You are here

Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention

Both sides of parliament are saying that the problem is asylum seekers dying at sea as they attempt to reach Australia. Other groups claim that we are "racist" and "xenophobic" for being heartless, and that we have the capacity for an open-door approach of the Greens. There are probably millions, if not billions of impoverished, persecuted peoples who see Australia as a "rich" country and an ideal soft target for resettlement. This is despite the pressure on jobs, housing, infrastructure, food security and environmental concerns. If we need to make a deal with Malaysia, or Indonesia, we should be free to do so. The solution is to discard our alliance with the UN Refugee Convention.

Julian Burnside: Australia does not want boat people, dead or alive

The Australian government is currently embroiled in a heavy debate over asylum seekers in light of the recent tragedy. Both sides of parliament are saying that the problem is asylum seekers dying at sea as they attempt to reach Australia but, "they just don't want boat people getting here at all, dead or alive," the Australian barrister Julian Burnside told ABC radio.

Of course our government doesn't want asylum seekers. It prefers the well-heeled and educated immigrants. Burnside says Australia needs to set up a fair dinkum, fair processing system in Indonesia with the co-operation of the Indonesian government.

The safe and off-shore selection of approved refugees being settled orderly into Australia is the obvious solution to the problem but one that doesn't want to be mentioned or accepted.

Other groups claim that we are "racist" and "xenophobic" for being heartless, and that we have the capacity for an open-door approach supported by the Greens.

According to a recent Monash report, the Australian Government is running a record-high migration program, which it intends to increase in 2012–13. Just over half of the migrants are locating in Sydney and Melbourne, rather than in the resource industry states. At the same time as the Labor Government is permitting employers to sponsor an unlimited number of temporary entry 457 visa holders.

It means we will have the highest annual permanent entry level since World War Two.

The 2012–13 immigration program: record numbers, city-bound by Bob Birrell and Genevieve Heard

Population pressure already on Australia

There are probably millions, if not billions of impoverished, persecuted peoples who vie Australia as a "rich" country and an ideal soft target for resettlement. This is despite the pressure on jobs, housing, infrastructure, food security and environmental concerns.
Already Australia has shortages of public housing, hospital beds, public funding for education, and health care. The "Lucky country" has been exploited for its full extent, and housing is either un affordable or people are under mortgage stress.

The carbon tax will exacerbate the heavy costs of energy infrastructure that continually must expand for our burgeoning population.

The Refugee convention

Australia is one of 147 signatory countries to the Refugees Convention. In the 2010–11 program year, the Humanitarian Program delivered 13 799 visas. This number included 8971 visas granted to persons offshore and 4828 program countable visas granted to people seeking protection in Australia.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres warned in May 2012 that factors causing mass population flight are growing and over the coming decade more people on the move will become refugees or displaced within their own country.

"The world is creating displacement faster than it is producing solutions," said Guterres.
Guterres said displacement from conflict was becoming compounded by a combination of causes, including climate change, population growth, urbanization, food insecurity, water scarcity and resource competition.

Australian political fixation with asylum seekers

Australia’s fixation with asylum seekers arriving by boat has cost taxpayers nearly $2.4b since 2000, according to Budget and ANAO documents. The expenditure includes spending to deter, process and most of all detain asylum seekers who have arrived by boat. The cost also does not include hundreds of millions spent on border security measures adopted under the Howard Government.

We simply cannot afford to increase our humanitarian settlement while we are forced to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to dealing with boat arrivals, which is a very expensive proposition. For the first four years of any increase in our Humanitarian Program, every additional 1000 resettlement places would cost the Australian Budget around $216 million. By extension, an increase to 20 000 would cost the Budget around $1.35 billion over the first four years. (Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen 2012).

If we need to make a deal with Malaysia, or Indonesia, we should be free to do so. The solution is to discard our alliance with the UN Refugee Convention. All the costs and debate could easily be solved.

Refugees in a changing world

The UNHCR said last year that 43.7 million people were displaced by conflict, poverty, famine and persecution — the highest number in 15 years. Our planet is not a series of endless frontiers, but a fragile spaceship with limited resources, already overloaded by humanity. There are no new colonies so settle in, no new frontiers to invade and conquer.

Mr Burnside said Australians seemed to be unable to accept the premise of the UN Refugee Convention which states that countries have some obligation to offer protection to people facing persecution and violence.
"Unfortunately, I think Australia has not quite worked out whether it's willing to carry that burden."

Mr Burnside is obviously speaking from a position of privilege and wealth! It's assumed that Australia is a vast brown and empty land with room to share for any millions of people! There's no consideration for our environmental "carrying capacity" - and social and economic constraints. Already we are under population stress, and we already have the record as the biggest wildlife exterminator in the world.

Australia should withdraw from outdated UN Refugee Convention

We need to withdraw from the outdated 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The UN should not dictate how we manage our diplomatic affairs. We are a sovereign nation. This is a relic from a different era when peoples were displaced by World War 2 and the holocaust.

The Vietnamese boat-people came at a time when Australia has room to spare and we were still a wealthy nation. Population pressure and globalization has eaten into and diluted our wealth.

The world today is a vastly different place than it was in 1951, and the ability of the Convention to address increasingly complex drivers of displacement and migration is limited. Many experts argue that the current framework is ill-suited to meet new drivers of human mobility, but the prospects of a new international agreement are few.

Need for a more equitable immigration system including humanitarian intake

In response to the demands of responsible global citizenship, and a more equitable system of immigration, we should slash our unrealistically high economic immigration levels, invest in skills training and tertiary education, and increase our humanitarian intake - selected off-shore only. The random arrival of boats, and the shipwreck disasters, would ultimately decline.


Source for part of this information and opinion was an Age article, by Rachel Olding, "Asylum seeker impasse 'pathetic': QC's plan to stop the boats," June 29, 2012.


Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Katter's Australia Party, the three Independents Labor stooges Oakshott, Wilkie and Windsor - the whole lotta them are paying lip service to Australia's border protection - the media-unsexy 99% arriving by plane and media-sexy 1% by boat.

The red herring of Australia’s massive coastline being to hard to monitor needs to be exposed and the LibLab stalemate.

* The SAME usual suspects (Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Sri Lankans)
* Use the SAME people smugglers
* Arrive in Indonesia by the SAME air route
* Use the SAME types of derelict timber fishing boats
* Choose the SAME embarkation ports
* Choose the SAME types of local fishers to steer the boat
* Choose the SAME route to Christmas Island or Ashore Reef (must flip a coin after reading Australian news about the outcome of the previous trip)
* Arrange the SAME rendezvous short of Austraoian waters to revove the crew
* Point the boat to the SAME destinations..... umm (A) Christmas Island or (B) Ashmore Reef

So its cash paid, job done. Next!

If the resources of Australia’s Parliament, Border Control, Customs, Airforce, Federal Police, ASIO et al can’t address the problem.
How Come?
ANSWER: They simply don’t want to.

It’s was all crocodile tears this week from the Lower House, knowing full well the Greens guaranteed to reject any offshore processing in the Upper House to which they hold the balance of power. The whole epidose was a wasteful melodrama.

But then The Greens say Australia has a large land mass like China, and we are a tolerant society, so we could happily accommodate 20 billion.
But if we build highrise with bunks, desal and balcony kitchen gardens, probably 40 billion.
Davis Cup would have to convert to PlayStation.
Environmental protection can be murals.

Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region

Red Cross in Australia do more than provide support in times of emergencies such as floods and droughts. As recently highlighted on Channel 7 News, Red Cross provides 800,000 breakfasts every year for kids who would otherwise go to school hungry. ABOUT a third of South Australian schools are providing breakfast for hungry students - sometimes because parents are too busy or poor. Red Cross general manager of services in SA Helen Farinola said the number of schools that were offering a breakfast program was quite significant.

On any given night in Australia around 105,000 people are homeless. Of these people more than 15% are sleeping rough, around 45% are staying with friends or relatives, 21% are living in boarding or rooming houses and 19% are accommodated temporarily by homeless person's services.

According to St Vincent's, there are almost 27,000 people homeless in Queensland the second highest homeless population in the country. Former Prime Minister slept out one night to help raise funds for the homeless, to support St Vincents de Paul. He has a special interest in homelessness, ironically! Four years ago the then prime minister Kevin Rudd kicked off a bid to halve the homelessness rate by 2020.

Australia used to be the Lucky country, with full employment and cheap housing. Thanks to poor quality leadership from hypocrites like Kevin Rudd, Australia has gone downhill. How many people were displaced from housing when he, without a mandate from the people of Australia, increased our immigration level to impossible numbers of 230,000 per year? Since then it has decreased, but is increasing again. Our cities just couldn't cope with the massive influx of migrants. We are still struggling to find affordable housing, but with foreign competition, the the Lucky Country has been eroded by those pushing for big growth.

Free market policies, high immigration, foreign investments have all had their toll on wealth, housing and employment. These policians are more interested in national GDP than per capita wealth or well-being, and Australia is being sold out! Rudd and his "big Australia" agenda has trampled on any affordable housing in Australia.

The UN Refugee Convention was drafted with the plight of WW2 refugees in mind. It is in dire need of a thorough revision.
Is the 'fear of persecution of ....' not too vague and should be replaced with 'proof of persecution of ...? After all many refugees today do not flee organized dictatorships a la Hitler and Stalin, but weak so-called democratic governments where thugs and terrorists are the real rulers and they are the ones people flee from.
If the UN cannot come up with a totally new concept of who is a refugee then countries, Australia included, should simply start withdrawing and doing their own thing.
It must be realized that ultimately most of today's displaced persons and refugees are created because of a shortage of natural resources and an overabundance of people. The world, and each little corner of the world - again Australia included - is overpopulated. That factor should form an input into a new definition of who is a refugee.

Many so-called refugees are prepared to tell any tale in order to obtain the covetted permanent resettlement visa. All refugee protection visas, in all countries, should not entail permanent resettlement from the outside. They should be provisional and grant the person sanctuary until it is safe to go home (whilst the UN should work towards making it a safe home place). Sanctuary means being able to live and work within the community and have certain rights and of course responsibilities, but do not have all the rights that come with a permanent visa. Repatriation to the homeland should be foremost on the agenda.
If that is not possible within a given number of years and if the refugee can tick all the right boxes, then permanency should be on the agenda.

Much talk is on increasing the refugee intake. If permanent visas are being issued then this will only increase demand for visas by much more than supply. If on the other hand, provisional refugee protection visas are issued, these can certainly be increased in numbers as they would not be a covetted visa for someone who seeks immigration the easy way through the back door.


The Chairman 25th June 2012
Shanghai Zhongfu Group Limited Company
618 Hankou Road Huangpu, OPEN LETTER
Shanghai, China


I write on behalf of members and concerned citizens as known to us from our local democracy activities, in relation to reports of your company’s intention of seeking to purchase land in the State of Western Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia.

It has also been reported that Mr R Hawke, a member of the political caste in Australia has been acting to facilitate this purchase.

Your attention is drawn to understanding that the National Estate of Australia, whilst comprising public holdings under the Crown, and private ownership, is also based on a higher level of moral ownership vested in the People of the Australian Nation. This moral ownership of our Native Land is non-negotiable and is the guarantee of our People.

The concern is that the any proposed purchase of properties of our Native Soil by foreign corporations is imperialistic, undermines our integrity and independence, and is not in the interests of, nor ever been sanctioned by the Australian People. We consider this a very serious matter.

Your corporation may have been misled by other elements of our political caste that foreigners’ purchasing properties of our Native Soil is welcome, however be under no illusions as this position emanates from Quislings whom our Australian Peoples Movement will ensure accountability from for such actions.

It may also be that your corporation has been influenced by the current large scale transfer of your fellow country men into Australia, a virtual recolonisation process that has never been sanctioned by the Australian People as it undermines and degrades our European derived civilisation. This is a matter that can only now be addressed by either their voluntary departure, or directed repatriation back to your own country.

I therefore caution your corporation against ignoring this situation in continuing with the intent to purchase Australian land, and bring to your notice that our Australian Peoples Movement, will enforce without redress, the nationalisation of foreign controlled and inhabited Australian land, as a necessity for our National Self Respect and independence.

I urge your corporation to add to the process of mutual respect between the Australian and Chinese People by refraining from the imperialistic activity as reported of seeking to acquire Australian land.

To this end I request a public announcement from your corporation rescinding any such intent, which will effectively close this very important matter.

Your immediate attention will be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Thomas Mullins
State Convenor

Melbourne Branch P. O. Box 223, Croydon, 3136
National Contact Line - 02 8587 0014

One-Worldist Hanson Young "has been reduced to tears during an upper house debate on contentious legislation that legalises the offshore processing of asylum seekers."

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young cried as she told the story of a 15-year-old Afghan orphan called Hussein (one of 500 people locked up on Christmas Island, waiting to find out if he was going to be sent back to Malaysia).

"When people arrive on your doorstep you have an obligation to help them." said Hanson-Young. "Now he is living with a family in Australia, learning English at school and will make 'a fine Australian'".

Hanson Young is the most dangerous seditious politician of our time, subverting Australia's sovereign independence, overtly inciting mass invasion, giving illegals aid and comfort, and
encouraging Australian fellow citizens to rebel against Australia's immigration laws and imposing overcrowding and multi-racial burdens upon our urban society.

John Marlowe

Maybe she was traumatized in her youth by the fear of being identified with Pauline Hanson and has reacted by becoming an extremist.

The Australia First comment and statement above ["Oz Is Not For Sale"] is powerful and seems to express what many Australians feel. The part of the comment that maintains that Australia is a European-derived civilisation would also find widespread agreement. We should point out, however, that a large section of readers and writers at Candobetter have grave doubts about the course of European civilisation, its reliance on fossil fuel, its so-called representative democracy, and its own history of imperialism. The crushing of nomadic hunter gatherer peoples by Europeans is not a proud part of Australian history. Arguably it ended 40-60,000 years of (self-evidently durable) nomadic arcadia.[1]

If we put this tragedy aside, writers like Bob Birrell in Federation, the secret story, Duffy & Snellrove, 2001, have argued well that Australians used to know who they were and where they wanted to go, and maybe still do, if only their politicians and media represented them faithfully:

The story of Federation has been muddied by the influence of the republican movement. As a result, many people today think that Federation was only a half-hearted, and half-successful, attempt to break our links with Britain. Bob Birrell's book explodes this myth. He shows that Federation was the result of an enormous popular movement based on intensely nationalistic feelings about what it meant to be an Australian. The story he tells is of the highly successful formation of a new, politically and culturally distinct nation. His book is a deliberate and important attempt to destroy the myth of Australian dependency on Britain, which has dominated historical writing here since the 1980s.

On the question of foreign ownership of land: If Australia only allowed selling of land to Australian citizens and limited leasing, foreign buyers would not be such a threat.
On the question of who migrates: If Australian corporate and political elites would stop demanding and enabling ridiculously high immigration - from any or all parts of the globe - the problem of ethnic definition - as in "Australia is a European-derived civilisation" or "We are a multicultural society" would not exist and neither would the risk of civil unrest through competition for scarce resources between separately identified groups.

[1] After the collapse of the Roman power in the west, Arcadia became part of the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, until 1460. Arcadia remained a beautiful, secluded area, and its inhabitants became proverbial as herdsmen leading simple pastoral unsophisticated yet happy lives, to the point that Arcadia may refer to some imaginary idyllic paradise, immortalized by Virgil's Eclogues, and later by Jacopo Sannazaro in his pastoral masterpiece, Arcadia (1504); see also Arcadia (utopia). Source:

The UN is not the problem. Refugees are not the problem. Imperialistic military follies have played a major part in driving people from their homelands. Australia, either through negligence or direct intervention is often implicated in creating immigration/emigration problems that impact on ordinary people like ourselves. The corporate/capitalist model is driving immigration and emigration.

A humanitarian intake of 70,000 pa would still see us stabilise our population. It's the extra 330,000 (roughly) economic immigrants who push us into unsustainable territory. I don't mind helping people in need but I don't owe corporations or people with materialistic/lifestyle aspirations anything.

I read some opinions here that I consider extreme here but I urge people to not let the "law of the jungle" ideology promoted by growthists to deprive us of our humanity. Australia has been (primarily) populated by people who have been on the wrong end of capitalism driven militarism and imperialism. Now is not the time to help put the boot into the oppressed. Know who your real enemies are and put the boot where it belongs. We've been comfortable and gutless for too long while the real culprits spin, weave and use violence when necessary with impunity. You may not be xenophobic or racist but you are going after the wrong people.

Quite frankly, I don't know why I should bother replying to this ill informed, biased claptrap but am prepared to make a few points:

1. You say "There are probably millions, if not billions of impoverished, persecuted peoples who see Australia as a "rich" country and an ideal soft target for resettlement." This is offensive, untrue and denigrates refugees and comes over as propaganda against refugees. People fleeing from persecution don't deliberately calculate which country is a "soft target."

2. You are seriously ill informed about how refugees arrrve here - as one commentator says most arrive by plane. They hand in refugee claims at the airport. The "boat people" are a tiny percentage of refugees accepted by Australia. They have been demonised by politicians including John Howard for political purposes. Note that 90% of refugee claimants processed by Australia whether onshore or off shore obtain refugee status.

3. Australia could find ourselves an international pariah if we withdrew from the UN Convention on Refugees. It would put us in a category with some of the worst military dictatorships in the world.

4. You want to throw away the rule book ie the UN Convention on Refugees so that we can send refugees to 2 nations that are not signatories to the Convention.

5. If we abandoned the criteria for refugees set out in the Convention - a well founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity etc. then we have no basis for judging/processing refugees.

6. It is a remarkable irony that we are sending the flower of young Australians to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban but are not welcoming Afghani refugee claimants fleeing from the Taliban. The Hazara ethnic minority are a well known target of the Taliban.

7. You might not think highly of Federal public servants but having worked in Immigration for 17 years about 4 spent processing onshore refugee claims including Sri Lankan and Afghani I can tell you that interviewers are very skilled and can soon determine if the claimant is genuine. We had excellent interpreters who could pick dialects and knew exactly where the claimants came from. We were supplied with information about what fighting was going on in their homeland. Immigration assessors know their jobs. Any security questions are referred to ASIO.

8. Here are the suggestions made by the Greens and are similar to those presented to the Government by Get Up! and the Edmund Rice Centre.

... Australian Greens have proposed four immediate actions that could be taken by the Prime Minister today (this was during the debate) to prevent more drownings at sea:

(i) Increase Australia’s humanitarian intake from 13,750 to 20,000, including additional places to be immediately allocated to targeted resettlement of 1,000 people from Indonesia and 4,000 people from Malaysia;

(ii) Immediately increase funding to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees by $10 million to boost the capacity of Refugee Status Determination assessments in Malaysia and Indonesia;

(iii) Enter urgent discussions between Australia and Indonesia to address the critical need for cooperation and effectiveness of intelligence sharing and resourcing between Australia and Indonesia in order to save lives at sea; and

(iv) Codify Australia's Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974 obligations across all relevant government agencies and increase Australia's rescue capacity in Australia's northern waters.

I fully support these suggestions.

The whole question of whether we should reduce Australia's extraordinarily high skilled migration intake and work out what is a sustainable population for Australia is another separate question.

Signed Julianne Bell

Julianne Bell says : "You are seriously ill informed about how refugees arrrve here - as one commentator says most arrive by plane. They hand in refugee claims at the airport. The "boat people" are a tiny percentage of refugees accepted by Australia". They make up about 2% of our immigration numbers.
However, the "tiny percentage" have consumed our immigration debate 100%, and those who arrive by boats have been those who risk their lives to come here. Since 2008, over 200 asylum seekers on their way to Australia have died in 10 known shipwrecks. Up to 50 asylum seekers died off Christmas Island’s rocky coast in December last year. In 2001, 353 people died in the notorious Siev X tragedy. The option of arriving by boat in treacherous conditions should be removed.
Our high skilled immigration, temporary workers and family reunion levels, is very relevant as our already high levels of immigration compromise our ability to address the needs of genuine refugees. Already our cities are saturated and under stress from population growth, and placing refugees in public housing - in many cases there are decades long waiting lists - would mean pushing citizens further down the list.
Australia needs to comply and accommodate refugees processed offshore only in a safe and orderly fashion. We are a sovereign nation, and as such should be able to increase our humanitarian intake without the tragic boat voyages - and slash our economic immigration numbers!
The 60-year-old convention was designed for an era we no longer live in; an era where the causes and trajectories of global migration were quite different to today. There are four countries that border Afghanistan that are United Nations member states and signatories to the UN Refugee Convention, and four more such countries that are only one country away.
Only three countries in Asia – Cambodia, Timor-Leste and the Philippines – are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention, not Malaysia or Indonesia. Dealing with non-member nations should be done directly, diplomatically.

SportsBet, TAB or Packer’s BetFair online could cash in on asylum seekers.

They could set up odds for each new boat, and with the boon of two a week it could be lucrative, with odds on 'Days since Previous Boat', 'Persons on Board', 'Route Taken', 'Capsizing', 'Distance from Indonesia coast before mobile phone water taxis booking made'.

There's money to be made in the Timor Sea
More reliable than David Jones dead cat share bounces.
More than East Timor is making out of its offshore oil reserves.


I don't thinks nimby.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that, towards the end of the Rudd/Gillard era some where in the vicinity of 50,000 illegal immigrants arrived by boat.

And all the signs were that this would have continued ballooning out of control.

That represents around 15% of Australia's total immigration intake and a major sovereign risk to Australia.

You CANNOT maintain a peaceful civilised law abiding society with open borders. Just look at much of the middle east and Africa. Those nations have largely open borders and look at the political, social and economic mess that they are in.


What about the 240,000 invited economic immigrants, the 600,000 or so temporary immigrants (work visas, students)?

It seems that the media just focus on the boat people to polarise Australians on the issue and take their attention away from the nearly one million other immigrants floating around this island.

What say you?

The originator of the article above has noted:

The UNHCR said last year that 43.7 million people were displaced by conflict, poverty, famine and persecution — the highest number in 15 years. Our planet is not a series of endless frontiers, but a fragile spaceship with limited resources, already overloaded by humanity. ... ***There are no new colonies so settle in, no new frontiers to invade and conquer. ***

As much as I agree with this statement, also: "We need to withdraw from the outdated 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The UN should not dictate how we manage our diplomatic affairs. We are a sovereign nation. This is a relic from a different era when peoples were displaced by World War 2 and the holocaust. "

I feel that a silent and sinsister agenda is afoot ~ that is ~ with a Planet Population of 7 Billion ~ we may be lucky that we can control the intake at all !

One has to ask the question: why does a government allow such 'counter intuitive' agreement to accept refugees?

We all know that Australia has limited 'workable' land for housing, food, water and civilised cohabitation, generally - so why are they so eager to share our scant and shrinking resources?

My guess is that we do not have any choice - we either allow ourselves to be subjected to a 'controlled intake' over a period of time - or these 'floaty boaties' will just arrive without permission.

Because if we don't allow some.. and we take away all hope -they will take the position of.. with nothing to lose - they have nothing to lose !

We can't afford to have them here, and perhaps withdrawing from "the outdated 1951 UN Refugee Convention" would let it be known that we are being subjected to these boat people - they are not welcome, really - however we will accept a minimum requirement of them.. but that they must then compete with other's who have earned their right to be here, have paid taxes and are competing for space, jobs etc.

I for one resent the lessening of options as things increase in price but not in quality, service or citizen's rights!

Senator Hanson-Young has stated last month that as the New Greens "We don't support polyamorists' marriage", end of quote, had, and I quote him, "outraged many Greens".

Bob Brown has suddenly resigned from the Greens at a time when Sarah Hanson-Young has become very toey for power.

Last November, Bob Carr, before his annointment had called on Commonwealth Ombudsman Allan Asher to resign after it emerged the watchdog wrote questions for Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young to ask him in a parliamentary committee.

“His behaviour is indefensible,” Mr Carr said of Mr Asher, who while admitting he did not take a "wise route" has stood by his conduct.
“It's plain unethical for an Ombudsman to write questions for politicians grilling him at a Senate budget estimates committee,” Mr Carr wrote in his blog.

Senator Hanson-Young obliged, producing evidence from Mr Asher that his immigration investigations were hindered a by lack of funds.
In a statement today, Mr Asher defended his conduct but said in hindsight it was not the best course of action.

Hanson (Flood Gate) Young (5th June) steering the New Greens, post Bob:

"We Greens will keep insisting that Australia honours its international obligations to offer protection under the Refugee Convention. We will ensure Australia remains the land of the fair go, which assesses people’s claims for protection here on the mainland, and not offshore. We’ll continue standing up against those who would demonise asylum seekers and refugees, because they deserve our help, not hardened hearts."

New Greens Platform: Illegals settling in a town or household next to you - they deserve your help!

John Marlowe

Can you define "illegals" for me please, John?

Illegals are anonymous who are not legal.
No visa, overstayed visa.
Must be a trick question.

John Marlowe

The only problem I have with turning back refugee boats is that it costs money to do so as you need to hire patrol boats and detention cells and hire return transport. Whatever money, and political attention, it takes to do that stuff is better spent on contraception for the environment, and thus these immigration issues are harming the Austalian environment by distracting and diverting political attention and funds away from paid, top quality contraceptive services even in very remote areas.
It is better to build a contraception clinic on that remote shoreline than to build a boat to patrol it.

Below is a copy of a comment which I submitted to an ABC radio program.

What was announced to be a wide ranging discussion on the current problem, turned out to be a brief interview with 2 long standing refugee advocates.

What I would like to see is a sensible national discussion on this subject; this is not likely to happen, because there is no forum for this to take place in. (Certainly this will not happen on Murdoch's ABC)

I would like to see alternatives explored; say an Australian DIY systeem, taylored to our situation. Also an exploration of costs and opportunity costs.

My ABC submission below:

I heard this AM that you are covering the refugee/asylum isue on tomorrows Saturday extra program. I offer these comments. (Some relevant links at bottom.)

I listen to much ABC discussion with various politicians on asylum seekers ( current problems).

Mentioned a few times was the Refugee Convention (RC), but no one ever seems to ask about or explain the real significance of this.

(Or to quote Greg Sheridan, is it that:.. 'any conservative politician who addresses such a question will instantly be denounced as a racist'..., also affects the ABC?).

I have a belief that an alternative (perhaps a local alternative) to this would dramatically change the situation.

My take is that the actual current situation is far larger than the current boat crisis. The total scenario, now and future, needs to be urgently looked at.

The starting point should be the RC; it should not be a politician's passing reference/ catch all pious justification.

In a nutshell:

1. Millions and Millions, possibly billions, of poor people in the world are living wretched, unhealthy, horrible lives, some persecuted, some not; some oppressed, some not; but all looking for a better life.

2. Nowhere to go for improvement, except a few "rich" western nations who subscribe to the RC.

3. Home country ( eg Pakistan, Afghanistan) too poor, unwilling or ineffective to assist.

4. Answer, get to a "rich" country, (best with relatives there); some risk; have a good story, true or not, and you will almost certainly win big time.

Limited Cost to self or family .

5. Bring over rest of family (low cost and problem free); the more the better to form a community. (Currently this program costs Australia at least $40 billion/annum, for the current flow.)

Questions for you:

1. Above summary - Correct or not?

If so , how many refugees should Australia take? More, less?

2. What does this cost? (never ever mentioned). It is not insensitive to ask. Does Mr Average Australian, have a right to know? What is the total, inclusive cost?
(My advice $Billions/annum not $millions)

Ask Bowen, ask Hanson Young, etc how much. If they don't know, then why not?

3. Will the new PM's expert inquiry, be looking at these issues? If not, then why not? If not, then what will they be looking at? (Tons of whitewash?)

I have a feeling that you will not ask any questions like these ( I suspect some unwritten ABC PC rule).

But if you choose to, here are some useful links:

1. Parliament report 2001: The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention

Extract: The essence of criticism of the 1951 UN refugee Convention is that it is anachronistic. The treaty was developed in and for a different era. While Western countries' asylum systems might have coped well enough until the end of the Cold War, they were not designed with today's mass refugee outflows and migratory movements in mind. This section summarises the resulting problems with the operation of the Convention that have been identified by researchers and commentators over the last 10 years.(23) Statistics, unless otherwise indicated, are from the UNHCR or the USCR.

(comment - must be in a too hard basket somewhere)


2. UN convention misunderstood, and it's not working- THE refugee policy sets up perverse incentives.

by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor From: The Australian
July 10, 2010 12:00AM
Extract: At the heart of the problem is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It is not only not working any more, it is setting up positively perverse incentives and having all manner of unintended and destructive consequences.

It is in desperate need of reform, but any conservative politician who addresses such a question will instantly be denounced as a racist, and almost all progressive politicians lack the stomach to confront the leftward end of their own constituencies on it. Julia Gillard's pretty bizarre balancing act, where she has accepted the absolute need to stop the boats getting to Australia illegally, but has proposed an almost certainly fanciful regional centre in East Timor, is an illustration of the dilemma progressive politicians face in office.

PS I think Greg S was wrapped over the knuckles by Rupert for this. He has gone very silent on the subject since.

Be bold


The more I read about Hanson-Young the more I think the "Green" party has now been thoroughly hijacked by the extreme left wing. People who believe in infinite growth in population and industry as fervently as any hardcore capitalist. In my opinion the "Greens" are now the very antithesis of a true environmental party.

Whilst I share your concerns about the Greens, and a good many who bear labels such as "Red", "Trotskyist," "communist", "anarchist" or"socialist" these days, we should not forget the world's leading environmentalist, the now retired President Fidel Castro (or rather Fidel Castro Ruz), who successfully transformed Cuba from dependence upon Soviet oil imports in the 1990's, as shown in the film The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil, proudly wears the label 'Red'.

Throughout much of the early 20th century, many of the very best of humanity, including the unfairly maligned Lenin would have proudly labeled themselves "Red". Unfortunately Stalin's rise to power and his vast crimes against peasants and political opponents, most of all within the Soviet Communist Party, have blackened the name of 'communism'.

Sadly even those who claim the heritage of Leon Trotsky, who also fought against Stalin, have obviously been corrupted. This is shown by the way they have for decades left the Shock Doctrine globalists free to ravage the world to suit their interests. Prior to that, in the 1960's, they covered up for the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission whitewashed the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy and made possible the subsequent murders of JFK's brother, Robert, and Martin Luther King, about which most "Reds" have also been strangely silent about in the latter part of the 20th Century.

Oops I meant Greens party in my previous post, not the late, lamented Democrats party. And Geoffrey I have my doubts about Castro, Lenin and Trotsky but of course whatever crimes they may have committed are nothing compared with Stalins excesses.

Anonymous wrote:

And Geoffrey I have my doubts about Castro, Lenin and Trotsky ...

By all means, provide substantiation here or else links to material which substantiates your doubts, but I think you will find, should you attempt to do so, you will be unable to.

Another, who attempted on another forum to restate conventional smears against Lenin, when challenged to substantiate his/her smears, failed to do so. That post has also been published here on candobetter.

It's all too easy for ill-informed people to restate unproven supposed established wisdom about a demonised historical figure such as Lenin, but when such a person is faced on the Internet by another, with knowledge of the person he/she is attempting to malign, he/she will quickly lose his voice (or if he/she has humility and honesty will admit his/her mistake).

Of course the Democrats and their fellow travellers, being the good neo-marxists that they are, jump to the defense of the asylum seekers. They picture them as the desperate poor being victimised by greedy Labor and Liberal party plutocrats. The reality is the people smugglers who bring in these "refugees" don't work for free. I've read they charge quite a considerable sum - $20,000 is a figure I've seen - which even an average Australian would have trouble paying. These asylum seekers are mostly fairly wealthy people who have used their money to give them an unfair advantage over poorer asylum seekers. If the Democrats were consistent in their beliefs they would be supporting measures to stop them entering Australia illegally.

Christmas Island is so full of flotsam and jetsam, hatchling turtles can’t get through the garbage to get to the sea. A year-round nesting ground for green and hawkbeak turtles. This Australian island sits in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia. It's swelling population can't cope with humanity's flotsam and jetsam.

Petition: Clean Up Christmas Island at

Paul Nicholas of Queensland was holidaying on Christmas Island, visiting his daughter and family and they went for a picnic on the beach.

The kids started playing with all the plastic trash and were amazed to find turtles struggling to emerge from their nest to the waters edge.

Boats of asylum seekers were joining an ever-expanding graveyard in the ocean off Christmas Island are not being properly scuttled or stripped of rubbish and engines, potentially harming the area's pristine waters.

Apparently you have no clue about revenues Australian govt. gets from legal skilled immigrants. Just visa related fees for one person exceed 10.000$ , this money is paid directly to govt. Legal immigrants bring lump sums of cache on arrival which is spent on housing, furniture, basically everything needed , because all of them literally starting from scratch, injecting tens of thousands of $$ into Australian economy. Aust. govt and companies haven't invested any funds into education, training and health of these people, but they use it's fruits. If there is someone who should complain about it, its their home countries, who made all this spending, Aust just gets ready product, plus money!! (see above) Skilled migrants don't take aussie jobs, there is thorough checking for job types and numbers before admitting immigrant. Finally not all skilled immigrants stay in Australia, increasingly many of them leave Australia for better opportunities in US and Europe, that's why annual intake numbers stay high. And while in Australia they create added value, for your info they don't work in shops or banks, but in technology companies, universities, etc, helping to create more job by transferring their competence. We are law abiding hard workers , who was invited to this country, doesn't get anything for free and contributes a lot to this country, and don't deserve this kind of remarks.

The above post reads, in part, like promotional literature from an imported labor hire agency.

2012 Legal wrote:

If there is someone who should complain about it, its their home countries, ...

In fact, I know I wrote on a forum, either on candobetter or elsewhere, that the intentional importation of skilled workers, including nurses and trained doctors, away from Third World countries into industrialised nations such as Australia, is a scam against the people of those countries and also against workers in the industrialised countries themselves who are denied training and career advancement as a consequence. An illustration of this is how there are more Ethiopian doctors in the US than in Ethiopia itself.