It seems that even though the ALP has NO worthwhile policies and NO policy on boat people they have taken to just blaming the libs! How the hell is it the libs fault that a boat sunk near java this week? Have a look at the FAILED Malaysia deal ALP want to put into action, it is not very good for us as a nation and very unfair for those seeking asylum. Whereas the libs Nauru policy has been proven to work and is fair for those involved. Yes i know some of you out there fall into the bleeding heart brigade and think we should have onshore processing BUT that in part leads to more deaths as the smugglers just pack more and more onto the boats. Would like to hear thoughts on POLICY not on the validity of "asylum seekers".
I love how the Liberals are blaming the Gillard government for it. It was a tragic accident, nothing more, and I am disgusted at the number of racist Australians posting on various online sources (namely the Herald Sun website) saying they are glad those people are dead and that we don't need them here. Let them come.
Mak in a way it IS the goverments fault. When the pacific solution was in place things like this STOPPED happening.
But we denied desperate people the chance for freedom, which was wrong. And did it stop the 'children overboard' scandal? Did it stop boats coming and sinking and deaths because the Howard government refused to intervene?
No - the "Nauru policy" did not work. It was ridiculously expensive and ineffective. From a 2007 report on the process: In the six years since the Tampa crisis in August 2001, Australian taxpayers have spent more than $1 billion to process less than 1,700 asylum seekers in offshore locations – or more than half a million dollars per person. Most, if not all, of these asylum seekers have paid a substantial personal toll through poor mental and physical health and wellbeing. There have also been detrimental impacts on Australia’s democratic and legal system, Australia’s regional relationships and the international system of protection of refugees and asylum seekers. http://www.oxfam.org.au/resources/filestore/originals/OAus-PriceTooHighAsylumSeekers-0807.pdf And virtually all of the people sent to Nauru were found to be bona fide refugees It is also now illegal due to the recent High Court decision. Poor as it is - at least Labor does have a policy. The Liberals do not have a coherent policy. It is completely contradictory. They claim want to only send asylum seekers to UNHCR signatory countries (though this was ignored during the "Pacific Solution" years - yet a major part of the policy is to "turn around boats where possible" - ie send asylum seekers to Indonesia - a non-UNHCR signatory country. Hiding asylum seekers at enormous expense to the Australian tax payer in Nauru is not a policy. It is playing politics with peoples lives. It will not stop people smuggling. It will not address the core issue of why people are seeking asylum. It will continue to cost lives. It will cost a ridiculous amount of money To save lives - Australia needs to increase its refugee intake.
post tampa Mak...dont let your hate for howard interfere with the debate now. We didnt deny at all, we put a measure of control in there to make sure we A/ knew who these people were B/ could find out if there were if fact refugees C/ suitable to live within aust.
Hmmm, I have "a pretty good idea" that I agree with everything in this post "Hiding asylum seekers at enormous expense to the Australian tax payer in Nauru is not a policy. It is playing politics with peoples lives. It will not stop people smuggling. It will not address the core issue of why people are seeking asylum. It will continue to cost lives. It will cost a ridiculous amount of money To save lives - Australia needs to increase its refugee intake"
It worked because it stopped the boats - that was the intent and result. Once they stopped, then the cost will go down as the ones that had arrived were processed.... until end result, no cost AND no boats. LOL. I think most people would prefer to spend money then see people getting killed breaking the law to get into here in such a way - except those blinded by ALP and Green hysteria.
so you people really think that sending kids to Malaysia is where they have NO protection is better than Nauru??? are you that insane?
I do agree that we should increase our intake, but non of them should be boat people...they should be from the UN camps. Those than try to force their way in should be put on a plane and returned to where they came from....if they have enough money and skill to find and pay for a smuggler to bring them here then they have enough money and skill to do things the right way.
Increasing our intake of refugees from those already in camps in Malaysia is better than Nauru. Much better. BTW - have you ever actually been to Nauru? Do you know where it is? How big it is? I have. Many times. It is a really dumb place for a concentration camp. It is about 1/6 the size of Christmas Island. It has no natural resources. It is 5000km from Aus. It is essentially a failed state not the phosphate has gone. Every single piece of food and infrastructure used for asylum seekers housed there has to come from Australia. If the Christmas Is detention centre is full now - Nauru won't last long before it is full too. Why do you think this is a good place to hide asylum seekers until the eventual time that the end up in Australia anyway? Don't you think it may be a better idea to address the problem before they get on the boats?
You might want to check. The "Pacific Solution" did not stop the boats: Lets be clear this is what the Pacific Solution did it diddled the stats by redefinition. Boats still made the attempt to enter Australia which is a point worth noting as many of the proponents of Pull Factors cite reducing the risk of death from reducing the number of people attempting the voyage by boat, as one of their key rationales. Yet we know that SIEV(s) 5,7,11 and 12 in 2002 attempted to make the journey and were returned to Indonesia while SIEV(s) 4,6 and 10 actually sank. That was in very late 2001 through late 2002. In 2003 we know that boats were still attempting to make the voyage such as SIEV 14, but were again towed back from whence they came.... What that figure doesnt take into account are the numbers that attempted the voyage but were turned back nor those that sank or were suspected of being lost at sea. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seeker-numbers-and-statistics/ And there is also the simple fact that worldwide asylum applications dropped dramatically between 2001 and 2006 - nothing to do with Australia's racist policies of the time: in the last five years, the number of asylum seekers arriving in all industrialized countries has fallen by half, according to preliminary annual figures released by the UN refugee agency on Friday. Asylum applications in 50 industrialized countries fell sharply for the fourth year in a row in 2005, reaching their lowest level in almost two decades. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news/opendoc.htm?tbl=NEWS&id=441a7d714
