Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[777]

I think a lot of people would agree with that statement on the proviso that you accept that Australians want the federal Government and the Australian Dept of Immigration to make decisions on the numbers of immigrants and whom comes into Australia and whom gets to stay. Not the people smugglers in Indonesia or people whom can afford to pay people smugglers.

It's not a statement that requires agreement it's just the way it works. Each year the Australian government decides how many refugees it takes. If the number is 20,000 and there are 2000 legitimate refugees (who pass the security assessments) that arrive by boat then there are 18,000 places that go to other refugees from around the world. If there are 0 that arrive by boat will still end up with 20,000 refugees. If 18,000 arrive by boat then we take 2,000 from elsewhere. Either way it's the same number.

The only circumstances in which boat arrivals would increase the number of migrants is if the total arrivals exceeded the refugee quota. We have never come close to that.

As for who gets to choose. Personally, i think the country is probably better off taking people who have shown the initiative and desire to travel far and shown there passion to become Australians than randomly picking people out of refugee camps who don't know where Australia is. It would be interesting to do a detailed study as to whether, after five, ten or fifteen years boat people are any more or less likely to contribute than other refugees. I suspect that, on the whole, they are better educated, more financially independent and more highly motivated than other refugees.

But i agree there is probably a fairness issue there and that we need to make sure that we don't simply take comparatively rich, well educated Iraqis and Sri Lankan Tamils while kids are languishing in Somali refugee camps despite the fact that it might actually be easier for the country.

 

[coyote25]

You know, I wouldn't have it any other way.
<cut>

I love it that the political machines are forced to appeal to the lazy, the stupid, the uneducated, the homeless, the racist and the renegade. These people are our brothers and sisters in our great liberal democracy every bit as the thoughtful, decent, well-read and educated folk here.

That marks one big difference between here and (say) the USA. We look after those on the bottom. Not as well as we should, and not because it's the right thing to do. But because their votes count.

You know Skyring I think we have did views on some political issues but I agree with you on this. If you don't vote you have no power. In the US special interest groups try to have out sized power when they say there groups will vote.

 

[coyote25]

It is at this point I probably shouldn't express my views about a full restoration of the Monarchy...

Extremely funny. Thanks for being light hearted simongr on this thread.

 

[pagingjoan]

It is at this point I probably shouldn't express my views about a full restoration of the Monarchy...

Oh, go on!
You know you want to.

 

[drron]

It's not a statement that requires agreement it's just the way it works. Each year the Australian government decides how many refugees it takes. If the number is 20,000 and there are 2000 legitimate refugees (who pass the security assessments) that arrive by boat then there are 18,000 places that go to other refugees from around the world. If there are 0 that arrive by boat will still end up with 20,000 refugees. If 18,000 arrive by boat then we take 2,000 from elsewhere. Either way it's the same number.

The only circumstances in which boat arrivals would increase the number of migrants is if the total arrivals exceeded the refugee quota. We have never come close to that.

As for who gets to choose. Personally, i think the country is probably better off taking people who have shown the initiative and desire to travel far and shown there passion to become Australians than randomly picking people out of refugee camps who don't know where Australia is. It would be interesting to do a detailed study as to whether, after five, ten or fifteen years boat people are any more or less likely to contribute than other refugees. I suspect that, on the whole, they are better educated, more financially independent and more highly motivated than other refugees.

But i agree there is probably a fairness issue there and that we need to make sure that we don't simply take comparatively rich, well educated Iraqis and Sri Lankan Tamils while kids are languishing in Somali refugee camps despite the fact that it might actually be easier for the country.

A lot of agreement here.I really do think we should be taking in more refugees but less boat people As that would lower the risk of them dying and most do arrive without any ID and quite often not because they are fleeing persecution.
One particular area I feel we have failed are the Hazaris from Afghanistan.There is no doubt they are persecuted and many have worked with the Australian forces.Many have become boat arrivals,some have died and this really should not have happened.
I did see a report a little while ago re the percentage of refugees who are in the workforce 5 years after being accepted into Australia.I believe it did include boat arrivals who had been given refugee status.Those who had the highest representation in the workforce were the Somalis-not what you might expect-sorry but I cant find the reference on a quick search.

 

[dfcatch]

The issue is a distinction between political refugees (whom we should accept), and economic refugees (whom we shouldn't).

Economic refugees should be rejected, and forced to apply through the normal immigration channels like everyone else.

The concern by the vast majority in the electorate is that many of the "boat people" are in fact economic refugees.

Most people are not xenophobic as the lefties like to accuse us of..... Just that we believe that the refugee intake numbers should go to those who are genuinely in need of protection and saving, not those who can afford to country shop - and pass through several relatively safe havens on the way here.

Of course people want to "choose" to come here - it's a great country - but we don't have open borders, and I'm sorry, but there are many many many educated legitimate prospective migrants that would love to get a chance to live/work here in Australia and never get the chance, or get rejected for not having enough "points" on their application.

It's not fair on them, or on genuine refugees languishing in camps around the world for freeloading economic migrants to be jumping the queue ("queue" existing in an orderly fashion or not). Fact is IMAs take away from refugee intake - therefore they are displacing other applicants AKA jumping the queue.

And for the record - whilst it's not illegal to seek asylum - it is illegal to arrive without entry papers and authorization.

Why don't you white-collar FFs try arriving in LOTFAP without authorization and claiming "asylum" - see how you go

3 things ****e me about this debate:

1/ the automatic assumption that anyone and everyone who arrives is automatically assumed without doubt to be a political refugee fleeing the worst kinds of persecution imaginable where there is no other safe haven than Australia;

2/ the opposition to TPVs for refugee applicants in the short term. I think they're a great thing - you're a legitimate refugee (or benefit of the doubt being applied), we agree to provide you with safe haven, we'll reassess things after a while and if it's not safe to go back home - you can stay.

But no - it's not a free "green card" just for turning up, and it doesn't provide stupid family reunion rights which just encourage people to get one person in the door to bring out everyone else - talk about an incentive to jump on a boat.

3/ the accusation that the only people who politicize this debate are right-wing. Fact is a working system was dismantled by an incompetent government. BTW - those on the left might care to remember that it was the ALP who introduced mandatory detention.


Now - areas for legitimate debate include the debate about how open our borders should be - maybe we should just let anyone and everyone in. Would certainly save time queuing at the airport - would save a heap of money by closing down the Dept of Immigration

I think most Australians are generally compassionate and no-one wants to see people languishing in detention centers etc.

But at the end of the day - if things are so bad in Nauru or Xmas Island or wherever (where they get meals, clothing, medical attention, consulting psychiatrists, television, security etc ) - they are always welcome to go back home.

I can only imagine the horrors that legitimate refugees are fleeing from around the world, but if it were me, I would happily take the relative safety of a detention centre anyday (notwithstanding that it wouldn't be as utopian as being handed Aussie residency instantly).

Harsh - perhaps - but people are dying because of the policies of the bleeding hearts.... There is no simple solution and IMHO most Australians get it - as per the polls.

 

[amaroo]

Last night, they showed three people, Gillard, Swan and some other Minister, continually repeating the phrase "The Modern Family". Apparently their focus groups have told them that "the working class family" is no longer a 'go-er'

You forgot - Labor Values

I believe this was Eddie's favourite

 

[Pukka]

You forgot - Labor Values

I believe this was Eddie's favourite

Did Swan mention "spreading the benefits of the mining boom" ? Or " surplus"

Lol

 

[Skyring]

Harsh - perhaps - but people are dying because of the policies of the bleeding hearts.... There is no simple solution and IMHO most Australians get it - as per the polls.

Not harsh at all. An honest assessment of the situation.

The thing that kills the boat method for me is the involvement of people-smugglers. They charge as much as possible to squeeze as many people as possible onto the cheapest possible boat. They sit back in comfort and security, paying off the local cops and immigration, while their customers - and crew - make the dangerous trip. Hundreds of people die each year after spending thousands for a seat.

That's not the way we should be handling our refugee intake. I don't mind looking after refugees and doing our bit as a good global citizen. But ensuring that the most dangerous part of the journey comes right at the end is just plain wrong.

 

[777]

The issue is a distinction between political refugees (whom we should accept), and economic refugees (whom we shouldn't).

Economic refugees should be rejected, and forced to apply through the normal immigration channels like everyone else.

I hate to point this out but that is exactly what the law says. The law in that respect has been the same under liberal and labor governments (and the UNHCR) for time immemorial. If you are a political refugee and you arrive in Australia fleeing persecution you are entitled to stay. If you arrive for economic reasons you are not. I don't think there is anyone at all in the debate arguing that it should be any different.

But.. There is a debate about how you determine that, where (and if) you hold people while trying to figure that out and who should make the assessment.

 

[Skyring]

If you are a political refugee and you arrive in Australia fleeing persecution you are entitled to stay. If you arrive for economic reasons you are not.

My rule of thumb is that somebody describing all irregular arrivals as "refugees" has their mind made up one way.

And anybody describing the same people as "illegal immigrants" has their head screwed around the other way.

Both views are intolerant of all others and regard people like me, who use the term "asylum seekers", as hopelessly wishy-washy.

 

[dfcatch]

I hate to point this out but that is exactly what the law says. The law in that respect has been the same under liberal and labor governments (and the UNHCR) for time immemorial. If you are a political refugee and you arrive in Australia fleeing persecution you are entitled to stay. If you arrive for economic reasons you are not. I don't think there is anyone at all in the debate arguing that it should be any different.

But.. There is a debate about how you determine that, where (and if) you hold people while trying to figure that out and who should make the assessment.

Yes - I agree.

And quite a legitimate debate as well.


But I disagree with one point - I think there are many many in the debate who are willfully ignoring the economic refugee question and start the debate from a position that they are all legitimate political refugees without question. That's my beef with the debate.

Unfortunately 777 - not everyone is as informed as you.

 

[777]

My rule of thumb is that somebody describing all irregular arrivals as "refugees" has their mind made up one way.

And anybody describing the same people as "illegal immigrants" has their head screwed around the other way.

Both views are intolerant of all others and regard people like me, who use the term "asylum seekers", as hopelessly wishy-washy.

Agreed that asylum seekers is the correct term for people whose status is not clear. Although the term refugee is correct if they have been assessed as such. I am not sure if "illegal immigrant" is correct if they failed in an asylum bid (it depends on legal technicalities beyond me right now as to whether they "immigrated" and whether applying but being denied is a crime).

 

[Skyring]

Agreed that asylum seekers is the correct term for people whose status is not clear. Although the term refugee is correct if they have been assessed as such. I am not sure if "illegal immigrant" is correct if they failed in an asylum bid (it depends on legal technicalities beyond me right now as to whether they "immigrated" and whether applying but being denied is a crime).

I'm not interested in what is correct. I'm interested in identifying people with closed minds - there's no point arguing with such people, except maybe to highlight their biases to other readers.

 

[dfcatch]

Agreed that asylum seekers is the correct term for people whose status is not clear. Although the term refugee is correct if they have been assessed as such. I am not sure if "illegal immigrant" is correct if they failed in an asylum bid (it depends on legal technicalities beyond me right now as to whether they "immigrated" and whether applying but being denied is a crime).

Yes - IIRC correctly that is exactly the case.

- you arrive without authorization / visa etc

- you would normally be classified as an "illegal immigrant" (you are attempting to immigrate without permission - which is illegal)

- you claim asylum (which is a legitimate "defense"/ "workaround")

- if your asylum claim is upheld - you become legitimate and are issued an appropriate visa

- if your claim is denied - you are classified as an illegal immigrant and are subject to deportation proceedings


That is my understanding of the legal application - just the same as if you apply for a change in status/visa renewal etc. In a number of circumstances you are allowed to stay pending the outcome of the application, but if the application is denied then you are "out of status".

The US in fact applies such "out of status" status retrospectively. For example:

- you have a visa that expires 30 Jan.
- you apply for a new visa.
- they are still processing said new application after 30 jan, in many cases you can stay whilst it's pending.
- if the deny it on say 30 April - then you are deemed to have been out of status for 90 days. Being out of status in the States can have serious ramifications - 6 months and you get a 3 yr ban on reentry. 1 yr and you get a 10 yr ban.

Can't remember if Australia is retrospective.

Can't be bothered finding references but they're all there - I'm sure some troll will find them for me

 

[eastwest101]

Did Swan mention "spreading the benefits of the mining boom" ? Or " surplus"

Lol

I was waiting for someone to ask that question.
Rudd's demise and the defecit and lack of trust in the current Federal Government has a lot to do his deputy and treasurer. It was Swan whom sat on the Henry review back in 2007-08 and then Swan and/or Rudd decided to dump every part of the 130 something Henry Review items except for a Mining Resource Profits tax. The original RSPT was designed by Swan sent to consultation by Rudd, which then went into preliminary consultation with industry (and it seems that the states were ignored). While in the consultation phase Swan assured Rudd that everyone was already consulted and "on board".

Swan then announced the RSPT - ambushing the industry, Martin Ferguson, the states governments and Rudd (everyone). Henry then realized that Swan and Treasury had mucked up his original proposal and that parts of the RSPT exposed the Federal Government to massive tax liabilities and the government share of financing was worthless to mining companies for financing projects, due to expropriating the big established mines (BHP-Billiton, Rio & Xstrata) and stopping finance and inhibiting future profits of the little guys (i.e. Forrest & Reinhart) and the proposal also potentially had problems of its constituionality.


The mining industry started their anti RSPT advertising campaign, which was closely followed by the federal governments own advertising campaign, breaching the governments own rules about government political advertising. As Rudd had previously railed about government advertising being a "cancer" on our society. Swan and Rudd attempted to return fire with a class warfare campaign, but by then, the relationship between Rudd and his ministers was so bad, and with the government losing the PR war with their advertising campaign (that fooled no-one), some people in the ALP including Swan, decided to despatch Rudd and replace him with Gillard. Rudd was still trying to reach a compromise with Twiggy Forrest when Rudd was deposed. This is because a lot of people in the industry would not trust or negotiate with Swan (based on the treasurers past antics) but could still talk to Rudd.


Then Gillard wanted the RSPT issue "fixed" and surprisingly gave the job to Swan whom negotiated the MRRT with the big 3 iron ore and coal miners and it was put through parliament with the support of the ALP, Greens and the independants. Again, this negotiation - almost unbeleivably - was all done without consultation with the state governments. Gillard and Swan negotiated with the big 3 despite the big 3 asking that Martin Ferguson (the minister for Resources no less) be present as Ferguson was about the only person in government whom understood business! For some inexplicable reason Ferguson was not present for these negotiations that saw birth to the revised MRRT.


Then the historically high commodity prices ended, the AUD shot through the roof (and a high AUD hurts mining profits just as much as manufacturers or tourism) and costs all conspired to dramatically reduce the profitability of the iron ore and coal miners. Eventually - everyone except for Swan, Gillard and people in Treasury (whom seemed to be in complete denial) reached the conclusion that the MRRT would not raise much revenue. The raising of state mineral and coal royalties also reduced the MRRT take as he had made a binding deal about "state royalties being exempt from MRRT assesments" with "all state royalties" meaning "all".


Unfortunately for Swan he had promised just about every school hall/road/welfare benefit/superannuation rise/NDIS/Federal Budget Surplus and company tax cut under the sun would be paid for by the MRRT revenues. It seemed like there would be a press release somewhere out there claiming the MRRT would cure cancer! As the evidence grew that the economy was slowing, the mining boom slowing and the defecit promises becoming less and less beleivable Swan spent many more months avoiding questions about how much revenue the MRRT had collected, for spurrious reasons that magically dissappeared after he admitted that he couldn't deliver a surplus as promised.


Rudd wasn't great or the wost PM in Australia's history and obviously had other problems with his own party and ministers. I think he had more principles than some of his cabinet colleagues.

The only take-out you could get from all of this sad tale is that the treasurer, and possibly the treasury department were and maybe still are totally incompetent.

 

[Moody]

Had to laugh about the government advertising bit ..... I believe John Howard will have that record in perpetuity, but I digress.

There were no doubt imperfections in the original legislation, and without doubt imperfections in the resulting compromise (not least of which is the hypocrisy of State Governments who bemoaned that the Federal Gavernment was killing the golden goose, and then stuck the fork in with glee immediately after).

But I look at intentions. The intention was to divert some of the more obscene profits away from mining companies and towards the general public, because if we can't afford to invest in things like infrastructure and education now, then we never will. The mining companies have a duty to protect their shareholders and no duty to the public, so they mounted a lovely feel good campaign about what a fantastic job they were doing and that nasty Mr Rudd was going to spoil it all. Net result - Rudd's popularity goes down further and his colleagues didn't need a second invitation to depose him.


Next the quick fix with Gillard, but the mining companies held all the cards and gleefully slapped each other on the back as they walked away with barely a scratch. Eddy Obeid could not have gotten a better result.


So the baying mob that said the tax would destroy our economy are now criticising it for not delivering enough funds. How quaint!

 

[777]

I'm not interested in what is correct. I'm interested in identifying people with closed minds - there's no point arguing with such people, except maybe to highlight their biases to other readers.

Whether someone is correct or not is kind of important to identifying their biases. It is possible to say, for example, that you are unhappy with the condition that refugees are kept in in Australia without necessarily assuming that everyone kept in a detention centre will be found to be a refugee. The fact that the majority of those in detention are historically found to be refugees makes that a perfectly valid statement.

 

[eastwest101]

Next the quick fix with Gillard, but the mining companies held all the cards and gleefully slapped each other on the back as they walked away with barely a scratch. Eddy Obeid could not have gotten a better result.

Actually - Eddie Obeid very nearly did get more revenue than the MRRT has raised so far.

 

[Skyring]

Whether someone is correct or not is kind of important to identifying their biases.

I take the position that ultimate truth is unknowable. Plato's parable of the cave teaches us that, and it is the basic message of the Tao te Ching. What is interesting here is identifying those who are so attached to their own perceptions that they think their views are ultimate truth. They are inevitably wrong.