Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[Julia]

You missed a bit or two (my bolds)

Abbott received the same briefing from the then secretary of the Immigration Department Andrew Metcalfe, as did the media. Metcalfe told Abbott his policies - of which Metcalfe was a principal architect - would not work again. Nauru would be no more a deterrent than Christmas Island because people now knew that once processed they would most likely be sent to Australia.

Here you go again perpetuating that myth that asylum seekers almost all ended up in Australia.
Read earlier in the thread. Between 30% and 40% ended up in Australia. The rest were sent home or to NZ. 30% or 40% is not "most".

Well then IFocus, the answer is easy for Gillard, all she needs do is say "In frustration I will adopt Abbotts recomendation, however I have great reservations as to the outcome".
It can't go wrong, that is unless the measures suggested actually work, even then she could make footage out of the fact she was prepared to compromise.

Agree. She can carry on about how she is succumbing to the force of the opposition in a self sacrificing attempt to save lives at sea, yada yada. And then if it all goes wrong, she can claim no fault.

The problem with this is that boat arrivals surged only after Labor took office.

A solution of the Malaysia type has the potential to be a lasting deterrent, but it needs to be open ended and an even bargain for both countries involved (one for one).

Yes, the original suggestion looks pathetic given the numbers arriving since then. Perhaps the government thought just one shipment of people to Malaysia would do the job of deterring future arrivals.
I doubt that very much.

This was a government big on rhetoric, but nothing else. So the Apology to the Stolen Generation, with the greatest of respect, was rhetoric. Signing the Kyoto Protocol also arguably was.

So true. Nothing has changed for aboriginal people. Nothing has changed re so called climate change.

 

[drsmith]

That little breakaway group is beginning to work out that a solution to this is not easy.

WHILE the major parties are engaged in a stand-off over the issue, a group of MPs has met to consider ways of breaking a parliamentary deadlock.

Mr Windsor convened the group that includes fellow independent Rob Oakeshott, Liberal MPs Mal Washer and Judi Moylan, National MP Tony Crook and Labor's Steve Georganas.

While another meeting is planned for Wednesday, Mr Windsor played down the prospect of any policy resolution.

"You can't rush this in that type of time span," he told ABC Radio on Tuesday.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-on-boat-policy/story-fn3dxiwe-1226408572786

The politics of this is moving. The Coalition need to indicate an openness to accepting Malaysia subject to some reasonable conditions,

1) Malaysia sign the refugee convention.
2) The arrangement should be open-ended.
3) Due to Labor's poor negotiation, it would be difficult to undo 800 for 4000, but in the context of one for one above, better terms could be negotiated

This would keep the whole issue firmly on Labor's plate.

The difficulty I have with this though is that it absolves the Greens of any responsibility, something the media at large seems very reluctant to pursue.

Scott Morrison on 2GB with Steve Price and Andrew Bolt yesterday evening.

Scott Morrison: If the government accepted our amendment to their bill (allowing the Malaysian people swap deal) which has legally binding protection, which was that we only sent people to countries that signed the Refugee Convention, which is a legally binding protection, that bill would pass the parliament tonight.

Bolt: So if Malaysia says “we will sign it” (the Refugee Convention) you will allow the Malaysian people swap.

Scott Morrison: Yes.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 

[MrBurns]

On the 730 report last night Scott Morrision when quizzed by Leigh Sales didnt say he would agree to anything, just that Labor hadnt offered anything, stupid answer to a straight forward question. "would you agree if Labor gave you everything you want"

 

[Julia]

On the 730 report last night Scott Morrision when quizzed by Leigh Sales didnt say he would agree to anything, just that Labor hadnt offered anything, stupid answer to a straight forward question. "would you agree if Labor gave you everything you want"

He did refuse a clear answer. But I took that more as his irritation at Leigh Sales trying to play mediator and broker a deal on television. He said as much.

I'm surprised no one has commented on the government chartering a 737 to fly ONE asylum seeker from Christmas Island to Perth after the capsizing.

 

[dutchie]

Its the 5th day of the 5th test, the decider, and the captain of the Australian team (Tony Abbott) leads his team on to the field at the start of play with a 500 run lead and with the opposition nine wickets down, just then the captain of the other team (Julia Gillard) walks up to Tony and says "I am ready to negotiate a draw now".

 

[Happy]

... I'm surprised no one has commented on the government chartering a 737 to fly ONE asylum seeker from Christmas Island to Perth after the capsizing.

Some charter flights are direct opposite to frugal living, austerity measures or even CO2/climate control.

Same thought crossed my mind when Kevin with 100+ others flew to sign Kyoto agreement.

It could be laughable if it was not sad.

Why Julia and other World 20 leaders don't use fast internet instead of adding to CO2/climate problems?
(Suspect, they started connection from Tasmania and Julia doesn't have it yet .. )

 

[Calliope]

That little breakaway group is beginning to work out that a solution to this is not easy.

What gives with this clown Mal Washer, Doc. He is the Liberal doctor who got considerable air time for continually checking Craig Thomson for signs of stress. He is one of yours. Is he ready to switch sides like Turnbull? He has all the appearances of a heavy boozer.

 

[Julia]

What gives with this clown Mal Washer, Doc. He is the Liberal doctor who got considerable air time for continually checking Craig Thomson for signs of stress. He is one of yours. Is he ready to switch sides like Turnbull? He has all the appearances of a heavy boozer.

That whole group shares a philosophy about asylum seekers which closely aligns to that of The Greens.

 

[Julia]

Our border 'policy' is causing incredulity outside of Australia. Talking with a NZ friend yesterday, he remarked on what a total stuff up is occurring here.

The conversation reminded me of a Greens member a few days ago who blithely said: "we should have completely open borders for everyone. We have such open borders for New Zealanders, and there's no problem".

 

[quinny]

What gives with this clown Mal Washer, Doc. He is the Liberal doctor who got considerable air time for continually checking Craig Thomson for signs of stress. He is one of yours. Is he ready to switch sides like Turnbull? He has all the appearances of a heavy boozer.

Apparently he is not running in the next election.

 

[DB008]

I'm surprised no one has commented on the government chartering a 737 to fly ONE asylum seeker from Christmas Island to Perth after the capsizing.

http://www.news.com.au/national/entire-737-charted-to-move-just-one-asylum-seeker/story-e6frfkvr-1226408659569

Hmm, bit of a curly one.
How much would it cost to run a 737 for ~2 hours (1618miles)? 30k? 50k?

Map Link

 

[dutchie]

I'm surprised no one has commented on the government chartering a 737 to fly ONE asylum seeker from Christmas Island to Perth after the capsizing.

Whats the problem? The governments got plenty of money.

 

[IFocus]

Abbotts smirk about the asylum policy is interesting


From Crikey

There are some words one is loathe to reach for in politics. Voters may not think it, but rare is the politician at the federal level who isn't there, even in this benighted age, because she or he genuinely wants to do good by Australia. They may be utterly confused, ignorant or lazily unaware about how to maximise the national interest, but they still pursue it. As a consequence, daring to pass moral judgment on politicians can be hazardous and unfair. One may charge them with cynicism or opportunism, yes, but that is more a judgment on their tactics than on their morality.

But, having paid close or not-so-close attention to federal politics since the early 1980s, I can't do anything but conclude that the Coalition's current stance on asylum seekers is the clearest example of outright evil that I've ever seen from a political party at the federal level.

As is clear to every other member of Parliament, it is clear to Coalition MPs that Australia's current de facto position on processing asylum seekers onshore isn't deterring people who otherwise face many years awaiting resettlement from getting in boats, and therefore risking their lives. People are dying as a consequence, in large numbers. But the Coalition has no interest in altering this position. Shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison showed that last night when he made clear on 7.30 that even if Labor embraced the Coalition's position entirely it wouldn't get agreement.

 

[drsmith]

http://www.news.com.au/national/entire-737-charted-to-move-just-one-asylum-seeker/story-e6frfkvr-1226408659569

Hmm, bit of a curly one.
How much would it cost to run a 737 for ~2 hours (1618miles)? 30k? 50k?

Map Link

In The West I think it stated $11k per hour.

I'm not sure whether that includes fuel and first class.

 

[numbercruncher]

Abbotts smirk about the asylum policy is interesting
From Crikey

Liberals should sack him and get a responsible leader ....

 

[drsmith]

Abbotts smirk about the asylum policy is interesting


From Crikey

He's too smart to end up with the same expression on his face as Andrew Wilkie did after doing a deal with Julia Gillard.

He knows dshe needs to be on her knees before he can deal. He needs to be flexible enough to consider compromise but even then, he still might not be able to trust her.

Again, Andrew Wilkie comes to mind.

 

[drsmith]

Liberals should sack him and get a responsible leader ....

He's not a fool. See above.

 

[MrBurns]

I've got a trial sub with Crikey I'd like to keep it going but it's too left wing.

 

[bellenuit]

Shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison showed that last night when he made clear on 7.30 that even if Labor embraced the Coalition's position entirely it wouldn't get agreement.

I don't quite get it. If the government were to embrace the coalition's position, what exactly has to pass through parliament? Can they just get on with it?

 

[StumpyPhantom]

I don't quite get it. If the government were to embrace the coalition's position, what exactly has to pass through parliament? Can they just get on with it?

Yep. Nothing has to pass the Parliament. The High Court, in the judgment which trashed the Malaysia Solution, said as much at paragraph 128:

Two points may be made about this submission. First, it is by no means clear what use the Minister and the Commonwealth sought to make in the proper construction of the provision of what they asserted to be facts known to those who promoted the legislation. The facts asserted do not identify any mischief to which the provision was directed. Rather, it seemed that the facts were put forward as indicating what those who promoted the legislation hoped or intended might be achieved by it. But those hopes or intentions do not bear upon the curial determination of the question of construction of the legislative text[121]. Second, even assuming them to be in some way relevant, the arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue. Not least is that so because Australia, not Nauru as the receiving country, was to provide or secure the provision of the assessment and other steps that had to be taken, as well as the maintenance in the meantime of those who claimed to be seeking protection. Thus it was Australia, not the receiving country, that was to provide the access and protections in question. Further, although the arrangement between Australia and Nauru was recorded in a very short document, the better view of that document may be that it created obligations between the signatory states. But whether or not the arrangements with Nauru had the various features that have been identified, the question of statutory construction should be resolved in the manner indicated.

Here's the link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html

The way it happened at the hearing in the High Court is exactly the way it came up in the judgment. The Commonwealth's argument, briefly was that "No one has invalidated Nauru as an illegal offshore processing centre, so you should let Gillard/Bowen have Malaysia as well. This appears in paragraph 127:

The Minister and the Commonwealth also submitted that the circumstances in which s 198A was enacted pointed against the adoption of this construction of the section. They submitted that s 198A was enacted with a view to declaring that Nauru is a country specified for the purposes of s 198A and that it was known, before the enactment of s 198A, that Nauru was not a signatory to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.

Don't underestimate how bloody-minded this scorched-earth submission was. If the Government couldn't get its way with the Malaysia Solution (which was the only issue before the Court), it was going to do its best to tear down Nauru as a future solution as well. But it backfired spectacularly.

And the High Court's answer was, well it didn't matter that Nauru wasn't a signatory (at that time) to the Refugees Convention, because it was the Aussies who were running the detention centre and the processing, so the human rights were protected. The Court was saying - that's why Nauru is LEGAL whereas the agreement struck up with Malaysia was explicitly stated to be 'non-binding' and ILLEGAL, as the Malaysians could do what they wanted once the hapless 800 arrived there, including send them home. No guarantees, hence the Coalition condition that the Malaysians sign the Refugees Convention is a real and pragmatic one.

Since the days Nauru was used as an offshore processing centre, they have now signed up to the Refugees Convention, so sending them there would be even more legal now, if that was possible. So no legislative amendment needed. Gillard could pick up the phone to the Nauruan President, literally, and it would be done.

So it's Gillard's stubbornness. It's not lack of knowledge, as she's a lawyer and this is pretty basic stuff. She cannot swallow her pride and go back to Nauru without also having Malaysia in the mix to claim some of the credit for solving the problem (if it's solvable). If it's not solvable, then Malaysia and Nauru are in the same failed boat as well, so to speak.