 1,500 arrivals by BOATS without TPV policy - 34,000

whose arse are you pulling those figures from?

Government figures state that between 1999-2001 alone (TPVs started in 1999), there were over 10 thousand arrivals. Breaking all records up until then.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:00pm: arrivals by BOATS with TPV policy - 1,500 arrivals by BOATS without TPV policy - 34,000 whose arse are you pulling those figures from? Government figures state that between 1999-2001 alone (TPVs started in 1999), there were over 10 thousand arrivals. Breaking all records up until then. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals

From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:00pm: arrivals by BOATS with TPV policy - 1,500 arrivals by BOATS without TPV policy - 34,000 whose arse are you pulling those figures from? Government figures state that between 1999-2001 alone (TPVs started in 1999), there were over 10 thousand arrivals. Breaking all records up until then. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while...

Which just reinforce the fact

Pacific Solution + TPV = Best Solution

Infarction wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:34pm: And? They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home. It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line. 43% achieved the goal of getting to Australia if you paid $10K for a diamond but were told the cubic zirconia you got was "somewhere thereabouts" you'd be pissed so don't try to increase the success rate by mixing the 2 numbers the $10K was to get onto mainland Aust How many were given tpv's and then sent home maqqa.. This is the question you continuously avoid.

(1) Of the 700 that was given protection VISA and allowed to set foot on Australian soil - I don't know

(2) How does this then related to the 34,000 under Labor?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:18pm: 705 of the 1637 illegal boat arrivals  were resettled into Australia which means only 43% of those who arrived by boat during the pacific solution were resettled into Australia. The TPV had the following characteristics (1) Offshore processing (2) Threat to tow boats back (3) TPV (4) Result is 43% strike rate of landing in Aust for country shoppers

No. TPVs had the following characteristics:

(1) they had zero impact on the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia
(2) they resulted in more woman and children seeking asylum under dangerous conditions



The claim that the TPV introduction halted arrivals is not supported by the evidence. … In fact, in the period after that there was a huge surge. Our figures show that in that period the percentage of women and children went from around 25 per cent to around 40 per cent. We saw more women and children taking the very perilous journey to come to Australia by unlawful boat arrivals.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178605

Ever heard of SEIV X?  That is what the "Pacific Solution gave us.  Yes - Howard "stopped the boats".  But asylum seekers did not magically disappear.  They continued to die. 

We know that in 1999, almost all asylum seekers who came by boat were men, and there were few women and children. We know this, again because of Immigration Department records and also because the detention centres were built to accommodate mainly men; there were few family compounds. This was reported by departmental officials [2].

We also know that the demographics of asylum seekers began to change after TPVs were introduced. Gradually but inexorably, the boats started to carry more women and children, in relative and absolute terms. Three quarters of the passengers on the SIEV X were women and children.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2757748.html

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:34pm: And? They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home. It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line. 43% achieved the goal of getting to Australia if you paid $10K for a diamond but were told the cubic zirconia you got was "somewhere thereabouts" you'd be pissed so don't try to increase the success rate by mixing the 2 numbers the $10K was to get onto mainland Aust How many were given tpv's and then sent home maqqa.. This is the question you continuously avoid. (1) Of the 700 that was given protection VISA and allowed to set foot on Australian soil - I don't know (2) How does this then related to the 34,000 under Labor?

Still waiting for you to explain why you think TPV are a good idea now - when they clearly were not a good idea before.

THey did nothing to reduce the arrival of asylum seekers in Australlia, but they did lead to more women and children placing themselves at risk.


As for evidence that TPVs were a deterrent - there isn't any. There is only speculation by those who haven't bothered fact checking or doing a bit of research. If anyone tells you that TPVs were a factor in stopping boats in 2001, rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about, or they are simply lying.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2757748.htm

Tony Abbott said, "I will stop the boats."

I think you can pretty well take that to the bank.

Tony Abbott has stated, "I will stop the boats."

Tony Abbott WILL stop the boats....end of story and end of problem. Too bad about the 30,000 Gillard let through the gate.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

Still waiting for you to explain why you think TPV are a good idea now - when they clearly were not a good idea before. THey did nothing to reduce the arrival of asylum seekers in Australlia, but they did lead to more women and children placing themselves at risk. As for evidence that TPVs were a deterrent - there isn't any. There is only speculation by those who haven't bothered fact checking or doing a bit of research. If anyone tells you that TPVs were a factor in stopping boats in 2001, rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about, or they are simply lying. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2757748.htm

We are referring to 2 specific periods

Howard's pacific Solution - 2002 to 2007

Rudd/Gillard's No Solution - 2008 to 2013

You would have seen that I said

TPV + Pacific Solution = Best Solution

Not that it's called "Pacific Solution"

Not a cheap imitation called the Houston Recommendation

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while...

I see - so we're only using the TPV figures that fit your narrative - just quietly ignore the ones that don't  ;D


Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Pacific Solution + TPV = Best Solution

I don't expect this to ever sink in, but I'll keep repeating it anyway.

We know what stopped the boats - and it wasn't the so-called pacific solution. It was operation Relex - conducted between about August and November 2001. Howard and Reith ordered the navy to start a campaign of terror against incoming boats - firing shots across their bows, standing back as boats sank, and above all - towing boats back to Indonesian waters. We all know as well that this coincided with an intense propaganda campaign by the Howard government to justify risking people's lives in this way. Children overboard, demonizing boat people, queue jumpers, importing terrorists etc.

Operation Relex was an extreme, knee jerk reaction to a massive spike in arrivals caused directly by the implementation of TPVs. The actual pacific solution - as in offshore processing to Nauru and Manus Island  - came in after the boats had already stopped. No one has ever explained to me how processing in Nauru stops boats. It doesn't. Terrorizing boat people on the waters and towing boats back stops boats - but it is not the pacific solution. Also such stunts won't be tolerated in the future - either by the Indonesians or the navy itself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:01pm: From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while... I see - so we're only using the TPV figures that fit your narrative - just quietly ignore the ones that don't  ;D Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:18pm: Pacific Solution + TPV = Best Solution I don't expect this to ever sink in, but I'll keep repeating it anyway. We know what stopped the boats - and it wasn't the so-called pacific solution. It was operation Relex - conducted between about August and November 2001. Howard and Reith ordered the navy to start a campaign of terror against incoming boats - firing shots across their bows, standing back as boats sank, and above all - towing boats back to Indonesian waters. We all know as well that this coincided with an intense propaganda campaign by the Howard government to justify risking people's lives in this way. Children overboard, demonizing boat people, queue jumpers, importing terrorists etc. Operation Relex was an extreme, knee jerk reaction to a massive spike in arrivals caused directly by the implementation of TPVs. The actual pacific solution - as in offshore processing to Nauru and Manus Island  - came in after the boats had already stopped. No one has ever explained to me how processing in Nauru stops boats. It doesn't. Terrorizing boat people on the waters and towing boats back stops boats - but it is not the pacific solution. Also such stunts won't be tolerated in the future - either by the Indonesians or the navy itself.

The navy will do as it's told as always, and Indonesia can suck it up considering their border policy leaks like a sieve.
Australia should not bear the brunt because Indonesia is corrupt and incompetent.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:01pm: From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while... I see - so we're only using the TPV figures that fit your narrative - just quietly ignore the ones that don't  ;D Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:18pm: Pacific Solution + TPV = Best Solution I don't expect this to ever sink in, but I'll keep repeating it anyway. We know what stopped the boats - and it wasn't the so-called pacific solution. It was operation Relex - conducted between about August and November 2001. Howard and Reith ordered the navy to start a campaign of terror against incoming boats - firing shots across their bows, standing back as boats sank, and above all - towing boats back to Indonesian waters. We all know as well that this coincided with an intense propaganda campaign by the Howard government to justify risking people's lives in this way. Children overboard, demonizing boat people, queue jumpers, importing terrorists etc. Operation Relex was an extreme, knee jerk reaction to a massive spike in arrivals caused directly by the implementation of TPVs. The actual pacific solution - as in offshore processing to Nauru and Manus Island  - came in after the boats had already stopped. No one has ever explained to me how processing in Nauru stops boats. It doesn't. Terrorizing boat people on the waters and towing boats back stops boats - but it is not the pacific solution. Also such stunts won't be tolerated in the future - either by the Indonesians or the navy itself.

Please also repeat, the measures worked.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:01pm: From 1999-2001 there was NO Pacific Solution policy. Try getting it right once in a while... I see - so we're only using the TPV figures that fit your narrative - just quietly ignore the ones that don't  ;D Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:18pm: Pacific Solution + TPV = Best Solution I don't expect this to ever sink in, but I'll keep repeating it anyway. We know what stopped the boats - and it wasn't the so-called pacific solution. It was operation Relex - conducted between about August and November 2001. Howard and Reith ordered the navy to start a campaign of terror against incoming boats - firing shots across their bows, standing back as boats sank, and above all - towing boats back to Indonesian waters. We all know as well that this coincided with an intense propaganda campaign by the Howard government to justify risking people's lives in this way. Children overboard, demonizing boat people, queue jumpers, importing terrorists etc. Operation Relex was an extreme, knee jerk reaction to a massive spike in arrivals caused directly by the implementation of TPVs. The actual pacific solution - as in offshore processing to Nauru and Manus Island  - came in after the boats had already stopped. No one has ever explained to me how processing in Nauru stops boats. It doesn't. Terrorizing boat people on the waters and towing boats back stops boats - but it is not the pacific solution. Also such stunts won't be tolerated in the future - either by the Indonesians or the navy itself.

Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up

---

Quote:

Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up

um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs.

My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers.

But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals.

The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would.

I apply a simple common sense formula to this:
1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals.
2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 10:26pm:

Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs.

Did you notice 2002? That's when the Pacific Solution came into existence.

And it is the main point of discussion

TPV + Pacific Solution = Best solution for Australia

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 10:26pm:

But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals.

Then you understand didley squat about onshore and offshore processing

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 10:26pm:

Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals.

You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you???

Maqqa wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 3:34pm: And? They are fleeing shithole places, they try and come here, 70% get to, or somewhere thereabouts at least and don't get sent home. It's not really an intimidating stat. You will need to do better to push the tpv line. 43% achieved the goal of getting to Australia if you paid $10K for a diamond but were told the cubic zirconia you got was "somewhere thereabouts" you'd be pissed so don't try to increase the success rate by mixing the 2 numbers the $10K was to get onto mainland Aust How many were given tpv's and then sent home maqqa.. This is the question you continuously avoid. (1) Of the 700 that was given protection VISA and allowed to set foot on Australian soil - I don't know (2) How does this then related to the 34,000 under Labor?

It doesn't, if tpv's were a deterrent the majority who were given them would have been sent home. So far all I can find is that a bunch of afghans voluntarily went home and most of the rest were resettled .

How does this make tpv's an effective deterrent exactly?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:19am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:26pm: Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals. You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you???

And now pretty much that same policy, asides from tpv's, is not.

Now, as we have established, tpv's themselves wernt any type of a deterrent, why do you expect things to change if they are reintroduced?

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:19am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:26pm: Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals. You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you??? And now pretty much that same policy, asides from tpv's, is not. Now, as we have established, tpv's themselves wernt any type of a deterrent, why do you expect things to change if they are reintroduced?

Still can't bring yourself to admit that Howard got it right while Rudd/Gillard got it so badly wrong, eh?  ;D ;D ;D

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:19am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:26pm: Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals. You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you??? And now pretty much that same policy, asides from tpv's, is not. Now, as we have established, tpv's themselves wernt any type of a deterrent, why do you expect things to change if they are reintroduced?

Calling the Pacific Solution similar to the Houston Recommendation is like calling a diamond similar to cubic zirconia

The only difference is Gillard paid $6B for the cubic zirconia and the Pacific Solution cost $200M

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:19am:

You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you???

Um no I don't actually. The boats had already stopped by the time the PS was put in place.

Terrorizing boat people, threatening their lives and sending them back to Indonesia clearly had a long term impact. Promising to process asylum seekers at Nauru, with the virtual assurance that they will be resettled in Australia does not. That should be obvious.

Please educate yourself:


Quote:

The day after the Tampa crisis began, August 28, cabinet met and directed the then chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie, to prepare a military response to the problem of the boat people. The Government wanted the operation to run for 12 weeks, right through the peak of the boat season - and the election campaign.

Quote:

When Barrie was instructed to launch Relex, his orders from cabinet were to warn the asylum boats to turn around, and to rely on a show of force to deter them. After that, the military was to get all its instructions directly from the Government. On the vexed question of what the military should do if the asylum boats refused to heed the navy, Barrie told his commanders that "Government approval and guidance for subsequent response is to be sought".

Quote:

By September 14, when Gately wrote to Reith, the first clash between the Government and the navy over its SOLAS obligations had occurred. Gately told Reith that two navy commanders had qustioned the military over the actions. One had removed asylum seekers from a boat (the SIEV 2 - Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel 2) which was about to run aground on Ashmore Reef. The other had ended a fraught boarding operation against SIEV 3, which had refused to turn back to Indonesia. Some passengers had threatened suicide if they were forced to return and a pregnant woman was about to give birth. Some 54 children were on board.

Quote:

At the same time, the Government overhauled its strategy for Relex. It instructed the navy to begin towing boats out of Australian waters to the edge of Indonesian waters.

Quote:

In the end, the more aggressive strategy under Relex worked as a deterrent, but at some cost. The navy, with army units on board, began towing asylum boats to Indonesian waters. But this increased the SOLAS problems for the navy. Confrontations on board the boats led to accusations by asylum seekers that the navy had left them in dangerous vessels to drift in Indonesian waters.

Quote:

Ultimately, the Government gambled on Operation Relex and pulled victory from the jaws of near defeat. But other factors besides Relex also had an impact on stopping the boats, including the sinking of SIEV X with more than 400 passengers on board in late October

Basically Howard panicked after Tampa because he couldn't stop the boats in election season. So he ordered a military campaign using the navy to stop the boats. Attempts at intimidation and risking lives initially failed as well - so Howard simply ordered the navy to get tougher. Finally all boats were ordered to be towed back to Indonesian waters - at great risk to life and limb.

All this happened BEFORE the pacific solution was implemented, you geniuses. The boats stopped BEFORE 2002. Sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island for processing did diddly squat to stop the boats - because the boats had already been stopped.

Operation Relex was rolled over into Operation Resolute in 2006 and operate until today - what's your point?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:19am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 5:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:19am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:26pm: Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals. You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you??? And now pretty much that same policy, asides from tpv's, is not. Now, as we have established, tpv's themselves wernt any type of a deterrent, why do you expect things to change if they are reintroduced? Still can't bring yourself to admit that Howard got it right while Rudd/Gillard got it so badly wrong, eh?  ;D ;D ;D

Labor heads are made up of different ingredients to that of the thinking public. These brain-dead knock any effective policies and promote Gillard's, no matter how much Gillard's harm the country.

red baron wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

As I have said on another thread on this? Why do we have 2? The John Howard solution should be installed as soon as the Liberals are in office. Refuel em, re provision them, then turn them around. Once the people smugglers know they aren't going to set a single soul on land it will die on the vines. People aren't going to stump upwards of 20 grand if they don't make it here. Word spreads fast in the people trade.

Apart from provisions and fuel, band-aid the leaks in their boats so that they'll get back to port.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Operation Relex was rolled over into Operation Resolute in 2006 and operate until today - what's your point?

a little hard to grasp isn't it Maqqa?

Pacific Solution = TPVs plus offshore processing. This did *NOT* stop the boats. The boats had already been stopped by a deliberate campaign of terror and endangering lives. Note also that this campaign was only required in the first place because the implementation of TPVs had backfired so badly - causing a massive and unprecedented spike in arrivals.

Face facts, the only way we can stop the boats is by illegal terror tactics that puts real lives in danger. Not by merely shipping applicants to Nauru for processing.


olde.sault wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Labor heads are made up of different ingredients to that of the thinking public. These brain-dead knock any effective policies and promote Gillard's, no matter how much Gillard's harm the country.

I am not a "labor head". If I was I would be promoting Gillard's new and improved Pacific Solution - with added punitive measures. I despise both parties refugee policies almost equally. Interesting too that labor's punitive measures such as the no advantage test had done nothing at all to reduce the boats. Like I said, as long as you agree to process claims, you can't stop the boats. Only sending claimants back at great risk to life and limb has been shown to be effective.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

a little hard to grasp isn't it Maqqa? Pacific Solution = TPVs plus offshore processing. This did *NOT* stop the boats.

Technically - you are correct

If one boat arrive then it has not stopped the boats

According to the numbers from the Immigration department - it did reduce it significantly

So you go and argue with those numbers

If you are not happy with those results then don't vote for LIBs this year

Those who wants the numbers reduced will to 2007 figures will vote for the LIBs

---

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:12am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 5:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:19am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:26pm: Quote: Lets look at the timeline for TPV, Pacific Solution and when the current Rudd/Gillard government stuffed it up um yeah - you notice that big spike between 1999-2001? Thats TPVs. My guess is that if pull factors have an effect, then Rudd/Gillard "stuffed it up" by indicating that they would no longer be towing boats back or using the navy to terrorise and endanger asylum seekers. But thats not the pacific solution. Once again, I have yet to see any compelling reason why processing asylum seekers at Nauru or Manus Island under the actual pacific solution would have any effect. I definitely can't see why TPVs would have an effect - given that the introduction of TPVs saw an immediate and massive spike in arrivals. The proof in the pudding is that Gillard's new Nauru solution - with added punitive measures (the 'no advantage' principle) has done diddly squat in reducing the boats - despite the libs promise that it would. I apply a simple common sense formula to this: 1. treating asylum seekers like schit after we agree to process their claims does jack schit to the number of boat arrivals. 2. making it clear we will do everything to avoid processing asylum seekers claims in the first place by sending them back and endangering their lives does have an effect on the number of boat arrivals. You do realise that TPV's plus the Pacific Solution stopped the boats, don't you??? And now pretty much that same policy, asides from tpv's, is not. Now, as we have established, tpv's themselves wernt any type of a deterrent, why do you expect things to change if they are reintroduced? Calling the Pacific Solution similar to the Houston Recommendation is like calling a diamond similar to cubic zirconia The only difference is Gillard paid $6B for the cubic zirconia and the Pacific Solution cost $200M

Yet, asides from tpv's, you can't point out the differences between the current policy and the pacific solution.

Why?

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Yet, asides from tpv's, you can't point out the differences between the current policy and the pacific solution. Why?

Why should I?

It's enough to say the current system does not work.

If you think it's the same then it's up to you to prove it's the same

You make the claim and you want me to prove your claim?  :D :D

I can't tell you what the differences are as i don't know what they are Maqqa. As i have said numerous times now

And seemingly, neither do you. Which is odd given your argument here.

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

I can't tell you what the differences are as i don't know what they are Maqqa. As i have said numerous times now And seemingly, neither do you. Which is odd given your argument here.

What do you think that argument is?

That boats will suddenly stop once the libs implement the pacific solution again.

You seem to think it's substantially different to what is currently in place, but asides from TPV's, which we have already proven are not much of a deterrent, i can't see what the differences are.

And you can't point out what they are.

That about sums it up

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

That boats will suddenly stop once the libs implement the pacific solution again. You seem to think it's substantially different to what is currently in place, but asides from TPV's, which we have already proven are not much of a deterrent, i can't see what the differences are. And you can't point out what they are. That about sums it up

Based on history - this is the case

Labor has no history of success in this area

Because they wanted to help Maqqa achieve a world record, number of Threads on page 1 of Politicians Suck?

Oh sorry, nearly forgot?

I wonder, if FD is charging the Liberal Party, for Maqqa's Party Advertising, which is all that she is doing, LIBERAL PARTY ADVETISING/SPIN!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Because they wanted to help Maqqa achieve a world record, number of Threads on page 1 of Politicians Suck? Oh sorry, nearly forgot? I wonder, if FD is charging the Liberal Party, for Maqqa's Party Advertising, which is all that she is doing, LIBERAL PARTY ADVETISING/SPIN!

I am advertising the Liberal party

hhmmm

I rarely post about the LIBs so how can I be advertising them?

and I am grateful to FD for the website - despite the fact I do antagonise him/her  8-) 8-)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

The boats had already been stopped by a deliberate campaign of terror and endangering lives. Only sending claimants back at great risk to life and limb has been shown to be effective.

Excellent ideas for new border tightening measures by the sounds of it.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

Why should I? It's enough to say the current system does not work.

If you are so sure returning to the pacific solution will solve the problem, I think its fair enough that you explain why the current policy - supported by the libs - is not working.

You see, they are almost identical - except for the TPVs - which we already know have the opposite effect of what they are intended. The key difference with labor's policy is the no advantage measure - which is by design punitive - specifically for deterrence. Howard didn't have that. So basically you are saying that although Howard had a softer approach than Gillard, returning to his policy will somehow work.

Here's what will most likely happen: Abbott will come to power on a platform of "stopping the boats" (again). He will continue Nauru, and reintroduce TPVs. It won't have any effect - in fact arrivals will continue to increase. Abbott's government will then do what Howard did in 2001 - panic. He will bring back terror tactics on the high seas - call it Operation Relex Mark II. People will likely die and many more lives will be needlessly endangered. Eventually through sheer terror, the boats will stop. And once again, the so called "pacific solution" will have had nothing to do with it.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

I wonder, if FD is charging the Liberal Party, for Maqqa's Party Advertising, which is all that she is doing, LIBERAL PARTY ADVETISING/SPIN!

Good God - I'd be demanding my money back.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:36pm: Because they wanted to help Maqqa achieve a world record, number of Threads on page 1 of Politicians Suck? Oh sorry, nearly forgot? I wonder, if FD is charging the Liberal Party, for Maqqa's Party Advertising, which is all that she is doing, LIBERAL PARTY ADVETISING/SPIN! I am advertising the Liberal party hhmmm I rarely post about the LIBs so how can I be advertising them? and I am grateful to FD for the website - despite the fact I do antagonise him/her  8-) 8-)

Gee whiz, that's the best "one liner chuckle", I've heard all day!
Come on sweetie, be honest, for once, that is the only reason you're on this website!
You are either posting positive Liberal SPIN or negative Labor SPIN. Either way, YOU ARE DOING LIBERAL ADVERTISING!
All of which you are quite entitled to do, BUT PLEASE, at least be honest about it!


And, so you should be! This sort of advertising, would cost a fortune, on the "old style" media!

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:39pm: Why should I? It's enough to say the current system does not work. If you are so sure returning to the pacific solution will solve the problem, I think its fair enough that you explain why the current policy - supported by the libs - is not working. You see, they are almost identical - except for the TPVs - which we already know have the opposite effect of what they are intended. The key difference with labor's policy is the no advantage measure - which is by design punitive - specifically for deterrence. Howard didn't have that. So basically you are saying that although Howard had a softer approach than Gillard, returning to his policy will somehow work. Here's what will most likely happen: Abbott will come to power on a platform of "stopping the boats" (again). He will continue Nauru, and reintroduce TPVs. It won't have any effect - in fact arrivals will continue to increase. Abbott's government will then do what Howard did in 2001 - panic. He will bring back terror tactics on the high seas - call it Operation Relex Mark II. People will likely die and many more lives will be needlessly endangered. Eventually through sheer terror, the boats will stop. And once again, the so called "pacific solution" will have had nothing to do with it.

As long as the boats stop then who gives a bugger?


People will likely die and many more lives will be needlessly endangered


People do die now and lives will continuously be in danger if we allow people smuggling to continue.

What's your point?

Tony Abbotts solution given freely at every opportunity for over 15 months -"just get on the phone to Nauru". That was it that was his solution right up till it didn't work.

Then surprise surprise the goal posts move again.

How do you build an illegal boat?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

How do you build an illegal boat?

I wonder if this is an illegal boat:

http://www.teluguone.com/tonecmsuserfiles/Boat%20on%20the%20Highway(1).jpg

Not sure if it's on the correct side of the road.   :-/

;D

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:44pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:36pm: Because they wanted to help Maqqa achieve a world record, number of Threads on page 1 of Politicians Suck? Oh sorry, nearly forgot? I wonder, if FD is charging the Liberal Party, for Maqqa's Party Advertising, which is all that she is doing, LIBERAL PARTY ADVETISING/SPIN! I am advertising the Liberal party hhmmm I rarely post about the LIBs so how can I be advertising them? and I am grateful to FD for the website - despite the fact I do antagonise him/her  8-) 8-) Gee whiz, that's the best "one liner chuckle", I've heard all day! Come on sweetie, be honest, for once, that is the only reason you're on this website! You are either posting positive Liberal SPIN or negative Labor SPIN. Either way, YOU ARE DOING LIBERAL ADVERTISING! All of which you are quite entitled to do, BUT PLEASE, at least be honest about it! And, so you should be! This sort of advertising, would cost a fortune, on the "old style" media!

Oh come on PN

This goes way back to the old Yahoo forum days - so I am not here to advertise anything

Deathbonksmydeadhorse is another matter

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:45pm: That boats will suddenly stop once the libs implement the pacific solution again. You seem to think it's substantially different to what is currently in place, but asides from TPV's, which we have already proven are not much of a deterrent, i can't see what the differences are. And you can't point out what they are. That about sums it up Based on history - this is the case Labor has no history of success in this area

The problem for that argument is that history has all but been reinstated, and its not working.

Tpv's won't solve it, never has been the reason.

Time for you to get your head out of the sand (or at least explain what the actual differences between the policies are as you see them)

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:05pm: Infarction wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 12:45pm: That boats will suddenly stop once the libs implement the pacific solution again. You seem to think it's substantially different to what is currently in place, but asides from TPV's, which we have already proven are not much of a deterrent, i can't see what the differences are. And you can't point out what they are. That about sums it up Based on history - this is the case Labor has no history of success in this area The problem for that argument is that history has all but been reinstated, and its not working. Tpv's won't solve it, never has been the reason. Time for you to get your head out of the sand (or at least explain what the actual differences between the policies are as you see them)

No it hasn't

Because if it has - the it would be called the Pacific Solution

If Gillard had ANY intention of reinstating the Pacific Solution then she would have not wasted time and money commissioning the Houston Recommendations

But itsnot the PS. There is a difference..

No tpv's, been over that a bunch of times. That's why I didn't say it was the PS.

What other differences are there in your opinion?

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

But itsnot the PS. There is a difference.. No tpv's, been over that a bunch of times. That's why I didn't say it was the PS. What other differences are there in your opinion?

And because it's not the PS - for whatever reason - therefore it's not working

What are the differences in your opinion that make the PS so much better.

If you don't actually know, just say that.

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

What are the differences in your opinion that make the PS so much better. If you don't actually know, just say that.

Apparently it has to be officially named "The Pacific Solution" - and then it will work. That seems to be what Maqqa is saying...

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

What are the differences in your opinion that make the PS so much better. If you don't actually know, just say that.

FFS now you want a dissection of the legislation compared to the 22 Houston Recommendation

FOR WHAT?!

Facts are - it was working and Labor got rid-off it and made the problem bigger

So it's confirmed.

Maqqa has absolutely no clue what the differences, if any, actually are except for tpv's which are no deterrent based on the fact the very large majority are not sent home.

It's strange though, one would think that with the amount of months you have been banging on about this issue, you would have at least educated yourself on the issue maqqa.

You now officially have no credibility on this issue.

Well done.

A new training scheme produced more Illegal boat builders?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

A new training scheme produced more Illegal boat builders?

maybe it was all that foreign aid we send to Indo .... they use it to train new boat builders, they in turn build illegal boats that then make there way bach here ... maybe if we increase funding to indo they can learn to build legal boats????

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

So it's confirmed. Maqqa has absolutely no clue what the differences, if any, actually are except for tpv's which are no deterrent based on the fact the very large majority are not sent home. It's strange though, one would think that with the amount of months you have been banging on about this issue, you would have at least educated yourself on the issue maqqa. You now officially have no credibility on this issue. Well done.

How does me knowing or not knowing change the fact the PS worked and Houston Recommendation didn't

Does me knowing or not knowing somehow influence the outcome of a bad Labor policy?

So you want to focus the attention on the point of me knowing rather than focus on bad policies by the ALP?  ;D ;D ;D

red baron wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Tony Abbott has stated, "I will stop the boats." Tony Abbott WILL stop the boats....end of story and end of problem. Too bad about the 30,000 Gillard let through the gate.

Red, your faith in Abbott is childlike and unquestioning.

I thought you had more intelligence than that.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:00pm: Tony Abbott has stated, "I will stop the boats." Tony Abbott WILL stop the boats....end of story and end of problem. Too bad about the 30,000 Gillard let through the gate. Red, your faith in Abbott is childlike and unquestioning. I thought you had more intelligence than that.

whatever gave you that impression? I thought you had more intelligence than that.

(sorry Pete, I couldn't resist)

Was the ship later called the Lord Sandwich the first Illegal boat?

John Smith wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 10:50pm: red baron wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:00pm: Tony Abbott has stated, "I will stop the boats." Tony Abbott WILL stop the boats....end of story and end of problem. Too bad about the 30,000 Gillard let through the gate. Red, your faith in Abbott is childlike and unquestioning. I thought you had more intelligence than that. whatever gave you that impression? I thought you had more intelligence than that. (sorry Pete, I couldn't resist)

No problem, I like it.......... :)

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 7:02pm: So it's confirmed. Maqqa has absolutely no clue what the differences, if any, actually are except for tpv's which are no deterrent based on the fact the very large majority are not sent home. It's strange though, one would think that with the amount of months you have been banging on about this issue, you would have at least educated yourself on the issue maqqa. You now officially have no credibility on this issue. Well done. How does me knowing or not knowing change the fact the PS worked and Houston Recommendation didn't Does me knowing or not knowing somehow influence the outcome of a bad Labor policy? So you want to focus the attention on the point of me knowing rather than focus on bad policies by the ALP?  ;D ;D ;D

Come on now maqqa, don't get yourself all upset that you have been shown to have no clue about one of your favourite topics, other than what the Libs tell you that you should know, think and say on the topic.

Go and actually educate yourself on the issue and then come back and try again.

Here's a PLAN too do something to stop the boats.

There is a island at the bottom of indonesia, australian loves this place its call Bali.

Buildt the imigration and detension centre their, Invade INDONESIA AND TAKE THAT ISLAND.

Then we Australia can conrtrol the flow into this contry by legal means.

Infarction wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Maqqa has absolutely no clue what the differences, if any, actually are except for tpv's which are no deterrent based on the fact the very large majority are not sent home.

sure Maqqa knows - he knows that one was called the pacific solution and the other was not. Thats all he needs to know - apparently.


Maqqa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

How does me knowing or not knowing change the fact the PS worked and Houston Recommendation didn't Does me knowing or not knowing somehow influence the outcome of a bad Labor policy?

Because if you don't know why something seems to "work", you are falling for a classic fallacy of false cause. As any scientist worth his salt will tell you, association does not mean causation. If you have no idea about why two things have an association, you have absolutely no leg to stand on in saying one causes the other.

Now as it so happens in this case, I've already explained to you why the boats stopped - and it wasn't because of the pacific solution. In fact we know that 50% of the pacific solution (TPVs) did the exact opposite of stopping the boats.

dingo2 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 6:07am:

Invade INDONESIA AND TAKE THAT ISLAND

I can see that ending well ... you want to invade a country of 256 million? you won't need to worry about asylum seekers coming to Aus, you'll end up the asylum seeker trying to run from Aus.. you'd better save one of those boats just in case.

John Smith wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

dingo2 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 6:07am: Invade INDONESIA AND TAKE THAT ISLAND I can see that ending well ... you want to invade a country of 256 million? you won't need to worry about asylum seekers coming to Aus, you'll end up the asylum seeker trying to run from Aus.. you'd better save one of those boats just in case.

......... oh happy day.... :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 9:47pm: How does me knowing or not knowing change the fact the PS worked and Houston Recommendation didn't Does me knowing or not knowing somehow influence the outcome of a bad Labor policy? Because if you don't know why something seems to "work", you are falling for a classic fallacy of false cause. As any scientist worth his salt will tell you, association does not mean causation. If you have no idea about why two things have an association, you have absolutely no leg to stand on in saying one causes the other.

There are 10 years worth of data supporting my view

How does my personal understanding of the intricate detail of a policy change the 10 years of data?

Labor failed!!

Infarction wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 5:43am:

Come on now maqqa, don't get yourself all upset that you have been shown to have no clue about one of your favourite topics, other than what the Libs tell you that you should know, think and say on the topic. Go and actually educate yourself on the issue and then come back and try again.

Just stringing you out infrac

Whether you think I know about it or not does not change the fact that Labor's incompetence is on show

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 5:43am: Come on now maqqa, don't get yourself all upset that you have been shown to have no clue about one of your favourite topics, other than what the Libs tell you that you should know, think and say on the topic. Go and actually educate yourself on the issue and then come back and try again. Just stringing you out infrac Whether you think I know about it or not does not change the fact that Labor's incompetence is on show

as is yours .....

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

There are 10 years worth of data supporting my view How does my personal understanding of the intricate detail of a policy change the 10 years of data? Labor failed!!

You have 10 years of data in which you can make an association. Thats it. Association does not equal causation - that is a logical fallacy. I'm afraid simply saying "the boats stopped during the PS. I don't know what the PS was, but it seemed to work" - doesn't really cut the mustard. As I said you are just falling into the dangerous trap of making an association into a cause.

What is the pacific solution? Easy - offshore processing + TPVs. Is there any reason to assume that this stops the boats? No. In fact one of the two components we know does the opposite. There is no reason to think that offshore processing stops the boats either - in fact they increase under Gillard - despite the added punitive "no advantage" measure.

What we do know is that the boats stopped when the navy used terrorism on the high seas to threaten asylum seekers, and then tow them back. You just need to apply a bit of common sense here: people so desperate for asylum are not going to be deterred by the prospect of having their claims assessed in Nauru instead of Baxter. The important thing for them is the fact that their claims will be assessed, and there will be a high probability of it being successful. On the other hand, when asylum seekers perceive that their claims will never be assessed to begin with, and they will be towed back to Indonesia with great risk to their own lives - that is likely to deter them.

You can say its a technical point - since either way Howard stopped the boats. The point is important however. You don't see Abbott and the libs saying "bring back terrorism on the high seas" as the solution - that would look bad. Instead they say "pick up the phone to Nauru - and all will be fixed". So Gillard did exactly that - and lo and behold the boats kept coming. So the libs then changed to "but but.. you also need to bring back TPVs! Nauru won't work without TPVs!" Except the problem with that is there is no reason or evidence to believe that Nauru + TPVs will work. In fact the record speaks for itself: TPVs increased the boats under Howard, and Nauru increased boats under Gillard.

Time to bow out maqqa. You have no clue, none at all.

It's getting a little embarassing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 9:23am: There are 10 years worth of data supporting my view How does my personal understanding of the intricate detail of a policy change the 10 years of data? Labor failed!! You have 10 years of data in which you can make an association. Thats it. Association does not equal causation - that is a logical fallacy. I'm afraid simply saying "the boats stopped during the PS. I don't know what the PS was, but it seemed to work" - doesn't really cut the mustard. As I said you are just falling into the dangerous trap of making an association into a cause. What is the pacific solution? Easy - offshore processing + TPVs. Is there any reason to assume that this stops the boats? No. In fact one of the two components we know does the opposite. There is no reason to think that offshore processing stops the boats either - in fact they increase under Gillard - despite the added punitive "no advantage" measure. What we do know is that the boats stopped when the navy used terrorism on the high seas to threaten asylum seekers, and then tow them back. You just need to apply a bit of common sense here: people so desperate for asylum are not going to be deterred by the prospect of having their claims assessed in Nauru instead of Baxter. The important thing for them is the fact that their claims will be assessed, and there will be a high probability of it being successful. On the other hand, when asylum seekers perceive that their claims will never be assessed to begin with, and they will be towed back to Indonesia with great risk to their own lives - that is likely to deter them. You can say its a technical point - since either way Howard stopped the boats. The point is important however. You don't see Abbott and the libs saying "bring back terrorism on the high seas" as the solution - that would look bad. Instead they say "pick up the phone to Nauru - and all will be fixed". So Gillard did exactly that - and lo and behold the boats kept coming. So the libs then changed to "but but.. you also need to bring back TPVs! Nauru won't work without TPVs!" Except the problem with that is there is no reason or evidence to believe that Nauru + TPVs will work. In fact the record speaks for itself: TPVs increased the boats under Howard, and Nauru increased boats under Gillard.

The same principles are used for climate change

Lefties are prepared to accept the same assertion under that but not this

The Graph is very clear

---

Infarction wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

Time to bow out maqqa. You have no clue, none at all. It's getting a little embarassing.

You are embarrassing yourself infrac

There's no two ways about it

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:04am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 9:23am: There are 10 years worth of data supporting my view How does my personal understanding of the intricate detail of a policy change the 10 years of data? Labor failed!! You have 10 years of data in which you can make an association. Thats it. Association does not equal causation - that is a logical fallacy. I'm afraid simply saying "the boats stopped during the PS. I don't know what the PS was, but it seemed to work" - doesn't really cut the mustard. As I said you are just falling into the dangerous trap of making an association into a cause. What is the pacific solution? Easy - offshore processing + TPVs. Is there any reason to assume that this stops the boats? No. In fact one of the two components we know does the opposite. There is no reason to think that offshore processing stops the boats either - in fact they increase under Gillard - despite the added punitive "no advantage" measure. What we do know is that the boats stopped when the navy used terrorism on the high seas to threaten asylum seekers, and then tow them back. You just need to apply a bit of common sense here: people so desperate for asylum are not going to be deterred by the prospect of having their claims assessed in Nauru instead of Baxter. The important thing for them is the fact that their claims will be assessed, and there will be a high probability of it being successful. On the other hand, when asylum seekers perceive that their claims will never be assessed to begin with, and they will be towed back to Indonesia with great risk to their own lives - that is likely to deter them. You can say its a technical point - since either way Howard stopped the boats. The point is important however. You don't see Abbott and the libs saying "bring back terrorism on the high seas" as the solution - that would look bad. Instead they say "pick up the phone to Nauru - and all will be fixed". So Gillard did exactly that - and lo and behold the boats kept coming. So the libs then changed to "but but.. you also need to bring back TPVs! Nauru won't work without TPVs!" Except the problem with that is there is no reason or evidence to believe that Nauru + TPVs will work. In fact the record speaks for itself: TPVs increased the boats under Howard, and Nauru increased boats under Gillard. The same principles are used for climate change Lefties are prepared to accept the same assertion under that but not this The Graph is very clear

ohh, good tactic ... change the topic ,

that'll surely hide your stupidity.

John Smith wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity.

Listen moron

He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:47am: ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity. Listen moron He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied

Still going champ?

Good for you.

Have you actually done and research and educated yourself on the topic yet?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:47am: ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity. Listen moron He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied

and you were talking about climate change in a thread about asylum seekers ... like i said earlier, good tactic .. I don't think anyone noticed how dumb you are, you're in the clear.

LOL

John Smith wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:47am: ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity. Listen moron He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied and you were talking about climate change in a thread about asylum seekers ... like i said earlier, good tactic .. I don't think anyone noticed how dumb you are, you're in the clear.

And he was talking about theoretical argument in a thread about increased illegals under Labor

Infarction wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:47am: ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity. Listen moron He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied Still going champ? Good for you. Have you actually done and research and educated yourself on the topic yet?

I wouldn't have raised the thread without knowing it

But I only reveal enough to sink you guys - which is not much

How many people arrived by boat from January 1 to the end of March last year? Just over 1,000. How many have arrived this year from January 1 to now? More than 3,000. Oh, and the month isn't over yet. I wonder how many more ways Labor can find to make their non-policy an EPIC FAIL?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:47am: ohh, good tactic ... change the topic , that'll surely hide your stupidity. Listen moron He was talking about a false cause fallacy and how it was applied Still going champ? Good for you. Have you actually done and research and educated yourself on the topic yet? I wouldn't have raised the thread without knowing it But I only reveal enough to sink you guys - which is not much

Hahaha

Yeah you tried the same tactic in the conversation about the family law act.

Turned out you had no clue about that either.

Seems to be a trend.

Infarction wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

Hahaha Yeah you tried the same tactic in the conversation about the family law act. Turned out you had no clue about that either. Seems to be a trend.

And it worked because you guys have NFI

And because was not forthcoming - it wasn't worth an answer

I would be happy to discuss it if I received the proper apology

We've gone from a handfull of illegal immigrants a year to more than 17,000 a year under Labor. We've gone from $85m per year to $2.5bn per year under Labor. We've gone from no deaths at sea to more than 1,000. We've gone from a stable, effective policy to a farcial, ineffective policy under Labor. The full bench of the Federal Court is against Labor's plans, as are the Greens. The Opposition is also against Labor's plans, as is most of the country. It's undeniable and undebatable - Labor has failed on an epic scale on this issue and clearly, only a change of government will turn things around.

Perhaps you can answer the question that maqqa has failed horribly at all this time AP

What are the Libs going to do in terms of policy that labor are not that will make the difference?

Infarction wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

Perhaps you can answer the question that maqqa has failed horribly at all this time AP What are the Libs going to do in terms of policy that labor are not that will make the difference?

The tactic here AP is to engage in the nitty gritty so that he/she can build bush fires under every point you bring up

Whatever you bring up will not change the fact that Labor's policies are not working and the LIBs did

If by "tactic" you mean figuring out if he actually knows what he is talking about, then yes, that's exactly what i am doing.

I suspect with AP it will end up just like yourself and the answer will be no, no idea whatsoever.

But we will wait and see on that one.

Infarction wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

If by "tactic" you mean figuring out if he actually knows what he is talking about, then yes, that's exactly what i am doing. I suspect with AP it will end up just like yourself and the answer will be no, no idea whatsoever. But we will wait and see on that one.

I was not aware that you need to be a mechanical engineer to drive a car

Oh dear.

Infarction wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

Perhaps you can answer the question that maqqa has failed horribly at all this time AP What are the Libs going to do in terms of policy that labor are not that will make the difference?

For one thing, the Coalition will reintroduce TPVs. They are proven to work. The only reason Gillard won't do so is because it would be too embarrassing for her. Never mind that people are dying at sea - just don't embarrass her! One of the other things the Coalition will do is work with our regional neighbours to focus on deterrence, rather than processing. I think that turning back boats when it is safe to do so is another part of this Coalition policy. Labor's current policy seems to revolve around shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted - worse than useless. So now you have your answer.

70% of tpv's didn't get sent home, and of that 30%, a bunch of afghans went home voluntarily.

That's not a deterrent, far from it.

And where are they going to turn the boats back to? Indonesia have said they won't take them.

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

70% of tpv's didn't get sent home, and of that 30%, a bunch of afghans went home voluntarily. That's not a deterrent, far from it. And where are they going to turn the boats back to? Indonesia have said they won't take them.

What are they going to do when the boats turn up in Indon waters with a litre of fuel only left in the tank?
I would think your average navy stoker would be quite capable of draining fuel out of a fuel tank, or adding more if required eh.
Considering the boats have just left an Indon port, it comes across a bit odd that the Indon's would cry foul about getting them back.

Why would they be keen to take back non citizens?

Abbott can not justify a policy like you just described either, that's not safe for a start.

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Why would they be keen to take back non citizens? Abbott can not justify a policy like you just described either, that's not safe for a start.

Do the Indon's have to be keen?
I think not.
They need to fix their broken borders.
And having sufficient fuel in a tank to make a specific voyage is quite common and occurs every day.
Aircraft and ships/boats do it all the time without incident, so safety doesn't come into it.
Naval personnel already board and check these boats anyway and have done so for years.
Abbott can quite easily justify a policy which works.

What?

They don't have to take them back, what will happen then?

Leaving a boat with no fuel in open water while knowing the other country won't take them isn't safe, explain to me how that is safe.

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Why would they be keen to take back non citizens? Abbott can not justify a policy like you just described either, that's not safe for a start.

Why are the Labor and Green dopes 'keen to take non citizens'?

You are against immigration?

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

What? They don't have to take them back, what will happen then? Leaving a boat with no fuel in open water while knowing the other country won't take them isn't safe, explain to me how that is safe.

But there isn't a 'boat with no fuel in open water' as ensuring these boats have enough fuel to make port after being towed to Indon territorial waters would ensure that they make port unless the crew sabotage the boat.
But once these boats enter Indonesian territorial waters, it's not our issue anymore.
What the Indon's do after that is up to them really.

So it's safe to tow them to waters where it's no longer our problem even though the other country won't take them?

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:37am:

So it's safe to tow them to waters where it's no longer our problem even though the other country won't take them?

Well considering these boats will steam 20km or so back into the port they recently left and the country shoppers would then disembark, it's not our responsibility.
What the Indon's do next with these foreigners wandering on their streets is really up to them eh.

Will they?

Even if the Indonesians don't let them?

But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"?

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"?

Indonesian boat

If they don't take them back then everyone would be coming here....

Oh wait - they are coming here

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"?

Once the Indons board, the country shoppers and criminal crew become their responsibility.
And if they don't board and the vessel reaches port, they still become their responsibility.
After all, the boat would not have the fuel to get back into Australian waters so there is no choice.
What are the Indons going to do, fire on them?
As if that's ever going to happen.
So yes, it's 'safe'.
Only requires a few boats to be dealt with in this manner and they simply will stop coming.
Which of course is the 'safest' option of all.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:02am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:54am: Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"? Once the Indons board, the country shoppers and criminal crew become their responsibility. And if they don't board and the vessel reaches port, they still become their responsibility. After all, the boat would not have the fuel to get back into Australian waters so there is no choice. What are the Indons going to do, fire on them? As if that's ever going to happen. So yes, it's 'safe'. Only requires a few boats to be dealt with in this manner and they simply will stop coming. Which of course is the 'safest' option of all.

The issue here is if you make an example out of a few - you'll save many

So far about 1000 have died under under this Labor's plans

But because they can classified as "unavoidable" then they believe their policy is working

If you towed back say 80 or 100 and make an example of them then only 80 are "potentially" harmed

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:02am: Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:54am: Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"? Once the Indons board, the country shoppers and criminal crew become their responsibility. And if they don't board and the vessel reaches port, they still become their responsibility. After all, the boat would not have the fuel to get back into Australian waters so there is no choice. What are the Indons going to do, fire on them? As if that's ever going to happen. So yes, it's 'safe'. Only requires a few boats to be dealt with in this manner and they simply will stop coming. Which of course is the 'safest' option of all. The issue here is if you make an example out of a few - you'll save many So far about 1000 have died under under this Labor's plans But because they can classified as "unavoidable" then they believe their policy is working If you towed back say 80 or 100 and make an example of them then only 80 are "potentially" harmed

That's true, however this logic continues to escape Labor.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:02am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:54am: Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"? Once the Indons board, the country shoppers and criminal crew become their responsibility. And if they don't board and the vessel reaches port, they still become their responsibility. After all, the boat would not have the fuel to get back into Australian waters so there is no choice. What are the Indons going to do, fire on them? As if that's ever going to happen. So yes, it's 'safe'. Only requires a few boats to be dealt with in this manner and they simply will stop coming. Which of course is the 'safest' option of all.

Yes of course , knowledge that they won't be accepted but taking them anyway is completely safe.

Are you actually being serious with this?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:20am: What? They don't have to take them back, what will happen then? Leaving a boat with no fuel in open water while knowing the other country won't take them isn't safe, explain to me how that is safe. But there isn't a 'boat with no fuel in open water' as ensuring these boats have enough fuel to make port after being towed to Indon territorial waters would ensure that they make port unless the crew sabotage the boat. But once these boats enter Indonesian territorial waters, it's not our issue anymore. What the Indon's do after that is up to them really.

You are making a false assumption that the boats will not be sabotaged before hitting indon waters.

Its been shown in the past that the boats are quickly sabotaged. Could be as simple as draining the motor oil while its running as soon as an Australian boat turns up. None of the boats are ever destined to return to port.

You can in assume in most cases when the boat is found it will not be in any condition to self-motor.
What then ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:13am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:33am: Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:20am: What? They don't have to take them back, what will happen then? Leaving a boat with no fuel in open water while knowing the other country won't take them isn't safe, explain to me how that is safe. But there isn't a 'boat with no fuel in open water' as ensuring these boats have enough fuel to make port after being towed to Indon territorial waters would ensure that they make port unless the crew sabotage the boat. But once these boats enter Indonesian territorial waters, it's not our issue anymore. What the Indon's do after that is up to them really. You are making a false assumption that the boats will not be sabotaged before hitting indon waters. Its been shown in the past that the boats are quickly sabotaged. Could be as simple as draining the motor oil while its running as soon as an Australian boat turns up. None of the boats are ever destined to return to port. You can in assume in most cases when the boat is found it will not be in any condition to self-motor. What then ?

They only sabotage it because they know this will force the Aust boat to rescue them

But if they sabotage and sink - how many more would do the same?

the answer is ZERO!!

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:10am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:02am: Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:54am: Will they? Even if the Indonesians don't let them? But let me guess, it's not our responsibility any longer therefore it's "safe"? Once the Indons board, the country shoppers and criminal crew become their responsibility. And if they don't board and the vessel reaches port, they still become their responsibility. After all, the boat would not have the fuel to get back into Australian waters so there is no choice. What are the Indons going to do, fire on them? As if that's ever going to happen. So yes, it's 'safe'. Only requires a few boats to be dealt with in this manner and they simply will stop coming. Which of course is the 'safest' option of all. Yes of course , knowledge that they won't be accepted but taking them anyway is completely safe. Are you actually being serious with this?

The Indon's won't allow these vessels to float around aimlessly in their waters, or allow them to disembark without supervision.
It hasn't happened, and won't happen.
The Indons 'accept' those who's boat has sunk in their waters, they will 'accept' those others as well.

Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves

They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves

They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them

This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands

It's about time we don't give into their demands

It's our country

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:13am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:33am: Infarction wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:20am: What? They don't have to take them back, what will happen then? Leaving a boat with no fuel in open water while knowing the other country won't take them isn't safe, explain to me how that is safe. But there isn't a 'boat with no fuel in open water' as ensuring these boats have enough fuel to make port after being towed to Indon territorial waters would ensure that they make port unless the crew sabotage the boat. But once these boats enter Indonesian territorial waters, it's not our issue anymore. What the Indon's do after that is up to them really. You are making a false assumption that the boats will not be sabotaged before hitting indon waters. Its been shown in the past that the boats are quickly sabotaged. Could be as simple as draining the motor oil while its running as soon as an Australian boat turns up. None of the boats are ever destined to return to port. You can in assume in most cases when the boat is found it will not be in any condition to self-motor. What then ?

I make no assumption on sabotage by criminal boat crews, however the boats are checked over by our naval personnel when boarded.
And sabotage is a risk the country shoppers will have to take if that's the course of action their crew pursues, and murder charges await the crew should anyone die because of their actions.
One thing we can assume, is the next government will not be blackmailed by criminals.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country

The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close.

Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians.


This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back.

It's been done before

Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back. It's been done before Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come

Unfortunetly that is a one-off outcome which required many weeks of negotiation (and god knows what we gave up to the indo's to acheive it).  I think we all know that Indonesia would have said something along the lines of "just this once".

Remember these people are illegally in indonesia as well. In most cases the government of indonesia is not aware they even exist in indonesia.

Did Rudds' turn back of this boat stop other boats ?
No.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back.

Well, that didn't happen under Howard.
There was no sinking of boats en masse.
One thing did happen, they stopped coming.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:47am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back. It's been done before Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come Unfortunetly that is a one-off outcome which required many weeks of negotiation (and god knows what we gave up to the indo's to acheive it).  I think we all know that Indonesia would have said something along the lines of "just this once". Remember these people are illegally in indonesia as well. In most cases the government of indonesia is not aware they even exist in indonesia. Did Rudds' turn back of this boat stop other boats ? No.

Because it's not policy

Therefore these people will see it as being "unlucky"

If you announce it as policy and implement it then it would work

The Pacific Solution worked and you can't deny that!

I would have thought the policy would be reasonably simple.

Sri Lanka has already communicated to Australia (and Canada) that they will readily accept the return of all of those fleeing Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is an ally of Australia and deemed no longer a risk by the Government.

Immediately hand Sri Lankans over to their home country.

Thus cutting the problem people down by about 30%!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

I would have thought the policy would be reasonably simple. Sri Lanka has already communicated to Australia (and Canada) that they will readily accept the return of all of those fleeing Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is an ally of Australia and deemed no longer a risk by the Government. Immediately hand Sri Lankans over to their home country. Thus cutting the problem people down by about 30%!

One of the problems is the Greens

I am looking forward to see how Labor will treat the Greens in the next election

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:47am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back. It's been done before Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come Unfortunetly that is a one-off outcome which required many weeks of negotiation (and god knows what we gave up to the indo's to acheive it).  I think we all know that Indonesia would have said something along the lines of "just this once". Remember these people are illegally in indonesia as well. In most cases the government of indonesia is not aware they even exist in indonesia. Did Rudds' turn back of this boat stop other boats ? No. Because it's not policy Therefore these people will see it as being "unlucky" If you announce it as policy and implement it then it would work The Pacific Solution worked and you can't deny that!

The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already.
What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now.

Towing back boats will not be possible because:
1) The boats will be unable to be left.
2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission.
3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already. What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now. Towing back boats will not be possible because: 1) The boats will be unable to be left. 2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission. 3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do.

(1) "The world" have moved on from everything - so what's your point?

(2) Show me the court cases for the Pacific Solution

(3) So we just take all the crap that Indonesia throw at us?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:58am: The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already. What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now. Towing back boats will not be possible because: 1) The boats will be unable to be left. 2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission. 3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do. (1) "The world" have moved on from everything - so what's your point? (2) Show me the court cases for the Pacific Solution (3) So we just take all the crap that Indonesia throw at us?

Yes, the world has moved on, and "solutions" from the past no longer work.  The evidence is clear, we have the "pacific solution" of howard right now. It aint working. 

Indonesia arent throwing anything at us. The Indo government is not involved in people smuggling at all.  Its run by multi-national criminal gangs.
Indonesia will not take back large numbers of refuges found in international waters, and so they shouldnt.

If you were an indonesian, would you ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:55am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:47am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back. It's been done before Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come Unfortunetly that is a one-off outcome which required many weeks of negotiation (and god knows what we gave up to the indo's to acheive it).  I think we all know that Indonesia would have said something along the lines of "just this once". Remember these people are illegally in indonesia as well. In most cases the government of indonesia is not aware they even exist in indonesia. Did Rudds' turn back of this boat stop other boats ? No. Because it's not policy Therefore these people will see it as being "unlucky" If you announce it as policy and implement it then it would work The Pacific Solution worked and you can't deny that! The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already. What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now. Towing back boats will not be possible because: 1) The boats will be unable to be left. 2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission. 3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do.

Our ships do not need to enter Indonesian waters, just to be just inside international waters to send them back.
And the boats to have only enough fuel to steam the 20km back to harbour is all that is required also making points 1 & 3 irrelevant.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:02am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:58am: The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already. What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now. Towing back boats will not be possible because: 1) The boats will be unable to be left. 2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission. 3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do. (1) "The world" have moved on from everything - so what's your point? (2) Show me the court cases for the Pacific Solution (3) So we just take all the crap that Indonesia throw at us? Yes, the world has moved on, and "solutions" from the past no longer work.  The evidence is clear, we have the "pacific solution" of howard right now. It aint working.  I was not aware the Pacific Solution have been reinstated in full Indonesia arent throwing anything at us. The Indo government is not involved in people smuggling at all.  Its run by multi-national criminal gangs. Indonesia will not take back large numbers of refuges found in international waters, and so they shouldnt. And these gangs only got 1600 through under the Pacific Solution. Under Labor it's 35,000 and counting If you were an indonesian, would you ? So this opinion is not based on policy but rather a "would you" assumption.

I take particular offense to these illegals calling a radio station asking to be put through to the police to come and pick them up

These people know the weaknesses in our system and is willing to exploit it

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:58am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:55am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:47am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:31am: Remember that these people are trying to get a better life ie escape death therefore they are not going to kill themselves They know there is little danger of death if they sink themselves They know they are forcing Australia to rescue them This is like little children chucking a tantrum in the middle of a Supermarket knowing their parents would get too embarrassed and give into their demands It's about time we don't give into their demands It's our country The approach you describe is true. If our policy is tow back boats to indon waters, the actions of boat people will be to simply sabotage the boat as soon as rescue by Australian boat is close. Even Abbott will not refuse to rescue these people.  As soon as they step foot on an Australian boat in international waters, they are OUR problem, not the indonesians. They arent even indonesians. This is the fundamental problem of tow-back-the boats policy. There will be no boat to tow back. It's been done before Tow a few more back and lets see how many will come Unfortunetly that is a one-off outcome which required many weeks of negotiation (and god knows what we gave up to the indo's to acheive it).  I think we all know that Indonesia would have said something along the lines of "just this once". Remember these people are illegally in indonesia as well. In most cases the government of indonesia is not aware they even exist in indonesia. Did Rudds' turn back of this boat stop other boats ? No. Because it's not policy Therefore these people will see it as being "unlucky" If you announce it as policy and implement it then it would work The Pacific Solution worked and you can't deny that! The world has moved on from the Pacific solution. The courts have ruled parts of it illegal, and we have spent goodwill with the indos already. What we have thats actually possible of the pacific solution is what we have now. Towing back boats will not be possible because: 1) The boats will be unable to be left. 2) We cannot enter indonesian waters without their permission. 3) Indonesia do not want these refo's anymore than we do. Our ships do not need to enter Indonesian waters, just to be just inside international waters to send them back. And the boats to have only enough fuel to steam the 20km back to harbour is all that is required also making points 1 & 3 irrelevant.

You cant be serious.

So youve towed a boat back to international waters (from Australian waters), to just outside the indonesian waters, and the people on board have paid $10,000 to get to Australia and..
1) You assume they havent sabotaged the boat already
2) You assume they'll just chuff back to indonesia forgoing their $10K

Madness.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

You cant be serious. So youve towed a boat back to international waters (from Australian waters), to just outside the indonesian waters, and the people on board have paid $10,000 to get to Australia and.. 1) You assume they havent sabotaged the boat already 2) You assume they'll just chuff back to indonesia forgoing their $10K Madness.

And the ones who pay to get on the next boat is even more mad

And if they want to die - let them

Because it might have save thousands

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Yes, the world has moved on, and "solutions" from the past no longer work.  The evidence is clear, we have the "pacific solution" of howard right now. It aint working.  I was not aware the Pacific Solution have been reinstated in full Indonesia arent throwing anything at us. The Indo government is not involved in people smuggling at all.  Its run by multi-national criminal gangs. Indonesia will not take back large numbers of refuges found in international waters, and so they shouldnt. And these gangs only got 1600 through under the Pacific Solution. Under Labor it's 35,000 and counting If you were an indonesian, would you ? So this opinion is not based on policy but rather a "would you" assumption.

What differs from the current policy we have now and the howard pacific solution other than the "pacific" countries used for detention has changed a bit?.  The framework is the same.

My point about "what would you do" is that the indonesian government is under the same pressure as our government to not have to deal with these people.  Indonesia will not just accept them back on mass.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:20am: You cant be serious. So youve towed a boat back to international waters (from Australian waters), to just outside the indonesian waters, and the people on board have paid $10,000 to get to Australia and.. 1) You assume they havent sabotaged the boat already 2) You assume they'll just chuff back to indonesia forgoing their $10K Madness. And the ones who pay to get on the next boat is even more mad And if they want to die - let them Because it might have save thousands

The Navy has repeatidly said they will not leave Asylym  seakers to die.   They will defy orders to do so.   

So this is not an option on the table.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:18am: Yes, the world has moved on, and "solutions" from the past no longer work.  The evidence is clear, we have the "pacific solution" of howard right now. It aint working.  I was not aware the Pacific Solution have been reinstated in full Indonesia arent throwing anything at us. The Indo government is not involved in people smuggling at all.  Its run by multi-national criminal gangs. Indonesia will not take back large numbers of refuges found in international waters, and so they shouldnt. And these gangs only got 1600 through under the Pacific Solution. Under Labor it's 35,000 and counting If you were an indonesian, would you ? So this opinion is not based on policy but rather a "would you" assumption. What differs from the current policy we have now and the howard pacific solution other than the "pacific" countries used for detention has changed a bit?.  The framework is the same. My point about "what would you do" is that the indonesian government is under the same pressure as our government to not have to deal with these people.  Indonesia will not just accept them back on mass.

The fact that you have to ask means you don't know. All you are doing is assuming it's the same to convince yourself that Labor didn't stuff up

Facts are it's not the same. If it was the same then Gillard would have implemented the policy without asking Houston to make recommendations

If it was the same the Houston would have said "Implement the Pacific Solution"

Instead - it recommend something else which is NOT the Pacific Solution

As for the Indonesian government - you assume there's no corruption in Indonesia in allowing these boats through.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:22am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:20am: You cant be serious. So youve towed a boat back to international waters (from Australian waters), to just outside the indonesian waters, and the people on board have paid $10,000 to get to Australia and.. 1) You assume they havent sabotaged the boat already 2) You assume they'll just chuff back to indonesia forgoing their $10K Madness. And the ones who pay to get on the next boat is even more mad And if they want to die - let them Because it might have save thousands The Navy has repeatidly said they will not leave Asylym  seakers to die.   They will defy orders to do so.    So this is not an option on the table.

Given that they said it repeatedly - could you show us some of these repeated comments

Maqqa, any vessel on the sea - be it Australian navy, Indonesian Navy, Australian merchant vessel or any merchant vessel (Tampa was Norwegian) - has an obligation to prevent death on the sea.

The navy can pick them up - it is a case of what they do with them after that which is the issue for me.

I do not believe they should be allowed to claim asylum at that point and I think they should be taken to Christmas Island - which should be excluded from the migration zone of Australia.

Then a decision can be made - if they are from non-risk countries (Sri Lanka) they should be sent there by military plane.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

Maqqa, any vessel on the sea - be it Australian navy, Indonesian Navy, Australian merchant vessel or any merchant vessel (Tampa was Norwegian) - has an obligation to prevent death on the sea. The navy can pick them up - it is a case of what they do with them after that which is the issue for me. I do not believe they should be allowed to claim asylum at that point and I think they should be taken to Christmas Island - which should be excluded from the migration zone of Australia. Then a decision can be made - if they are from non-risk countries (Sri Lanka) they should be sent there by military plane.

Thats what we have now Andrei, except that Sri Lanka is regarded as a at-risk country for Tamils.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:23am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:18am: Yes, the world has moved on, and "solutions" from the past no longer work.  The evidence is clear, we have the "pacific solution" of howard right now. It aint working.  I was not aware the Pacific Solution have been reinstated in full Indonesia arent throwing anything at us. The Indo government is not involved in people smuggling at all.  Its run by multi-national criminal gangs. Indonesia will not take back large numbers of refuges found in international waters, and so they shouldnt. And these gangs only got 1600 through under the Pacific Solution. Under Labor it's 35,000 and counting If you were an indonesian, would you ? So this opinion is not based on policy but rather a "would you" assumption. What differs from the current policy we have now and the howard pacific solution other than the "pacific" countries used for detention has changed a bit?.  The framework is the same. My point about "what would you do" is that the indonesian government is under the same pressure as our government to not have to deal with these people.  Indonesia will not just accept them back on mass. The fact that you have to ask means you don't know. All you are doing is assuming it's the same to convince yourself that Labor didn't stuff up Facts are it's not the same. If it was the same then Gillard would have implemented the policy without asking Houston to make recommendations If it was the same the Houston would have said "Implement the Pacific Solution" Instead - it recommend something else which is NOT the Pacific Solution As for the Indonesian government - you assume there's no corruption in Indonesia in allowing these boats through.

Maqqa, I am asking the question, because I do not know of any structural differences between them. If you do, which you claim to, please present them.  Otherwise you are just blowing in the wind.

There is corruption in Indonesia. A lot of corruption at lower levels, and that is what is allowing these people through. But its is not government policy, and if one of your requirements to stop boat people is to wipe out corruption in Indonesia you are delusional.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 11:50am: Maqqa, any vessel on the sea - be it Australian navy, Indonesian Navy, Australian merchant vessel or any merchant vessel (Tampa was Norwegian) - has an obligation to prevent death on the sea. The navy can pick them up - it is a case of what they do with them after that which is the issue for me. I do not believe they should be allowed to claim asylum at that point and I think they should be taken to Christmas Island - which should be excluded from the migration zone of Australia. Then a decision can be made - if they are from non-risk countries (Sri Lanka) they should be sent there by military plane. Thats what we have now Andrei, except that Sri Lanka is regarded as a at-risk country for Tamils.

Christmas Island is in the migration zone though isn't it?
I was under the impression Rudd put it back in and they can claim asylum there?

By the way - just on Sri Lanka -

"This has been a very successful visit and I thank my friends here in the Government of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka for their hospitality.

The Australian Government remains satisified that the situation following the end of the civil war has stabilised and Sri Lanka is not an at-risk country for people to seek asylum in Australia.
I have spoken with my counterparts in both the United Kingdom and Canada on this matter - who hold the same view as we do.

Australia does not regard Sri Lanka as unsafe for any member of its communities."

Bob Carr, Foreign Minister
18 Dec 2012