View Full Version : The Malaysia solution
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has announced that Australia will send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia.
Speaking in Canberra this afternoon, the Prime Minister hopes the new deal between Malaysia and Australia will deter would-be boat people sailing to our shores.
"If anyone comes here, they risk being sent to Malaysia and going to the back of the queue," Ms Gillard said.
"In return, we want to assist Malaysia by taking 4000 (of their) refugees over four years. For every refugee we send there we will take five."
She said genuine refugees had nothing to fear from the new arrangements.
Ms Gillard and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said that they were close to signing a bilateral agreement which would see 800 people who tried to get to Australia by boat taken immediately to Malaysia instead.
In return, Australia will take 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia over four years
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/the-malaysia-solution/story-e6frf7jo-1226051644923
Is she only doing this because her personal approval rating is at it's lowest?
KatiesMum
07-05-2011, 18:50
hmm
despite the mass hysteria (If I may use that word :p) in the comments under the article .... I actually think this is a step in the right direction.
Increasing our refugee intake (which I think we should do) and also deterring boat people from coming to Australia. In addition, it will involve setting up an actual "queue" so to speak - where people from other countries CAN go to in order to apply for refugee status in Australia.
Is not bad as far as things go ...
I don't understand....so for every ONE refugee coming here via boat, we will send them off and take on FOUR instead? won't that INCREASE the number of refugees we have here then?
KatiesMum
07-05-2011, 19:13
yes - it will.
However - I am assuming that the refugees we take will not go into detention centres here .... they will be processed from Maylasia, be given a visa and be integrated into our community to work and start a life.
So - the idea of the solution appears to be :
- increase our intake of genuine refugees
- decrease the boats arriving in Australia
- decrease the number of assylum seekers in our detention centres
:dunno: but worth a go.
I don't understand....so for every ONE refugee coming here via boat, we will send them off and take on FOUR instead? won't that INCREASE the number of refugees we have here then?
For every 1 refugee coming here via boat we will send them back to malaysia. Then in return we will take 5 refugee. It's her way of trying to stop the boats. Any body coming here by boat will go to the back of the queue.
Yes it is worth a go. I think their going to have a very hard time trying to get them on a plane to send them back. How many planes are going to be set a light
I like the idea of sending them to Malaysia. I think a 5:1 ratio is a bit too much. But it will only result in an extra 1000 per year for 4 years, so it won't be too bad.
My problem with this is what happens once the 800 have been sent away?
I can see the people smugglers sending 8 boats at a discounted rate - filling the 800 quota, and then we are back to the start - with the exception that we now have an extra 4000 people.
Why not a 1:1 ratio with no limits? Or even a 1:2 ratio? Then it can be ongoing and the people smugglers won't be able to get around it.
My other issue is the inconsistency of Gillard. Her excuse for not opening Nauru was because they weren't a signatory to the refugee convention. But......neither is Malaysia. It's now good enough all of a sudden.
DaddyLarge
07-05-2011, 23:26
I like the idea of sending them to Malaysia. I think a 5:1 ratio is a bit too much. But it will only result in an extra 1000 per year for 4 years, so it won't be too bad.
My problem with this is what happens once the 800 have been sent away?
I can see the people smugglers sending 8 boats at a discounted rate - filling the 800 quota, and then we are back to the start - with the exception that we now have an extra 4000 people.
Why not a 1:1 ratio with no limits? Or even a 1:2 ratio? Then it can be ongoing and the people smugglers won't be able to get around it.
My other issue is the inconsistency of Gillard. Her excuse for not opening Nauru was because they weren't a signatory to the refugee convention. But......neither is Malaysia. It's now good enough all of a sudden.
This is nothing more than an educated assumption, but I would presume that the ratio would be so lopsided simply because of leverage. The Malaysian side would know full well about domestic political pressures, and I gather have negotiated the number in order to reduce their own numbers of refugees.
You're right, though. The inconsistency is startling.
And this whole mess is costing us a fortune.
TAXPAYERS will fork out more than $50,000 for every refugee the Federal Government plans to bring to Australia from Malaysia under its new plan to stop illegal boat arrivals. But they will have to pay more than $90,000 for every asylum seeker the Government now rejects.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/taxpayers-to-shoulder-malaysian-solution/story-fn8mekzq-1226052133713
I do love this quote of Abbott's from "The Bolt Report":
Sending people to Malaysia means we get five back for every one we send. Nauru doesn't have any to send back - that's the point
Laurie Oakes also highlighted the hypocrisy of the Labor backflip while interviewing Wayne Swan on Today (Sunday):
LO: But the government ruled out using Nauru because Nauru is not a party to the Untied Nations Refugee Convention. Malaysia is not a party to that either so it looks like not only panic but hypocrisy doesn’t it?
WS: Well we are working with the United Nations in terms of Malaysia and they are part and parcel of the arrangements that we are putting in place.
LO: The former government worked with the United Nations in Nauru, what is the difference?
WS: Well they will be directly involved there, you see there are some …
LO: They were directly involved in Nauru.
WS: Oh well the are going to be very directly involved.
:laughing:
I didn't realise how important the word 'very' was.
yes - it will.
However - I am assuming that the refugees we take will not go into detention centres here .... they will be processed from Maylasia, be given a visa and be integrated into our community to work and start a life.
So - the idea of the solution appears to be :
- increase our intake of genuine refugees
- decrease the boats arriving in Australia
- decrease the number of assylum seekers in our detention centres
:dunno: but worth a go.
What I want to know is what are the plans for integration?
I just watched the Bolt report on ten.com (forgot it was on - it was actually on twice today). Of course it was very onsided, but did raise some good points.
This is another one of those issues where we'll only know if it stops the boats (through the threat that they'll go to Malaysia to the back of the line) once it's implemented.
I was interested to read that Malaysia has something like 90000 refugees - so they have a lot to send to other countries.
This (http://ten.com.au/watch-tv-episodes-online.htm) is the link to the Bolt report.
He also does a lot of comment on the leadership struggles of Labor with Michael Kroger and Mark Latham, as well as the Carbon tax issues with Abbott.
My favourite bit was at the end where he highlights the latest Canadian election where there were 4 major parties vying for election and the one that got in was the only one which did not campaign with an ETS.
This (http://ten.com.au/watch-tv-episodes-online.htm) is the link to the Bolt report.
It was definately a breath of fresh air. One of the few commentators to say what most of us are thinking.
KatiesMum
09-05-2011, 10:36
havent watched it yet (will watch it this arvo) .... but the episode and attitudes got a pasting in the paper today :laughing:
I agree though with Father and you Peg ....
- we need a longer standing arrangmenet. Just for 800 will only last a few months
- we need less tradeoff. 1 for 5 is too much. If it is 1 for 2 or 3 ... and its a permanent arrangement from an actual refugee camp where it can be a proper 'queue' it would be better
- we need to spend the 'savings' (from not having detention centres) on integration and actual assistance for the refugees we accept.
Its interesting that an idea such as this has been so incredibly badly sold by the Labor Party that its being smashed all over the place, even by people who would normally be applauding such a move.
Its interesting that an idea such as this has been so incredibly badly sold by the Labor Party that its being smashed all over the place, even by people who would normally be applauding such a move.
They are definately losing credibility on both sides now. The Greens hate it. The Coalition thinks it's a joke. This is Labor's problem being stuck in the middle. They really don't know what they stand for anymore.
It just gets worse as more information comes to light.
Gillard was 'out-negotiated' on this one.
THE federal government was forced to accept increasingly unequal terms from Malaysia in negotiating its refugee swap.
Two months ago Australia was discussing a two-for-one exchange, an official familiar with the talks said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/malaysia-outgunned-australia-on-refugee-plan-20110509-1efvs.html#ixzz1Ls5h3jhb
From what I have seen and read this is not a fantastic solution at all but it is somewhat better than anything Libs wanted to propose.
From what I have seen and read this is not a fantastic solution at all but it is somewhat better than anything Libs wanted to propose.
As far as I know the Libs would propose something similar to what Howard did - processing in Nauru - and temporary protection visas which would mean that when a country is safe the refugees go back to their homeland.
I'm really at a loss as to why everyone is so against temporary protection visas - if a person is fleeing a dangerous country - then we keep them safe as long as there is danger at home - how is that bad?
As for processing in Nauru - how is that different to processing in Malaysia - except we don't accept refugees in return?
As for processing in Nauru - how is that different to processing in Malaysia - except we don't accept refugees in return?
The main difference that I see is that they would be treated a hell of a lot better in Nauru. Malaysia does not have a good track record at all in regard to treatment of asylum seekers.
Conditions in detention centers remained abysmal, with overcrowding, poor sanitation, inadequate health care, and abuse all common. The Government did not allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to the detention centers, but did allow UNHCR limited access to registered refugees and asylum seekers and gave access to staff the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), the Government's official human rights body, on a case-by-case basis. In December, SUHAKAM announced that 1,535 detainees had died in prisons, rehabilitation centers, and immigration detention between 2003 and 2007. Lack of medical attention was a major cause of death...
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCRI,,IDN,,4a40d2adc,0.html
So not only has Australia been muscled into a 5:1 deal. We (Gillard) is now going to send 800 asylum seekers (including children) to 'abysmal' detention centres.
Spoon, can you please explain how this is "better than anything the Libs wanted to propose"????
KatiesMum
10-05-2011, 22:06
yeah having had a look at the way refugees and assylum seekers are treated in Malaysia, I am now against this as well.
I still agree with the idea in principle .... but not Malaysia.
What's the centre like in PNG they're talking about?
Also what do you think of Nauru KM?
KatiesMum
10-05-2011, 22:23
I actually dont really like Nauru as it is simply off-shore processing. The only difference between detention on Nauru and detention in Australia is that in Nauru they are not allowed the due legal process they would receive in Australia ....
I do like the idea proposed by the government because
- it establishes that there IS a queue. There IS somewhere for those seeking refuge to go, take whatever papers they have, and genuinely and appropriately apply for assylum
- I like the idea because we are increasing our refugee intake - the intake of genuine refugees - and decreasing our costs because they are not held in detention in Australia. I actually like the idea of send 1 back and take 2 or 3.
- I like the idea because it encourages people to bring their papers or anything they DO have to prove their situation. At the moment, the government has a policy of assuming they are genuine refugees, and the government must prove they are not. This policy encourages those who are NOT genuine refugees to 'lose' paperwork to get around it. This means that those who genuinely dont have papers are disadvantaged and unfairly criticized for those who are willingly taking advantage.
- I like the idea because it would stop the boats and people smuggling. It would stop the risks to the lives of innocent people. People would not come if all arrivals were sent to the camp anyway, and we simply took the ones who went their first.
None of those things are achieved by the Nauru solution. Nauru is simply an off shore detention centre where their claim for asylum is still assessed.
I just want this 'solution' to be established in a country which is
- accessible to those seeking asylum, and
- where the asylum seekers will genuinely be treated well. (ie in similar conditions to what we offer - where food, clean water, shelter and acceptable living conditions) I know lots of people will disagree that our detention centres are acceptable .... but compared to Malaysia they are a 5 star hotel.
It looks like Gillards Pacific Solution Mk II is not going all that well either in PNG.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA'S cabinet has split over Australia's proposal to set up a refugee processing centre on Manus Island, and its acting Prime Minister, Sam Abal, has total carriage of the issue while Michael Somare is in hospital overseas.
There is concern that the proposal echoes the Howard government's ''Pacific solution'' and does not reflect the regional framework agreed to in Bali last month.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/png-splits-on-refugee-centre-plan-20110511-1ej0x.html#ixzz1M3UvANXD
Is it time for Julia to swallow some pride?
You've seen the Bolt report Father - I'm sure you don't need me to reiterate the reasons she won't....
But then again - fool on me for answering the rhetorical question.
A second boat has arrived since the announcement of the Malaysian solution.
So that is now 800 - 32 - 27 = 741.
Only another 741 more arrivals until they have to come with another plan.
That is of course - if it actually gets signed off on.
Looks like I may have made a mistake with the numbers in my last post.
And there is now a third boat.
So now the total is 32 + 55 + 20 = 108. This all in less than a week.
Just 692 to go before the Malaysian solution is dead, and at this rate, it will only take another few weeks!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.