Reading the coverage of today's announcement by Morrison to defund the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme, I am struck by fact-free venom displayed by both sides of the debate on the comment threads of those stories.
No, the govt is not trying to bring back the White Australia Policy. And no, the public provision of legal representation to those coming before tribunals and the courts was not a left-wing plot.
The fact is that this step is but one plank in a raft of policies the Coalition announced in Opposition aimed at stopping the irregular arrival of asylum seekers to Australia. And while there are legitimate concerns about denial of due process, I suspect the govt will ultimately be judged on whether it has achieved its policy objective, not on the individual steps it took to get there.
I find it amazing that you can say that the government's policy is not working based on your belief that their objective is wrong, but at the same time, cannot even suggest an objective other than 'world peace'.
It may hurt for you to admit it, but the government's objective (which happened to be the same objective that the Labor party had set) is being achieved. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise their policy settings, but it is pretty weak to run such criticism without anything constructive at all - not even an alternate objective, let alone an workable solution to solve whatever it is you deem the problem to be.
You sound like you would be a suitable candidate for the Greens - as it seems they have as many solutions as you do.
On the second, which I believe Atropos was addressing, I would suggest we could make a much bigger contribution in our own region through increased aid and engagement with the source countries of displaced persons. The obvious example is Burma, from where many hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled. There are fragile peace agreements in place between the Burmese govt and various rebel groups that need to be build upon, and Australia could play a significant role here. Unfortunately, Julie Bishop seems to be one of the more inept foreign ministers in recent times, so I'm not holding my breath.
But in any case, reducing foreign aid is precisely the wrong thing to do, not least because it undermines our credibility as a regional partner.
1- I don't want people risking their lives on boats either
2- I'm unhappy with the current state of detention- I believe people are detained far too long and that we are not treating people well in our care
3- I don't believe the current policy does anything to assist with the root cause and don't believe in the "it's not our problem" attitude
4- I'm not sure what your reference to the Labor party is for- I don't believe I have ever said I was a labor voter? Any way, ftr- I certainly wasn't a big fan of all their policy on the subject either
5-I find it amazing that you think that knowing something is wrong means you must have a better solution. You're basically saying if I disagree, I must have a specific alternate plan or I'm...what? Not entitled to a view? I should just agree because I don't know the exact route we should be taking? I also disagree with short to no prison terms for child s3x offenders but I don't know what sort of treatment and sentencing is more appropriate for them- am I not allowed that view either?
6- I did give an alternate objective- I said Australia should (as per JohnC's comment) increase our humanitarian intake and work with international agencies to do what we can to address the root issues overseas that cause people to get on these boats in the first place. What do you want me to do? Lay out a new policy for presentation to parliament???
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!