And the boats keep coming

[uvar]

What I am saying is that the problem belongs to the government, they also have to work with the parliament they have been given (as Gillard et al have conveniently stated from time to time).

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands. That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

Of course, if you consider the Coalition asylum seeker policy to be the best possible solution - or stronger, take that as undeniable fact - then I can see how that would make sense though vehemently disagree.

Do you think their asylum seeker policy is the best possible solution? Alternatively, do you think their policy is so drastically better that even if imperfect it should be implemented as soon as possible? Especially considering the content of this thread, do you consider that their policy is supported by evidence and not diminished? What is your position on the "perfection" of the Labor or Greens asylum seeker policies, and whether evidence supports or undermines them? (Both the current asylum seeker solution, and the one that Labor wants to implement) What was your definition of "perfect" when thinking about these questions, and was it objective or subjective? (I'd appreciate answers - they're mostly binary questions - but honestly I'd be happy if you just thought about them.)

I could end by posting a picture of one of the many who have died in their own country because of persecution, discrimination or neglect, but it would be disrespectful to the dead.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands.

So why don't they do it?
They 'acquiesced entirely' to the Greens to get power by implementing the carbon tax. They were "working with the parliament they had then". If Gillard wanted to stop the boats, she could.

That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

Who was it that dismantled a policy that was working?

Of course, if you consider the Coalition asylum seeker policy to be the best possible solution

I see it as a solution - and it is the one most likely to be implemented under the parliament we currently have. To the end that will stop the deaths at sea it should be implemented asap.

 

[Wildy]

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands. That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

 

[lionking]

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

This is true. Every death at sea adds to Abbott's popularity. You can't get more cynical than that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

Yet the reality is that Labor undid the laws that were working, the Greens actually love this policy that "lets more and more of these people die" and Gillard refuses to make a decision that will end the stalemate.

Your opinion counts for very little when lined up against the facts or, for that matter until your prediction proves to be true.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yet the reality is that Labor undid the laws that were working, the Greens actually love this policy that "lets more and more of these people die" and Gillard refuses to make a decision that will end the stalemate.

Why is "lets more and more of these people die" in scare quotes?

Is it meant to let people know that this is yet more hyperbole and nothing to do with the facts of the matter?

Seems redundant.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why is "lets more and more of these people die" in scare quotes?

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

Is it meant to let people know that this is yet more hyperbole and nothing to do with the facts of the matter?

Seems redundant.

You might be right about it being "hyperbole" and "redundant" (are those "scare quotes" ok? ). Perhaps you should take it up with others.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now I see. The quotes were meant to indicate that you'd taken someone else's words and put them in a completely different sentence of your own contrivance to create the impression that the person who used the words originally did so in your artificial context.

That's so much better than mere hyperbole.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Not even close. But thanks for playing.

 

[uvar]

Well, the final report is out - see your favorite news site for details or read the report itself here.

From what I've seen so far I'm a litle underwhelmed, but I haven't looked at the reasoning behind their decisions yet.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Among other things, the main recommendations appear to be:
- reopening Nauru
- turning back the boats
- increasing the humanitarian intake
- development and coperation of strategies with Indonesia and Maalaysia
- strategies with source countries
- offshore processing in PNG
- transfer and resettlement arrangements with Malaysia
- reduce family reunions
- zero sponsorship arrangements by those arriving by "irregular maritime means"

Hmm. It will be interesting politics this week.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I wonder when the PM will get onto the phone about Nauru?

I just heard Christine Milne on the radio. She has virtually rejected the report outright saying it takes us back to the "bad old days of the Howard years".
I guess that means they wont be on board (no pun intended) with any of the proposals.

Also interesting, Houston states that onshore processing has acted as a "pull factor".


I can't wait to see how Gillard plays this one out. Much backpedalling and obfuscation one anticipates.

 

[uvar]

Minus a few parts that still seem unnecessarily cruel, I find myself agreeing with what I've read so far (edit: in the sense that the recommendations would reduce the number of "irregular maritime arrivals" and related deaths). Liking it is another matter...

I do wonder about the longer-term recommendations, which I wouldn't expect to survive any substantial changes in government.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...20000-asylum-seeker-panel-20120813-24417.html

I must say I am feeling rather validated by this report. More:

On pull factors:

Air Chief Marshal Houston said that onshore processing was "seeing a very big pull" towards Australia.

"Unless we do something different ... the problem is just going to get worse," he said. "Onshore processing encourages people to jump on boats."

On Malaysia

The people-swap deal with Malaysia should be ''built on, not discarded'' but the panel warned that, if it was to work, protection measures and safety guarantees for the fate of asylum seekers sent from Australia to Malaysia were needed.

On TPVs

Air Chief Marshal Houston said that the panel had looked at temporary protection visas. He said they would not be needed in Nauru or PNG, but a form of the visa may be required if vulnerable people needed to come to Australia.

 

[lionking]

Now that Gillard has totally compromised and agrees to the Nauru and Manus Island, Abbott must, if he has any principal at all, agree to pass the legislation. If not, all will know without the shadow of a doubt that he's happy to accept deaths at sea in order to get in power.

My betting is that he will reject the legislation, proving to the world what a piece of scum he is. And confirming that he is the Worst Opposition Leader Ever. Come on, gutless one Abbott, prove me wrong.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It must really suck for many here, in government, the greens (who are squealing like infants) for this independant committee to essentially validate so much of what the coalition has been saying all along.

It is simply further confirmation of Gillard's ineptitude.

Suck it up!

Like I said, the politics will be interesting this week and the worst PM ever now has a chance to finally try and do the right thing. Only time will tell how this plays out but the potential political machinations are tantalising.

 

[uvar]

It must really suck for many here, in government, the greens (who are squealing like infants) for this independant committee to essentially validate so much of what the coalition has been saying all along.

It is simply further confirmation of Gillard's ineptitude.

Now now, don't pretend like it's all their ideas - Malysia and Nauru (and PNG), less family reunions but not turning boats around (the idea is sound, but various requirements for it to be acceptable aren't currently met). About the only thing the Greens can celebrate is the suggested increase to 20,000+ though, and they did seem spectactularly angry.

Like I said, the politics will be interesting this week and the worst PM ever now has a chance to finally try and do the right thing. Only time will tell how this plays out but the potential political machinations are tantalising.

She/Labor have agreed to support all the recommendations in principle, which seems like a fair attempt at "the right thing" (except for those who don't want offshore processing, but I don't think Alfie is among them!). I hope the Coalition takes this seriously and doesn't try to pick and choose the parts they want. It will take time, but perhaps not very much of it!

 

[lionking]

Now now, don't pretend like it's all their ideas - Malysia and Nauru (and PNG), less family reunions but not turning boats around (the idea is sound, but various requirements for it to be acceptable aren't currently met). About the only thing the Greens can celebrate is the suggested increase to 20,000+ though, and they did seem spectactularly angry.


She/Labor have agreed to support all the recommendations in principle, which seems like a fair attempt at "the right thing" (except for those who don't want offshore processing, but I don't think Alfie is among them!). I hope the Coalition takes this seriously and doesn't try to pick and choose the parts they want. It will take time, but perhaps not very much of it!

Good analysis, but make no mistake, the Coalition will take the path which will maximize their vote. The pollsters and focus groups will be working overtime tonight.

 

[Dcdrac]

Did you know that as the economy as slumped here all a lot of Aussies are heading home, and a lot of them are visa jumpers/over stayers.

 

[lionking]

Did you know that as the economy as slumped here all a lot of Aussies are heading home, and a lot of them are visa jumpers/over stayers.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Where's "here" to start with?