The Malaysia solution

***Cj*** · 07-05-2011 17:03

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...-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

) 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 ...

**1+1=5** · 07-05-2011 18:56

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.

***Cj*** · 07-05-2011 19:42

Originally Posted by 1+1=5

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

**Father** · 07-05-2011 20:29

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

Originally Posted by Father

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.

**Father** · 09-05-2011 00:11

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/spe...-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.

I didn't realise how important the word 'very' was.

**pegasus** · 09-05-2011 00:59

Originally Posted by KatiesMum

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.

**pegasus** · 09-05-2011 01:03

This 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.