TOPIC:

The fundamental problem I have with this entire matter is that these asylum seekers are arriving on our shores via the process of an illegal activity i.e. people smuggling where very large sums of money are changing hands. We have laws in this country whereby criminals are prosecuted and their assets seized under Proceeds of Crime legislation; so why do we seemingly have to tolerate illegal people smuggling and afford the perpertraitors significant financial rewards. Sure, under the terms of Australia being a signatry to the U.N Convention on Refugees we have an obligation; however we also have a higher obligation to protect the sovereignty of our borders and actually determine who enters and/or remains in Australia. Also, I don't really care if we offend Indonesia by returning boats to their waters because if anyone thinks that Indonesia cares about us, they're delusional. I'm also convinced that many asylum seekers are economic, rather than political refugees.
As for SHY, don't get me started on her or the Greens either. The Greens are quite radical in their views and not the 'sensible alternative' in Australian democratic politics that many good people may think; I'm all in favour of protecting the environment and other species that we share this planet with, but the Greens have their origins from the Australian Communist Party.

Great post 1961, I agree the movement of people by paid smugglers is a huge issue, and was one open to eploitation by all parties, I to agree the economics is the bggest driver here.

Actually if you look at the UN Convention, signatory countries are only obliged to take refugees if they a fleeing DIRECTLY from a place of danger to a place of safety.

Also even more relevant, is that once a refugee leaves his original country in which he is in danger and choses to stop in another country in which he is not endangered, than person is no longer covered by the convention.

Once a supposed refugee leaves say, Iran travels to Malaysia or Indonesia in order organise transport to Australia, his protetion under the Convention falls away. Thus The Australian Government actions is turning back boats is entirely legal.

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: at last a government with the guts to turn around indonesian vessels with indonesian crew coming from indonesia carrying "illegals" back from whence they came. we finally have someone in power who isn't afraid to upset the indons if it means protecting our country's sovereignty. stuff SBY, stuff Marty the porn star...time the indons did their bit to address the problem instead of aiding and abetting people smugglers by turning a blind eye at best and being complicit at worst.

If you are talking about TOWING boats back to Indonesain waters, that would be unequivocally ILLEGAL.

hmmmm...and which law would it be contravening if they're not in distress and released in international waters with their noses pointed towards Indonesia and told not to come back 42?

Thanks for the additional information Bazza. I didn't know any details of how the U.N Convention worked, I just "assumed" (always a dangerous thing to do) that because Australia is a signatry to the Convention that we would obviously have certain obligations.
However based on what you've pointed out I'm more convinced that Australia has both a legitimate and sovereign right to use it's discretion in determining whether or not to turn boats around and send them back from where they came.
The other aspect of this that really grinds on me is that we have some exceptionally fine young Australian men and women who are out there on the water and whom from time to time are called upon to put themselves at risk to take custody of these boats, or rescue the occupants.

1961...here's the relevant sections of the Migration Act and the Convention. Clearly section 228B of the Act at (2) does not allow anyone including refugees to come to Australia if they don't have visas. Bazza is also correct in that the Convention uses the term "directly" for those fleeing persecution which raises the question are Afghans, Iraqis, Sudanese etc coming directly when transitting through other countries enroute to Australia?

Circumstances in which a non citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a non citizen has, at a particular time, no lawful right to come to Australia if, at that time:
(a) the non citizen does not hold a visa that is in effect; and
(b) the non citizen is not covered by an exception referred to in subsection 42(2) or (2A); and
(c) the non citizen is not permitted by regulations under subsection 42(3) to travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

(2) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a non citizen includes a reference to a non citizen seeking protection or asylum (however described), whether or not Australia has, or may have, protection obligations in respect of the non citizen:



"1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article1

Thats correct BC.

The Convention was written in the wake of WW II, and the mass movement of Refugees in Europe, infact in its opening statement, it talks about the reasons for the Convention, Interestly, it states that the convention has come about becuase refugees were putting unessary burdens on certain countries and not others, in other words they were heading to one or two places rather than spreading the burden more evenly.

It was mainly designed to give protection for people fleeing to the most direct place of safety, so the theory was if refugees knew they would have coverage in a country closer to home that was perhaps no as attractive as others , they would go there rather than to places already full.

In many ways the convention was designed to control and manage the flow of refugees in a more orderly way and at the same time provide them with basic proection when in danger.

what we have seen in more recent times is a blatant abuse and misreading of the convention, mainly by the refugee industry who actualy want to ecourage the disorderly flow of people not across countries but across entire continents to places of choice, rather than to places of safety.

Moreover, its well overdue for a major rethink and review of the convention and what contrating nations really want to set out and achieve, iterestingly the USA has never ratified the convention.

Some very good work here BC and Bazza. Spot on with all your facts.

Bazza wrote: Thats correct BC.

The Convention was written in the wake of WW II, and the mass movement of Refugees in Europe, infact in its opening statement, it talks about the reasons for the Convention, Interestly, it states that the convention has come about becuase refugees were putting unessary burdens on certain countries and not others, in other words they were heading to one or two places rather than spreading the burden more evenly.

It was mainly designed to give protection for people fleeing to the most direct place of safety, so the theory was if refugees knew they would have coverage in a country closer to home that was perhaps no as attractive as others , they would go there rather than to places already full.

In many ways the convention was designed to control and manage the flow of refugees in a more orderly way and at the same time provide them with basic proection when in danger.

what we have seen in more recent times is a blatant abuse and misreading of the convention, mainly by the refugee industry who actualy want to ecourage the disorderly flow of people not across countries but across entire continents to places of choice, rather than to places of safety.

Moreover, its well overdue for a major rethink and review of the convention and what contrating nations really want to set out and achieve, iterestingly the USA has never ratified the convention.

hit, nail, head bazza. in my mind clearly the refugees who propr in Indonesia whilst waiting for a boat to Australia are not coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom are under threat. the fact it could take several months to get a spot on a people sumggler's boat suggests to me the transit to Australia has been broken and they are in fact unauthorised arrivals into Australia in terms of the Act and the Convention.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Cesspit wrote: Couldn't agree more. I see this latest lot came from Africa. Funny how they are all fleeing persecutuion, yet no other country will do apart from Australia.

Perhaps you might learn a little about the UN Convention on refugees. Once you have done could you please come back on to this forum and state unequivocally that they are legally entitled to do seek refugee status in Australia.

If they have country shopped they are not entitled to the same protection.

The UN convention only allows for refuge in the closests nation of safety.

Further, even if they are accepted the UN conventions leaves it entirely to the host country how they are to be assesed, it gives the host country unequivicle rights of return on anyone who fails to meet the criteria.

But at the end of the day I'm glad you care about what the UN says or does, becuase visrtually nobody else does, perhaps you should spend more time thinking about what it is doing to stop the war in Syria, than sweating on the small stuff of people smugglers.

I quote 'The UN convention only allows for refuge in the closests nation of safety.' is a fundamentally and unequivocaaly incorrect statement Bazza. You are entitled to seek refugee status in any country which is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Agree 100% ..labor and the left wing had their chance for 6 years and stuffed the whole thing up...Im very very happy with the current governments actions. labor and the greens have no credibility on this issue and everyone has stopped listening and caring what they say or think.

What actions Bazza. Has Abbott or Morrison told anyone what their actions are?
On a similar note why hasn't there been a press announcement to indicate that the Royal Commission into the so-called 'pink batts' is going to be expanded to look into all work place deaths. Perhaps they can start on the two deaths in recent times in the mining industry in WA. Of course this won't happen because Abbott is playing base political games with not even a scintilla of consideration for the families of those involved. Completely and utterly reprehensible by Abbott; but why should we be surprised.

Its no surprise to me that you think the pink batts scandal should be covered up Swan, seeings that a number of people died and had theur houses burnt down, it must be highly incovenient for you to handle.


Hopefully idiots incorporated , Rudd et all get held to account.

Your reference to the mine deaths is totally irrational, all mine deaths are subject to coronial inquests, and will be dealt with accordinly , just as they would under any administration, which by the way is a state responsibility in anycase which you clearly don;t understand.

It is my understanding that the coroner was involved in the deaths now sunject to a Royal Commission. As for your comment about state versus federal responsibility, thank you for confirming and supporting my contention that Abbott is plauing base political games. Further the example of the mine deaths is an example of the many more deaths in the work place which Abbott is totally ignoring. If he was dinkum about improving the safety in the workplace he would have provided the Royal Commission with far greater scope to investigate work place deaths.

As evidence to support my contention that there are many deaths in the workplace I have provided a link to a Herald Sun article from 2012. It shoulde be noted that the Herald Sun is a Murdoch paper so one must imagine that the source is impeccable.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/workp...cynkc6-1226476785270