tip off

Faris: Boat people put Rudd to the test

It seems likely that Rudd’s boat refugee policy will be tested by the 14 people now on Christmas Island. None of this will be a surprise to the Government. What will be interesting is how well the matter is handled.

Labor’s policies are clear and they should be implemented swiftly and decisively. The refugees must spend as little time in detention as possible, be given permanent visas and then flown to Australia to be resettled at the taxpayer’s expense. The Government cannot afford to refuse visas and then have any of them remain in custody while it drags through the courts for four or five years.

Reports suggest that some of this group are from Iraq and Iran. This means that Indonesian people smuggling has recommenced. If earlier smuggling is a guide, these refugees will have destroyed their papers in Indonesia where they would have been provided training in how to answer the questions of Australian officials.

Given Rudd’s policies, this test should be a success for the Indonesian smuggling entrepreneurs. We can expect more boats and more refugees. This is Australia’s version of the US Green card lottery. Boats will not even have to reach Australian territory. Once they are in distress, Customs or the Navy must rescue them and they will automatically be given a permanent visa.

Europe is experiencing flood of boat immigration from Africa and the Middle-East. Australia is even easier because the boat trip is shorter and therefore safer. Time will tell how many refugees can arrive before the public has had enough.

No doubt the Government will attempt to shut down smuggling at the Indonesian end but this will be difficult given our bad relations with that corrupt and dysfunctional country.

The people smugglers will win this test and the Left will be overjoyed. They will rightly see this as a major victory over the hated John Howard. For my part, I reject these queue jumpers.

Australia should send a message to the smugglers by refusing any visas. There are refugee camps all over the world where desperate people wait patiently to go to Australia or anywhere.

I would much rather double the number of the legal refugees than let one of these commercially smuggled people in. These people are not refugees  — they are people from the Middle-East who are sufficiently wealthy to fly to Indonesia and then pay the people smugglers. They should be sent back. 

6
  • 1
    pamela
    Posted Sunday, 5 October 2008 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Without ire, disrespect or rudeness Peter Faris, I am waiting for your answer. What would you do? Stay home and wait to see if they get you or Run for your life?

  • 2
    Matt
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Peter Faris (allegedly QC) writes “The refugees must spend as little time in detention as possible, be given permanent visas and then flown to Australia to be resettled at the taxpayer’s expense”.

    The whole rant of his “story” flows from this.

    This ISNT labor’s policy. Faris either doesn’t understand Labor’s policy or he deliberately misrepresents it. Either way it is highly embarrasing for a senior member of the Bar and one who is a QC. No winder no-one will brief him!

  • 3
    Paul Sofronoff
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Could Crikey please just include a link to a web page for all of Peter Faris’ future articles, rather than the article itself. It would save me (and many others) the tiring effort of scrolling past to get to the next article.

  • 4
    MichaelT
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Phew! I thought a QC would know better than to rush to judgement like this.

    First, 14 people falls far, far short of the thousands that try and get into European countries after a major humanitarian crisis. Maybe we will experience a huge increase, but this is mere speculation, based on prejudice.

    Second, none of us should be jumping to conclusions about tge status of a group of people in the total absence of any facts about their individual circumstances.

    Sheer alarmism.

  • 5
    pamela
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Some folks need to personalise asituation in order to understand it. Let me ask you Peter Faris, what would you do in these circumstances?
    You are not lucky enough to live in Australia. You have strong opinions which you express in writing and publicly. Your opinions cause ire among the political elite who deal with dissent by
    1. bombing your house
    2. kidnapping you or your sons
    3. assassination
    4. torturing then murdering you.
    You hear that one of these is being considered for you.
    You hear of someone who can arrange to get you out. You or your family pay this person and off you go to an unknown destination to seek asylum.
    The alternative is you stay and die.
    What would you do?

  • 6
    David M
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Great…..let them in….wait 5 years ….for them to decide to bomb the MCG!!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...