Australian Federal Election 2010

[Sceptic-PK]

I'll happily state that efforts to mitigate damage done to the environment are more important to me than children being smashed against rocks. Yeah sure, it's very sad but impoverished people everywhere suffer cruel fates every day. As Wildy points out, it's all very emotive and thoroughly exaggerated in the grand scheme of things (at least by Alfie).

Maybe I'm biased but in my limited experience the Right often seems to focus on relatively trivial issues in attempts to score points (not referring to Liberals necessarily, but things I read and people I discuss stuff with). Where/who is the educated and compelling Right in Australia? I know they exist, because they exist in the US. But all I ever see or hear is the dumbed-down idiots for mass consumption like Bolt or Jones or any of those f'n clowns.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

, a policy that claimed more lives than Labor's policies have so far and if re-introduced would probably kill more people.

Evidence.

I'll happily state that efforts to mitigate damage done to the environment are more important to me than children being smashed against rocks.

How nice.

Yeah sure, it's very sad but impoverished people everywhere suffer cruel fates every day.

And we should add to their misery by encouraging them to put their children on leaky boats? Really.

As Wildy points out, it's all very emotive and thoroughly exaggerated in the grand scheme of things

Tell me how the 50 dead at Christmas Island are not emotive and are somehow exaggerated?

 

[a_unique_person]

ftfy.

The Carbon tax is much more important. Is this what you said. Yes or no? You are responsible for what you write, not me.

Given same (yes), you hold a carbon tax in higher estimation than people travelling on boats. Right now we are effectively without border protection and pull factors are back in place. People may die and you are dancing about the introduction of a tax, totally dismissive of the people who will send their children here on leaky boats.

How nice.

If I am misrepresenting you, perhaps you could explain what you actually meant and why. I'm guessing you can't or won't.

Sure, as soon as you apologise for misrepresenting it and ask me for clarification.

 

[lionking]

Most. Stupid. Opposition. Leader. Ever.

 

[Wildy]

Evidence.

Very well, however I'm going to explain it for people who don't know or for some strange reason have decided to take a look in this thread. A temporary protection visa, or TPV, was given out to asylum seekers who were deemed to be refugees, in a nutshell it granted many rights such as access to Medicare, the right to work or access to English classes (but only for children). However this class of visa did not allow re-entry into Australia if they left or most importantly, family reunion rights.

The lack of family reunion rights was a pretty big driving factor in who used the people smugglers. As the submission of the Department Infrastructure Manager at Woomera stated, the lack of reunion rights meant that more women and children would ultimately turn to the people smugglers in order to be reunited with their husbands and fathers. By 2000-2001 1923 children were in immigration detention, up from 976 for the period 1999-2000. For a year by year breakdown 1563 children were on the asylum boats in 2001 compared to 517 in the previous year.

There are a few other trends to mention as well:

1999, the year the TPV's without reunion rights were introduced was also a year of increasing numbers of asylum seekers, up to 3721 people from 200 in the previous year. These numbers would increase to a maximum of 5516 in 2001 before decreasing in 2002. The other trend at that time was that the people smugglers were putting more people on fewer boats. In 2001 on average the number of asylum seekers/boat was about 128 people, a large increase from about 58 people the previous year (for comparison last year, which has had the largest number of asylum seekers to arrive by boat so far, the average was only about 51 people/boat). Even the select committee on 'A Certain Maritime Incident' noted that many of the people who were being released from immigration detention on TPV's were family members of people who were already in the country on TPV's.

That select committee would also discuss the event that I'm talking about.

On October 19 2001 the boat known as SIEV X sank killing 353 of the 397 people on board. Most of the people were women and children, people who were not the 'typical' asylum seeker as understood at the time. We know that some of these people had husbands and fathers in this country, and that their deaths were caused by the fact that the TPVs prevented them from being easily reunited with their family members already in this country.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

How nice.

At least I'm honest about my feelings. You pick topic of the week with which you want to bash the government. Yawn. You're exactly what I was referring to earlier- the Right that is uncompelling and rather un-insightful.

And we should add to their misery by encouraging them to put their children on leaky boats? Really.

There are way more important things going on in the world than preventing the deaths of handfuls of illegal travellers.

Tell me how the 50 dead at Christmas Island are not emotive and are somehow exaggerated?

I thought I had made it quite obvious I thought the deaths in question were/was emotive? Oh yes, here it is:

As Wildy points out, it's all very emotive

The exaggeration comes from the fact that the population of the world nears 7 billion and a catastrophe of this size doesn't even make a blip on the radar. Certainly it's a nice chance for partisan hacks like yourself to attempt to assign blame to a government you're unhappy with, but other than its role as a political football it's not really that big a deal.

Regardless of the immigration laws people will always want to come to Australia to start a new life, because it's pretty awesome here, all things considered. Can't really blame them for trying, but I don't think Australia should take responsibility for those that don't make it.

 

[a_unique_person]

They all know when they leave that they may well die trying to get here, and it's not just the boat journey. The sad thing is that they know they may well die not trying. By 'stopping the boats', all we are doing is resigning them to a life in which they expect to die, and may well die, anyway. Australia has returned refugees to their country of origin, only for them to be killed there.

If Abbott truly wants to stop the boats, the Malaysian solution in fact has advantages and disadvantages compared to the Nauru solution, which amounted to mentally torturing people to such a degree, that people considered it worse than risking dying. Abbott could just vote for the proposed Labor solution as a compromise, if he truly believed that it was all about stopping boats. But he is a short term opportunist, and cannot let his supposed principles get in the way of a vote. So he moves the goal posts, and now demands that refugees get his standard of care. Think of the children. Yet he is the man still saying he will turn around dangerous boats mid ocean.

Meanwhile back on Nauru, it turned out that, after putting up with such a hell hole for a number of years, most were accepted as genuine refugees anyway. The boats were due to start again anyway, because it turned out that even if you were processed offshore, most people are genuine refugees. That means they legally have a right to come here any way they can, they are doing nothing illegal by doing so. If you want to make that illegal, then say so, and do so. The laws about refugees do not say it's OK to go to Indonesian or Malaysia, but Australia is out of bounds. Malaysia currently has something like 90,000 refugees.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sure, as soon as you apologise for misrepresenting it and ask me for clarification.

Show me I was wrong and I will happily apologise. You may be like skeptic PK who doesn't give a toss about them.

On October 19 2001 the boat known as SIEV X sank killing 353 of the 397 people on board. Most of the people were women and children, people who were not the 'typical' asylum seeker as understood at the time. We know that some of these people had husbands and fathers in this country, and that their deaths were caused by the fact that the TPVs prevented them from being easily reunited with their family members already in this country.

A very nice history lesson, however if anything the TPVs help prevent people from getting on boats, not the opposite as you are somehow claiming. Nor can you remotely show that TPVs are actually the cause of any deaths. Even if you are somehow correct that TPVs are the cause (which you they aren't), you have not provided any evidence that TPVs have taken more lives already, nor will do so in the future were also your claims.

Even by the govrnments own numbers there have been some 440 deaths since they scrapped the Pacific solution. How do I estimate this? Easy. We have had some 11000 since they removed it. Bowen et al say there are 4% of people who get on boats that die at sea. My maths says 440.

So on all counts: fail, fail and fail.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They all know when they leave that they may well die trying to get here, and it's not just the boat journey. The sad thing is that they know they may well die not trying. By 'stopping the boats', all we are doing is resigning them to a life in which they expect to die, and may well die, anyway. Australia has returned refugees to their country of origin, only for them to be killed there.

Evidence.

If Abbott truly wants to stop the boats, the Malaysian solution in fact has advantages and disadvantages compared to the Nauru solution, which amounted to mentally torturing people to such a degree, that people considered it worse than risking dying.

Except the evicence shows the boats stopped under the Pacific solution.

Abbott could just vote for the proposed Labor solution as a compromise, if he truly believed that it was all about stopping boats.

Sure, but we could say the same thing of Gillard. She could simply compromise and go back to Nauru if she really wanted to stop them.

And we learn today thay senior ministers thought it best to return to Nauru:

THE Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, and other key ministers from Labor's Right faction pushed for the government to send asylum seekers to Nauru but were rolled by cabinet colleagues.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/on-a-hiding-to-nothing-20111014-1lpao.html#ixzz1anKTiN13

But he she is a short term opportunist, and cannot let his her supposed principles get in the way of a vote.

ftfy

 

[a_unique_person]

Evidence.



Except the evicence shows the boats stopped under the Pacific solution.



Sure, but we could say the same thing of Gillard. She could simply compromise and go back to Nauru if she really wanted to stop them.

And we learn today thay senior ministers thought it best to return to Nauru:

THE Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, and other key ministers from Labor's Right faction pushed for the government to send asylum seekers to Nauru but were rolled by cabinet colleagues.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/on-a-hiding-to-nothing-20111014-1lpao.html#ixzz1anKTiN13



ftfy

So stopping them just leaves them in places like Malaysia, which you don't think they should be in.

 

[a_unique_person]

Immigration officials have already said that Nauru won't work. The majority of refugees are genuine refugees and arrive in Australia anyway, it just takes years surviving imprisonment to get here. The Malaysian 'solution' (which is still not really a solution), sends those who arrive by boat back overseas, where they already were anyway, and takes some of the 90,000 refugess in Malaysia in exchange. Nauru is already broken, and is not really a solution to anything.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Immigration officials have already said that Nauru won't work.

Except experience shows us it does.

I am waiting on an explanation as to why you think it a good thing to lure people to their deaths. And why a tax that does nothing is more important than smashing babies on rocks.

Not to mention evidence of this little beauty from you:

"They all know when they leave that they may well die trying to get here, and it's not just the boat journey. The sad thing is that they know they may well die not trying. By 'stopping the boats', all we are doing is resigning them to a life in which they expect to die, and may well die, anyway. Australia has returned refugees to their country of origin, only for them to be killed there."

As I have already asked - evidence please (for the bolded part). Thanks in advance.

 

[a_unique_person]

Except experience shows us it does.

No, experience shows us that subsequently if you can put up with being imprisoned for up to four years, you will be granted refugee status anyway. The refugees know this now. Nauru really means you will most likely be granted asylum. It just slows down the eventual end of the process. Malaysia means you are gone forever.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, experience shows us that subsequently if you can put up with being imprisoned for up to four years, you will be granted refugee status anyway. The refugees know this now. Nauru really means you will most likely be granted asylum. It just slows down the eventual end of the process. Malaysia means you are gone forever.

Actually the evidence shows us that the boats can and do stop, that traffickers have no product to sell and that people stop drowning or dying on the rocks. With the Pacific solution we were receiving (average) three boats per year. Since Rudd and Gillard dismantled it we have receive 11,000 people - maybe three per week.

As I say, the evidence shows us it does and did work. Claims to the contrary are either wilfull lies or plain stupidity.

Now how about supporting those other claims of yours, or are they lies too?

 

[Wildy]

A very nice history lesson, however if anything the TPVs help prevent people from getting on boats, not the opposite as you are somehow claiming.

Then you can provide evidence to that claim, since I've provided plenty of evidence in the above post that suggest otherwise.

Nor can you remotely show that TPVs are actually the cause of any deaths. Even if you are somehow correct that TPVs are the cause (which you they aren't), you have not provided any evidence that TPVs have taken more lives already, nor will do so in the future were also your claims.

Ahmed Alzalimi lost his three daughters on SIEV X after they and their mother made the journey in order to be with him in Australia. He was on a TPV at the time.

Mohammed al-Ghazi lost 14 members of his family who took the journey to be with him. He was on a TPV at the time. Hazam al-Rowaimi lost 5 family members on that boat, he also was on a TPV at the time. Haidar al-Zoohairi also was on a TPV at the time and lost 4 family members.

There you are, deaths caused by TPVs. And these are the ones that we know about.

Even by the govrnments own numbers there have been some 440 deaths since they scrapped the Pacific solution. How do I estimate this? Easy. We have had some 11000 since they removed it. Bowen et al say there are 4% of people who get on boats that die at sea.

Source?

So on all counts: fail, fail and fail.

You say that but I get the feeling that you didn't even bother to look at the sources I linked to.

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually the evidence shows us that the boats can and do stop, that traffickers have no product to sell and that people stop drowning or dying on the rocks. With the Pacific solution we were receiving (average) three boats per year. Since Rudd and Gillard dismantled it we have receive 11,000 people - maybe three per week.

As I say, the evidence shows us it does and did work. Claims to the contrary are either wilfull lies or plain stupidity.

Now how about supporting those other claims of yours, or are they lies too?

Charming. An apology would be in order again.

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually the evidence shows us that the boats can and do stop, that traffickers have no product to sell

Immigration officials have already told the Gillard government and Abbott that they do have a 'product' to sell with Nauru. After being held there, most can expect permanent residency in Australia on the basis that they are genuine refugees.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Norwegian freighter Tampa saved the group of asylum seekers from their sinking boat north of the Australian territory of Christmas Island on August 26th, 2001. The Howard Government prevented them from reaching Australian soil, sending them instead to a new detention centre on Nauru.
Some of the Afghans, who were mostly minority Hazaras, eventually agreed to take cash payments from the Australian government to leave Nauru and go back to where they came from.
The Edmund Rice Centre in Sydney has tried to track as many of those who returned as possible. The centre's director, Phil Glendenning, spoke to SBS Radio's Ron Sutton.
LINK: Edmund Rice Centre: Deported to danger
LINK: Documentary: A Well-Founded Fear
Mr Glendenning says the centre sought to stay in touch with a group of Afghans that spent time in Nauru and Australia. Of those sent back to Afghanistan, he says 22 people, including four children, some of which were on the Tampa, have since been killed in Afghanistan. (Not all the 22 quoted were from the Tampa)

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1582100/what-happened-to-the-afghans-sent-back

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Charming. An apology would be in order again.

An explanation is required prior to an apology. You seem to have forgotten that it was you that said the carbon tax was more important, if youcan explain why I might be in a position to apologise, In the meantime I can anly assume that you - like many greens, and at least one here - care nought for the deaths at sea copared to a tax that does nothing.

Then you can provide evidence to that claim, since I've provided plenty of evidence in the above post that suggest otherwise.

There is no evidence there in spite of your claims. If there is, perhaps you could point it out a little more for me.

Ahmed Alzalimi lost his three daughters on SIEV X after they and their mother made the journey in order to be with him in Australia. He was on a TPV at the time.

Mohammed al-Ghazi lost 14 members of his family who took the journey to be with him. He was on a TPV at the time. Hazam al-Rowaimi lost 5 family members on that boat, he also was on a TPV at the time. Haidar al-Zoohairi also was on a TPV at the time and lost 4 family members.

There you are, deaths caused by TPVs. And these are the ones that we know about.

They were not "caused by TPVs". How does holding a TPV force people onto boats? If anything they should have made the people at home think about staying there. Or for the person holding the TPV to return to them - we would have flown them their safely. You have yet to provide actual evidence. All this shows is that some people who lost family were holding TPVs, nothing more.

Source?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-budge-on-nauru/story-fn59niix-1226134614843

He (Bowen) urged colleagues not to forget that four per cent of asylum seekers who got on boats drowned at sea, with last year's Christmas Island tragedy an argument for offshore processing.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1582100/what-happened-to-the-afghans-sent-back

Tragic if true. One wonders why they would take "cash payments" to return to Afghanastan when they were safe in Indonesia prior to coming to Australia.

Moreover, given your earlier comments that most refugees were accepted into Australia because they were "genuine refugees", could one infer that these may not have been genuine refugees? Can you show us that they were, or why they were sent back? I'm guessing not. Perhaps they were terrorists or criminals and that is why they were not accepted. If so, one should not be all that surprised that they met their demise.

Just saying.

 

[Wildy]

There is no evidence there in spite of your claims. If there is, perhaps you could point it out a little more for me.

I've cited my sources. What sources do you have for your claim that TPV's decreased boat arrivals?

They were not "caused by TPVs". How does holding a TPV force people onto boats?

How do Gillard's policies cause deaths? They didn't force people onto boats.

I've already explained how this is the case.

If anything they should have made the people at home think about staying there.

Right so the husband makes the journey from Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever to Australia in order to organise everything for his family to join him only to be given a visa that prevents that. Are you saying he should have rung home and said "Hi honey, remember that new life free from persecution that I said we would have in Australia? Well I actually meant me, have fun being persecuted."?

Or for the person holding the TPV to return to them - we would have flown them their safely.

To the countries where they were being persecuted by their own governments.

You have yet to provide actual evidence. All this shows is that some people who lost family were holding TPVs, nothing more.

I've already presented my evidence, I've even provided the links to the sources I used. The fact that you don't want to look at them because it's inconvenient to your apologia doesn't mean that I haven't provided evidence.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-budge-on-nauru/story-fn59niix-1226134614843

He (Bowen) urged colleagues not to forget that four per cent of asylum seekers who got on boats drowned at sea, with last year's Christmas Island tragedy an argument for offshore processing.

Thanks.