Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jakko

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Posts
2,890
Likes
1,210
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide
They're in a very tropical environment don't forget. A cut doesn't just heal there the way it does in Melbourne or Adelaide's climate. You have bad nutrition, lack of activity, serious mental health problems and acute depression all as contributing factors to any injury. There's a lot of diseases in those jungles and the sanitation isn't great from all reports.

And yes, judging by the comments from the outgoing director of the medical service, it's reasonable to assume that even basic care is not provided (and remember, any access to care has to be approved by those PNG guards who murdered a guy, how helpful do you reckon they are?).

The place was a nightmare the first time round, its worse this time because of how enthusiastically we went back in. The fact we're leaving again after wasting billions on Manus (again) is just stupidity on an epic scale by both major parties.

When do we have to build them that university by again?
I mean really......bad nutrition? Implying PNG guards deciding on medical care?

Don't care which political muppets are in charge of Manus, I don't believe that detainees aren't offered proper nutrition, and PNG guards are overriding onsite medics/nurses when it comes to treating any cuts/scrapes/sniffles or more urgent needs. I just don't believe that happens, then again I'm not leading some senate inquiry witchhunt based on emotive words and no substance. :)

The issue certainly needs to be fully investigated.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
No, I know how prisons work. When you need medical attention you still need to call the guard.

When a guy has a cut on his foot, it isn't unreasonable to suggest a busy guard didn't take his complaint too seriously and it may have led tot he delay in getting to the medical area for treatment. the medical services contractor routinely complained of not having enough basic equipment and stock, like gauze etc too. So they might not have even been able to treat him.

The place is being shut down anyway, and thank god for that. Hopefully neither mainstream party ever makes this mistake again.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm not sure there is any evidence that suggest mistreating people in detention stops people coming on boats.

The boat turnaround and the risk of dying at sea would be more than enough of a deterrent, and you'd think anyone who would still risk it should be given at least basic standards of care and not remain in detentino indefinitely. Especially in a country like PNG.

And once you start using torture (and let's call it that, because that's what it is - punishing people convicted of nothing, with horrible conditions and no liberty) as a deterrent against future arrivals, how far do you go?

If they keep coming do we just start flaying people? A Ghengis Khan like pyramid of severed heads at the border perhaps?

I'm uncomfortable with Australia using any kind of terrorist tactic, particularly against the innocent.
Well the risk of dying at sea is OBVIOUSLY not enough. In fact its a complete non factor. So thats strike one there.

What if they refuse to turn back? What do you do then? What if the country they came from refuses to take them?

The key advantage of detention is that it can't be defeated by simply saying 'no'.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Well the risk of dying at sea is OBVIOUSLY not enough. In fact its a complete non factor. So thats strike one there.

What if they refuse to turn back? What do you do then? What if the country they came from refuses to take them?

The key advantage of detention is that it can't be defeated by simply saying 'no'.
The point is, if people are prepared to risk their lives at sea maybe we shouldn't be concerned with deterring them at all.

Is anyone familiar with how we ran these programs for Asian refugees in the 80's? It was a totally different set up and seemingly a lot more effective and a lot less costly. It's almost as if when Peter Costello advocated for privatising our detention network and then went on to advise Serco on how to win the government contracts (collecting millions in the process) that we've got an expensive and inefficient and inhumane system where a foreign corporation profits massively at taxpayer expense - just as it has in finance, energy, public transport, roads, energy, mining etc.

A cynic might say that this is not just a shit system for domestic political reasons, but also because it has allowed a lot of people to get very wealthy.

As I said, I'm in favour of mandatory detention. I'm just in favour of having horrible conditions applied to innocent people indefinitely just to deter other innocent people from arriving lawfully and asking for asylum. Even if that do take a dangerous journey to get there.

The journey is more dangerous in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran than it is on the ocean between Java and Christmas Island anyway.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
The point is, if people are prepared to risk their lives at sea maybe we shouldn't be concerned with deterring them at all.

Is anyone familiar with how we ran these programs for Asian refugees in the 80's? It was a totally different set up and seemingly a lot more effective and a lot less costly. It's almost as if when Peter Costello advocated for privatising our detention network and then went on to advise Serco on how to win the government contracts (collecting millions in the process) that we've got an expensive and inefficient and inhumane system where a foreign corporation profits massively at taxpayer expense - just as it has in finance, energy, public transport, roads, energy, mining etc.

A cynic might say that this is not just a shit system for domestic political reasons, but also because it has allowed a lot of people to get very wealthy.
Ahh so anyone who makes the trip in a boat should be let in then?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Ahh so anyone who makes the trip in a boat should be let in then?
If they're a genuine refugee of course. And after spending a time in detention while we perform health and security checks, unless they're obviously in need of being on the mainland immediately (i.e. for health reasons, or for serious obligations like attending a funeral or something).

I mean, you can't punish people who have done nothing wrong. That's kind of the whole basis of our legal system.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
If they're a genuine refugee of course. And after spending a time in detention while we perform health and security checks, unless they're obviously in need of being on the mainland immediately (i.e. for health reasons, or for serious obligations like attending a funeral or something).

I mean, you can't punish people who have done nothing wrong. That's kind of the whole basis of our legal system.
Okay you are seriously advocating for this position.

How many people do you think would take the boat arrival option if your ideas were put into place? Currently there are roughly 40 million refugees according to the UN.
 

stormee

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
4,663
Likes
3,118
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
I'm sick of the Greens and other parties blaming 'The Minister' for everything. You know what? 2/5 of F all ends up on the Minister's desk. It's pretty much ALL delegated to departmental representatives.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Okay you are seriously advocating for this position.

How many people do you think would take the boat arrival option if your ideas were put into place? Currently there are roughly 40 million refugees according to the UN.
You have to remember about 90% of refugees aren't even looking for a new country to move to though. Most of them are considered temporarily displaced and likely to return home in the future. When you remember that UN Camps aren't actually viewed as a legitimate way to claim asylum by most asylum seekers (because there's 1% odds of actually being placed somewhere), and you remember that most successful refugees woldwide have to actually get to the country themselves to apply for asylum, it all makes a lot more sense.

In 40 years Australia has had less than 100,000 boat arrivals. In any given one year we bring in 275,000 foreign migrants.

I'm just saying, why piss billions away on it when we don't have to? Go back to the model we had in the 80's and we'll be able to place more Asian refugees worldwide, for much less in $$$ terms and we won't have to torture anyone to do it. At the moment, people from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq see Australia as their only option because its the closest signatory they can get to to lodge their claim.

Set up a regional centre in Malaysia for the purposes of processing. Involve all the countries that actually even take refugees out of UN Camps (there's not even many, it's the five Anglo countries, Sweden, Germany and like two others from memory - most countries only accept asylum seekers who apply after they've already arrived).

Make it a fast track process i.e. you arrive in Malaysia on a temporary visa granted on arrival (can't have people applying for it beforehand, as they risk being exposed to their persecutors and being unsafe as a result) for the purposes of having your claim assessed. You need to bring all your identity documents and evidence of your refugee claim. You stay within the processing centre for a period of say, 2-6 weeks depending on your case where health, security etc are also checked along with the bonafides of your case. If found to be a refugee you are placed in one of the signatory countries willing to accept you. If those countries are at their limit for the year you are placed into an actual queue (these queues don't exist anywhere yet, it will be good to finally ******* have one imo!) and notified when you are permitted to travel to your new country. If you're not found to be a refugee, you return to your country of departure, you're welcome to apply again in future if your circumstances change. If you're found to have adverse security results, you're detained immediately and god help you because those malaysian cops do not **** around. With any luck you end up at the Hague.

We then try and expand the model and bring more countries into the fold. Maybe we help the Europeans establish one in Morrocco to assist with African refugees, and we set one up in Mexico to help with Central American migration to America (though that example is a completely different situation for obvious reasons - first of which being they have a land border and have staggering numbers of people going into their country unlawfully - we get a drop in the ocean by comparison). Maybe we just simply try and get more countries to sign on to accept refugees as the developing world becomes wealthier, it is right that we expect them to chip in (hence choosing malaysia for the processing centre). In any case we don't outsource to a private company who has a vested interest in having more arrivals in detention staying for longer periods of time. it should be staffed mostly by UN officials and immigration officials from the various nations involved with input from intelligence agencies, customs and quarantine.

Perhaps its idealist to some people, but I genuinely believe Australia can treat people humanely as well as reducing or better yet eliminating deaths at sea and granting a safe haven for people who are being persecuted. And without spending too much money, or at the very least spending a lot less than we are now.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
You have to remember about 90% of refugees aren't even looking for a new country to move to though. Most of them are considered temporarily displaced and likely to return home in the future. When you remember that UN Camps aren't actually viewed as a legitimate way to claim asylum by most asylum seekers (because there's 1% odds of actually being placed somewhere), and you remember that most successful refugees woldwide have to actually get to the country themselves to apply for asylum, it all makes a lot more sense.

In 40 years Australia has had less than 100,000 boat arrivals. In any given one year we bring in 275,000 foreign migrants.

I'm just saying, why piss billions away on it when we don't have to? Go back to the model we had in the 80's and we'll be able to place more Asian refugees worldwide, for much less in $$$ terms and we won't have to torture anyone to do it. At the moment, people from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq see Australia as their only option because its the closest signatory they can get to to lodge their claim.

Set up a regional centre in Malaysia for the purposes of processing. Involve all the countries that actually even take refugees out of UN Camps (there's not even many, it's the five Anglo countries, Sweden, Germany and like two others from memory - most countries only accept asylum seekers who apply after they've already arrived).

Make it a fast track process i.e. you arrive in Malaysia on a temporary visa granted on arrival (can't have people applying for it beforehand, as they risk being exposed to their persecutors and being unsafe as a result) for the purposes of having your claim assessed. You need to bring all your identity documents and evidence of your refugee claim. You stay within the processing centre for a period of say, 2-6 weeks depending on your case where health, security etc are also checked along with the bonafides of your case. If found to be a refugee you are placed in one of the signatory countries willing to accept you. If those countries are at their limit for the year you are placed into an actual queue (these queues don't exist anywhere yet, it will be good to finally ******* have one imo!) and notified when you are permitted to travel to your new country. If you're not found to be a refugee, you return to your country of departure, you're welcome to apply again in future if your circumstances change. If you're found to have adverse security results, you're detained immediately and god help you because those malaysian cops do not **** around. With any luck you end up at the Hague.

We then try and expand the model and bring more countries into the fold. Maybe we help the Europeans establish one in Morrocco to assist with African refugees, and we set one up in Mexico to help with Central American migration to America (though that example is a completely different situation for obvious reasons - first of which being they have a land border and have staggering numbers of people going into their country unlawfully - we get a drop in the ocean by comparison). Maybe we just simply try and get more countries to sign on to accept refugees as the developing world becomes wealthier, it is right that we expect them to chip in (hence choosing malaysia for the processing centre). In any case we don't outsource to a private company who has a vested interest in having more arrivals in detention staying for longer periods of time. it should be staffed mostly by UN officials and immigration officials from the various nations involved with input from intelligence agencies, customs and quarantine.

Perhaps its idealist to some people, but I genuinely believe Australia can treat people humanely as well as reducing or better yet eliminating deaths at sea and granting a safe haven for people who are being persecuted. And without spending too much money, or at the very least spending a lot less than we are now.
Well we didn't need to spend billions until recently. Both the Nauru and Manus detention centres were closed just a few years ago.

At the moment, people from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq see Australia as their only option because its the closest signatory they can get to to lodge their claim.
A simply look at a world map will show you Australia is anything but the closest signatory.

If those countries are at their limit for the year you are placed into an actual queue (these queues don't exist anywhere yet, it will be good to finally ******* have one imo!) and notified when you are permitted to travel to your new country.
So you just sit and wait in a queue? What if they have already reached Australia by boat? Do we deport them to Malaysia to wait in a queue? What if they are not happy with being number 4,575,397 in the queue?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Well we didn't need to spend billions until recently. Both the Nauru and Manus detention centres were closed just a few years ago.

A simply look at a world map will show you Australia is anything but the closest signatory.
The thing about sentences is you have to take them as a whole. I said the closest signatory "they can get to". The first part means something entirely different on its own, if you ignore the last part.

So you just sit and wait in a queue? What if they have already reached Australia by boat? Do we deport them to Malaysia to wait in a queue? What if they are not happy with being number 4,575,397 in the queue?
Nothing suggests the numbers would be anything like that. Remember by having them arrive on temporary visas, Malaysia has control of how many can enter to go to the processing centre. There would be peaks and troughs, but probably not as pronounced as now (where the peaks and troughs are based on weather).

And precisely, there'd be no reason whatsoever to enter Australia by boat. You'd just have paid $20,000 to go into the same (faster, safer, more efficient) process that you could have entered for a $1,000 plane ticket. There'd be literally no pull factor to take the boat voyage, zero.

Additionally, if there really is a dedicated network of people smugglers lying to people in vulnerable communities about entering Australia to work etc. then this model completely negates their business model. Best of all, we take the pressure off the relationship with Indonesia, by far our most important strategic relationship.

If they're not happy with the queue? Knowing they can get to Australia in one year as a Permanent Resident is a pretty good motivator for people to listen to what we say. Generally asylum seekers only start getting frustrated when they feel like they're trapped or don't have an end in sight. You'd be giving tremendous hope to people, and generally speaking people are pretty grateful for that.

As I said, this has all worked before. We used to do this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
The thing about sentences is you have to take them as a whole. I said the closest signatory "they can get to". The first part means something entirely different on its own, if you ignore the last part.



Nothing suggests the numbers would be anything like that. Remember by having them arrive on temporary visas, Malaysia has control of how many can enter to go to the processing centre. There would be peaks and troughs, but probably not as pronounced as now (where the peaks and troughs are based on weather).

And precisely, there'd be no reason whatsoever to enter Australia by boat. You'd just have paid $20,000 to go into the same (faster, safer, more efficient) process that you could have entered for a $1,000 plane ticket. There'd be literally no pull factor to take the boat voyage, zero.

Additionally, if there really is a dedicated network of people smugglers lying to people in vulnerable communities about entering Australia to work etc. then this model completely negates their business model. Best of all, we take the pressure off the relationship with Indonesia, by far our most important strategic relationship.

If they're not happy with the queue? Knowing they can get to Australia in one year as a Permanent Resident is a pretty good motivator for people to listen to what we say. Generally asylum seekers only start getting frustrated when they feel like they're trapped or don't have an end in sight. You'd be giving tremendous hope to people, and generally speaking people are pretty grateful for that.

As I said, this has all worked before. We used to do this.
Again by whatever measure you use, either signatories to the 1951 refugee convention or the UN resettlement program Australia isn't anywhere near the easiest country to get to.

I'm struggling to see how this system actually works. They get to Australia and what exactly? Get processed wait one year in queue and they are in? You don't think a system like this will be abused?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Again by whatever measure you use, either signatories to the 1951 refugee convention or the UN resettlement program Australia isn't anywhere near the easiest country to get to.
Ok, would you like to make an argument for an easier signatory? I would be happy to provide my argument as to why Australia is easier than any other country - just give me the example country and I will make my case.

I'm struggling to see how this system actually works. They get to Australia and what exactly? Get processed wait one year in queue and they are in? You don't think a system like this will be abused?
That is how a protection visa works now too. Once you're assessed as a refugee and it's granted, you are in. You're a permanent resident and have access to all of the same things any Australian does except the right to vote and the right to a passport.

So yeah, they would get to Malaysia, get processed (and far more accurately, because the onus is on them to prove their status as refugees by bringing their documentation where possible) and either go directly to a signatory country, or return home temporarily until there is a spot for them.

i.e. there would finally be an orderly queue for people to apply through. And it would be cheaper, more humane, more efficient and more accurate.

Oh, fraud exists across all forms of migration. We don't cancel the whole concept of migration due to fraud, we skill up and combat it. Having one dedicated processing centre with specialist permanent staff will go along way towards this, as will the onus of having to supply documentation.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Ok, would you like to make an argument for an easier signatory? I would be happy to provide my argument as to why Australia is easier than any other country - just give me the example country and I will make my case.



That is how a protection visa works now too. Once you're assessed as a refugee and it's granted, you are in. You're a permanent resident and have access to all of the same things any Australian does except the right to vote and the right to a passport.

So yeah, they would get to Malaysia, get processed (and far more accurately, because the onus is on them to prove their status as refugees by bringing their documentation where possible) and either go directly to a signatory country, or return home temporarily until there is a spot for them.

i.e. there would finally be an orderly queue for people to apply through. And it would be cheaper, more humane, more efficient and more accurate.
Are we talking about the refugee settlement program or signitories to the 1951 convention?

Yes but Australia has to grant the protection visa. We can refuse to grant it. How you think your system would only have a one year queue based on our humanitarian refugee intake seems to defy logic.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
Are we talking about the refugee settlement program or signitories to the 1951 convention?

Yes but Australia has to grant the protection visa. We can refuse to grant it. How you think your system would only have a one year queue based on our humanitarian refugee intake seems to defy logic.
Ah no, the visa would be granted by any of the signatory countries. The processing would be done by the UN and with workers from all the involved countries' immigration departments. This is great for information sharing too i.e. once someone is knocked back at this centre, they can't then go and apply at ANY of those countries.

Consider even in the last 15 years, with all the turmoil in the middle east and almost endless war and civil war and the Arab spring, with all of those push factors.... we had about 50,000 boat arrivals all up.

There's no reason to think the numbers would be drastically higher. And even if they doubled or even tripled, we could handle that intake easily. We'd probably end up with less actual refugees in our country because we'd be sending these arrivals all over the globe.

Thanks for probing me on this btw, it's good to have to defend something you've come up with.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Ah no, the visa would be granted by any of the signatory countries. The processing would be done by the UN and with workers from all the involved countries' immigration departments. This is great for information sharing too i.e. once someone is knocked back at this centre, they can't then go and apply at ANY of those countries.

Consider even in the last 15 years, with all the turmoil in the middle east and almost endless war and civil war and the Arab spring, with all of those push factors.... we had about 50,000 boat arrivals all up.

There's no reason to think the numbers would be drastically higher. And even if they doubled or even tripled, we could handle that intake easily. We'd probably end up with less actual refugees in our country because we'd be sending these arrivals all over the globe.

Thanks for probing me on this btw, it's good to have to defend something you've come up with.
50,000 that have made the trip to Australia. But how many have just applied? How many would come if all they had to do was apply at a nearby UN processing station? There is every reason to think they would be drastically higher.

How does this work in regards to our limit on refugee intake? Do we still take the same ~30k we had before?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
50,000 that have made the trip to Australia. But how many have just applied? How many would come if all they had to do was apply at a nearby UN processing station? There is every reason to think they would be drastically higher.

How does this work in regards to our limit on refugee intake? Do we still take the same ~30k we had before?
Well Malaysia is not nearby. I disagree with you in thinking that it would be higher, but even if it were, we'd be much easier able to handle higher numbers on this model as they wouldn't all be going to Australia. But we'll never know unless we try, and this is the only option I've seen that can treat people with fairness, avoid people taking the sea journey, save money and ultimately reduce the impact on Australia and facilitate the safe passage of the most vulnerable people in the world.

What we have done in the past 15 years has failed constantly on a number of fronts. Sometimes we fail on different fronts, but we've never seen a system that can actually make everyone happy. I want us to at least give it a shot.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Well Malaysia is not nearby. I disagree with you in thinking that it would be higher, but even if it were, we'd be much easier able to handle higher numbers on this model as they wouldn't all be going to Australia. But we'll never know unless we try, and this is the only option I've seen that can treat people with fairness, avoid people taking the sea journey, save money and ultimately reduce the impact on Australia and facilitate the safe passage of the most vulnerable people in the world.

What we have done in the past 15 years has failed constantly on a number of fronts. Sometimes we fail on different fronts, but we've never seen a system that can actually make everyone happy. I want us to at least give it a shot.
I'm all for it if, once we hit our humanitarian intake limit, we can just say "come back next year" and everyone would listen to that.

Although I wonder if it was as easy as simply saying 'no more, reached the limit' would we be having any of these issues at all?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
I'm all for it if, once we hit our humanitarian intake limit, we can just say "come back next year" and everyone would listen to that.

Although I wonder if it was as easy as simply saying 'no more, reached the limit' would we be having any of these issues at all?
We would because there's no legitimate avenue for the main groups of arrivals we receive, other than actually arriving on our shores.

The closest UN office available for the Hazara to travel to safely is Quetta, in Pakistan. And they get bombed there. They simply don't have other options.

The processing centre in Malaysia gives them a safer, cheaper option that actually rewards them being compliant and doesn't make them hate us when they inevitably end up here (or in America, Germany etc) as well as potentially reducing Australia's overall irregular arrival intake (meaning we could offer more spots to people in different parts of the world too).

Also, its a huge advantage for a lot of the asylum seekers from Burma, as they are often already living in Malaysia in limbo, in squalid conditions. It offers a chance for us to help Malaysia fix its own issues with irregular asylum seeker arrivals, without demonising the vulnerable. I just really see refuges as a global issue, and as the wealthiest country in our region and the prime destination for the pacific, I think we should take the lead on integrating all the developing SE Asian countries. Hopefully as they develop even Indonesia and Malaysia can accept some of these arrivals and they can eventually sign up to the convention as well. That would be a long way off, but we'd have a framework for getting there.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
And yeah in regards to the death of Hamid, this whistleblower says that he would have waited a week to see a doctor, there'd be no way to test for septicemia on the island and the doctor's are swamped:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/04...us-with-doctors-swamped/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

I'm not ok with anyone in Australia's care, where we are legally acting as their guardian, living in a place like that. I wouldn't be comfortable with Martin Bryant level criminals living in that kind of environment, let alone innocent children.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
We would because there's no legitimate avenue for the main groups of arrivals we receive, other than actually arriving on our shores.

The closest UN office available for the Hazara to travel to safely is Quetta, in Pakistan. And they get bombed there. They simply don't have other options.

The processing centre in Malaysia gives them a safer, cheaper option that actually rewards them being compliant and doesn't make them hate us when they inevitably end up here (or in America, Germany etc) as well as potentially reducing Australia's overall irregular arrival intake (meaning we could offer more spots to people in different parts of the world too).

Also, its a huge advantage for a lot of the asylum seekers from Burma, as they are often already living in Malaysia in limbo, in squalid conditions. It offers a chance for us to help Malaysia fix its own issues with irregular asylum seeker arrivals, without demonising the vulnerable. I just really see refuges as a global issue, and as the wealthiest country in our region and the prime destination for the pacific, I think we should take the lead on integrating all the developing SE Asian countries. Hopefully as they develop even Indonesia and Malaysia can accept some of these arrivals and they can eventually sign up to the convention as well. That would be a long way off, but we'd have a framework for getting there.
But what I'm asking is if more arrive then our humanitaria intake (~30k) what do we do? Do we deport them or do we give them protection visa's while they wait in the queue?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
But what I'm asking is if more arrive then our humanitaria intake (~30k) what do we do? Do we deport them or do we give them protection visa's while they wait in the queue?
They don't arrive in Australia until the visa is granted.

If they are going to be waiting a year, they will have the option of transfer to a UN camp, or better yet, we house them temporarily in Malaysia in a top notch facility. They could choose to return to the country they're fleeing from too though sounds impractical, or if they have the funds could choose to simply go to a third country if they can get a travel visa or what not.
 

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
They don't arrive in Australia until the visa is granted.

If they are going to be waiting a year, they will have the option of transfer to a UN camp, or better yet, we house them temporarily in Malaysia in a top notch facility. They could choose to return to the country they're fleeing from too though sounds impractical, or if they have the funds could choose to simply go to a third country if they can get a travel visa or what not.
But you said there is no reason for them to come to Australia when they can just apply anywhere. I'm asking what if they are already here when they apply? If they are in Australia where are they processed, do they still go into the queue and what do they do while waiting in the queue?
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Posts
3,648
Likes
1,645
AFL Club
Melbourne
But you said there is no reason for them to come to Australia when they can just apply anywhere. I'm asking what if they are already here when they apply? If they are in Australia where are they processed, do they still go into the queue and what do they do while waiting in the queue?
If someone flew here by plane and applied for asylum, same as process as now. It isn't a significant number and it isn't possible for people from the key asylum seeker countries to do this due to their shitty passports and Australia's world leading passport/border/quarantine control.

But there's no motivation for someone to arrive by boat and apply, when they can do the same thing in Malaysia (I didn't think I said they could apply anywhere, just Malaysia). If they do show up in Australia on a boat, we take them to be processed in the Malaysia camp - though without their documents they might find it tough to demonstrate they have real grounds for asylum. Ultimately those people might end up sent back to their country of origin, though of course are welcome to travel to Malaysia and present their case again in future (along with all their documents).

In that regard, that's probably the only part of the system that does have to be a bit tough. It is actually similar to the same principle a lot of Australians seem to support now (i.e. that of following the "right way" to seek asylum). Its just that a lot of Australians don't understand that, due to a shitty process, arriving by boat is actually the "right way" to seek asylum in Australia at the moment, if you're from one of those countries. This system would change that by offering a clear "right way" to seek asylum, and yes, being tough on those who don't follow it. But I think once presented with a clear avenue that offers legal protection, there is simply no motivation not to follow it. Again, taking a boat could cost 20 grand, going to the centre in Malaysia would cost $1,000. If you end up having to wait a year for your permanent visa to Aus, UK, USA etc, you could spend that 19k on a year safely residing in Thailand among many of your countrymen before finally getting true protection in Australia once your number is up.

I mean I just don't see why anyone would go the wrong way about it, when the right way is so much easier and cheaper. We currently get people arriving by boat because there aren't other options.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom