> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work?
" Asylum seekers to have work rights, and access to social security, legal representation, interpreters, health services, case management, and appropriate education for the duration of their assessment." Presumably this is after the initial checks mentioned in Q5 below. No indication what happens to those who are rejected as asylum seekers.

Not fully answered.

> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process?

> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?
"Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter." Note that this seems to contradict (1) above, in that it seems to imply some form of temporary detention, and perhaps permanent detention for those who fail security etc checks. They imply that people can be detained with court approval. But not very clear.

Not clearly answered.

> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
" fair and appropriate accommodation" would be provided. Not clear if they are allowed to work or not.

Not clearly answered.

> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer.
There is no explicit description of what happens to people whose status is or remains uncertain.

Not clearly answered.

> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this?
"Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and immigrants using successful models for settlement." This is rather mealy-mouthed and it is hard to know whether any restrictions would apply.

Not clearly answered.

> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**?

So I am giving them 0/9 or 2/9 (Q3 is fairly close and perhaps Q9) and I am saying this is a poor excuse for a policy.

---

To  be fair, and on the principle of not asking someone to do what you are not prepared to do myself, here are my answers:

> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any?

Significant penalties for carriers who bring in people without visas. Mandatory detention of unsolicited arrivals until a) They are found to be refugees per the UN definition, and b) They reach the top of the refugee queue.

While this seems cruel at a first approximation, my argument is that this will reduce unsafe arrivals (eg by boat) to low levels, and, combined with an increase in the quota, is a better solution that what we have. I think that for any given level of intake that we are prepared to accept, taking that number in an orderly way is better than encouraging people to risk their lives on boats.

> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit?

Increase to 100,000 at the expense of family reunion quota and the lower end of skilled migration.