On Tue, February 25, 2014 2:17 pm, Tim Josling wrote:

The url does indeed contain the word "policies" but the headings on the page are "Principles" and "Aims" and it is indeed a *very* high level document.

With some familiarity with policy statements of political parties between elections you would become aware that high level statements are the norm. For example (and this was also the result of a 3 second google search), the ALP 2011 National Platform is available here: http://www.alp.org.au/national_platform

...

1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? Not clear, though they state that "mandatory and/or indefinite detention" would be eliminated. [What is non-mandatory detention by the way? Would they retain <voluntary> detention? Or do they really mean automatic?] Not clear if carriers would still be penalized for bring in people without visas. See also Q5 below.

The term "mandatory detention" has been used in public discourse for the past fifteen years. Either you're being facetious or display a rather surprising lack of knowledge on the subject. As for the Greens actual policy to discourage people arriving by boat you can see that they propose more funding for UNHCR centres in the region. http://www.adambandt.com/saferpathways Again, this took a couple of seconds to find, rather than the "hours and hours" of searching, as claimed. I suppose the difference is that I know what I'm looking for.

...

2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? There would still be a quota, but it would be increased to an *unspecified* number.

Again, see the same URL. http://www.adambandt.com/saferpathways

...

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.

I think that is disingenuous on your part. People who arrive and apply for asylum and are found not to be refugees are not receiving work permits.

...

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?

There are already extremely well-known processes in place for this.

...

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.

Seems pretty clear to anyone else.

...

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.

People who are not refugees are sent back to their country of origin. That is a standard procedure.

...

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.

Again, this is a procedural matter, not a policy position. You do not seem to acknowledge the difference between the two.

...

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.

Clearly answered. They are not providing special limits, rather they are providing incentives.

...

9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**? There is no mention of increased foreign aid within the page referred to. But elsewhere they propose a significant increase in foreign aid. Not clearly answered.

That's about as clearly answered as anyone could ask for.

...

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.

Talk about "not clearly answered". Tell us what the current penalties are and whether or not you think they are significant.

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.

Please tell us about this queue of which you speak.

...

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.

Apart from the fact that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are already prohibited on making family reunion applications... (c.f., http://www.immi.gov.au/FAQs/Pages/how-can-i-propose-an-immediate-family-memb...) .. what numbers of people do you think migrate to Australia under family reunion and skilled migration. Why do you want to reduce these anyway? (snip until you've done further research on the matter). -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt