Karnal wrote on Jul 20
th, 2013 at 12:47pm:
rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 20
th, 2013 at 9:36am:
cods wrote on Jul 19
th, 2013 at 5:21pm:
this is the labor version of TURNING BACK THE BOATS.. wonder how much we now have to pay PNG...look out Norfolk Island. you could be next.
errr...how is this any different to Howard turning Nauru into a Gulag?
Except for the fact that PNG would be much, much cheaper place for a concentration camp than Nauru?
ALP = LIB
Both exactly the same.
Pandering to racist bogans
Hope you are all pleased with yourselves.
What concentration camp? Asylum.seekers will be settled in the community. They get residency in a signatory country to the refugee convention.
This policy ends future mandatory detention. Yes, it discriminates against boat over plane arrivals, but mandatory detention has been doing that since the Hawke government.
This policy provides asylum seekers refuge and safety. That’s what the refugee convention is about. This is a
more humane policy than the Pacific solution, as it doesn’t involve mandatory detention.
Fair enough. I was not fully aware of the circumstances when I made my previous post - and I must admit, I still am not.
What is the situation with mandatory detention? News reports I have seen have not mentioned it (I have been out bush for a few days).
If, as you say - asylum seeker may actually be treated humanely and allowed to work in PNG while awaiting processing - OK, maybe it is an improvement on the current Australian run gulags.
Karnal wrote on Jul 20
th, 2013 at 12:47pm:
If you could let me know how this is in any way unfair, inhumane, or outside the spirit of the treaty, Rabbitoh, I’d love to find out.
From what I have seen - it appears that Australia is trying to pass off it's responsibilities under the UNHCR treaty to a developing nation that is less capable of meeting these responsibilities.
It appears to be in breach of Article 31 of the UNHCR treaty
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country.http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.htmlKarnal wrote on Jul 20
th, 2013 at 12:47pm:
There are 50 million refugees in the world today. Sure, we could possibly resettle all of them in developed countries with good jobs, clean water, health care and free education for their kids - if there was the political will to do so.
But what next? That figure will be back the next year and the next, and the number will keep growing.
Worse, we will be facing food shortages and environmental disasters in greater frequency as global warming takes hold and population growth keeps rising. There will be a greater demand for resettlement in the future.
This is why we need a workable refugee intake and a managable process. Every boat arrival we take in is another assessed refugee we refuse. Even if we quadrupled our intake (which I think we could comfortably do), it would still be a drop in the ocean.
The world is becoming more unequal, not less. Poverty is increasing, but infant mortality is decreasing in most places. We are now in the biggest population boom in human history. Communications are improving - satelite TV and the internet are pumping out an image of the developed world as streets lined with gold. Every time I go to a developing country, people discuss their intentions of coming to Australia, Canada or the US. I’ve had people ask for my email address on trains. A stranger in India gave me his resume and begged me to pass it around when I got home.
We’re smack bang in the middle of a very poor region, but Cambodians, Laotians and Indonesians are not getting on boats to Australia. If they did - and they are perfectly entitled to under the convention - we really would be swamped.
These are my reasons for changing track on this issue. When we were getting a few hundred boat people a year, STOP THE BOATS was essentially driven by racism. Now, with escalating numbers, it seems self-evident to me that there needs to be a cap on tbis - to stop the drownings alone.
My preference is for a higher refugee intake and a deterrent to boats. New Guinea does this, and provides refugees asylum in the community.
How can this possibly be a bad thing?
Yes - I agree. Well said.
My preference is also for a higher refugee intake and a deterrent to boats.
A deterrent to boats would also come from allowing asylum seekers to fly to Australia without a visa if the intention is to seek asylum.
If the PNG "solution" actually does allow asylum seekers to be settled in the PNG community without excessive mandatory detention - then yes - it is a better situation than the current arrangements.
But surely - the best solution is to accommodate and process asylum seekers in Australias regional are
Forum
Pages: 
RUDD Annunces - All boat arrivals go to New Guinea (Read 49100 times)
