longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:



You don't seem to have the same problem with the dim wits who insist that Labor doing virtually the same thing at a different location would not work.

Updated March 07, 2012 09:08:00

The Federal Opposition's plans to reopen Nauru if it wins the next election are foolish and futile, according to a strong critic of the Coalition's immigration policies. John Menadue is a former Secretary of the Immigration Department and a previous head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Samantha Hawley
Source: AM | Duration: 3min 28sec

Transcript

EMILY BOURKE: A former head of the Immigration Department says the Federal Opposition's plans to reopen a refugee detention centre on Nauru if it wins the next election would be foolish and futile.

During a speech in Sydney last night John Menadue, a former Immigration department secretary and a former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, launched a scathing attack on the Coalition's immigration policies.

He also accused the Opposition's immigration spokesman Scott Morrison of xenophobia.

Mr Menadue spoke to our reporter in Canberra, Samantha Hawley.

JOHN MENADUE: Reopening Nauru would be quite foolish. It was very expensive. Under the Howard government period it didn't work and would not work again in the future.

And the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the secretary told a Senate committee that the events of the Tampa on could not be replicated and that Nauru would not work in the future.

It's just futile, in my view, to continue with one-liners and slogans about Nauru.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Do you disagree with the Opposition that the Howard government policies stopped the boats?

JOHN MENADUE: The Opposition has this phobia about boats. Seventy-six per cent of asylum seekers in the last decade came by air.

It is certainly true that the number of boats and the boat arrivals after 2001 declined dramatically. However, asylum seekers in total - which included came by, coming by air -continued at the rate of about 4,000 a year.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But the Howard government policies stopped the boats?

JOHN MENADUE: Oh, it stopped the boats...

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Well isn't that- That's what the Opposition is arguing isn't it, that it wants to stop the boats?

JOHN MENADUE: Well, I think that's a very dishonest argument because asylum seekers continue to come by air. The important thing is the total number.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: In your speech you criticise the Opposition's immigration spokesman Scott Morrison for generating xenophobia.

JOHN MENADUE: Yep.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: How do you think he's doing that?

JOHN MENADUE: Well I think I, probably one of the most outrageous things I've heard from Scott Morrison recently, and it was last week, when he drew attention to infectious diseases which asylum seekers were bringing to this country.

I don't know that I've ever seen or heard, certainly for a long time, anything as disgraceful as that sort of proposition that somehow by being generous and accommodating to asylum seekers that they're bringing diseases to this country. That is a disgraceful proposition and Scott Morrison should withdraw it.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Scott Morrison says you remain in denial about the success of the Howard government's border protection policies. Are you in denial?

JOHN MENADUE: No, I'm certainly not and they did not work.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Scott Morrison also says of you, "His increasingly intemperate and partisan commentary betray a clear political agenda." Do you have a political agenda?

JOHN MENADUE: I do not have a political agenda. I'm not a member of a political party or a supporter of a political party.

EMILY BOURKE: That's the former Immigration Department secretary John Menadue speaking to Samantha Hawley.

And AM approached the Coalition's immigration spokesman Scott Morrison for a response. Mr Morrison wasn't available for an interview but in a statement he says he maintains that the former department head is in denial and that he has his own political agenda.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:


because it isnt the same thing at Malaysia. it is only for 800 of them. and after that we are right where we are now. But if it is 'the same things' as you suggest, then why do you oppose Nauru and instead opt for Malaysia?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:23pm:


Have you been following, Longy. Indonesia won't accept tow backs. Nauru will fill in no time. It's a massive hole in the budget for a solution that is unlikely to work. Malaysia will work because it breaks the business model.

Personally, I prefer the Greens solution. Although I probably would have compromised with Labor.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:32pm:

The new business model will be to take in asylum seekers that actually want to go to malaysia but with the extra bonus of australian protections.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:


No it didn't. It did, for about all of 2 years. And then it started to go pear shaped. And then it went bust.

And all indications are that if we did EXACTLY THE SAME THING AGAIN it would fail for exactly the reasons it was failing then - the asylum seekers came to realise that it wasn't much of a deterrent when everyone gets to come to Australia via Nauru.

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

7 boats tops from Pacific Solution {5 then 6 then 7} labor ditched {64 then 134 then 65} yeh pacific solution was on its way out at 1 extra boat a year lol wank on gist.