From: Petros

Quoting "Tim Josling"

...

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote:

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

What we do now is not "dicouraging" - we are plainly refuse to help others and push them away.

From personal experience: besides of shooting people there is not much you can do. I know an East German woman who was smuggled by bad bad people (the West Germans called them "freedom helpers" then - it is all a matter of perspective isn't;-) She was not in material strife, not harmed in physical ways etc. - she was just sick of living under Communism.

The proposal above includes a camp for screening etc - it is not a free ticket.

You did not provide an answer to the question.

...

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

Yes, it is.

The only rub: the one arriving have to e dealt with. This is part of our obligations - at the moment a legal one we do not fulfil.

You did not answer the question. What would you change the quota to?

...

3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work?

Of course they should work - it is in their and our interest. I mentioned that.

We have an answer - 1/3!

...

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?

The majority of people arriving here are recognised by legal processes as genuine.

We just stopped processing them - ignoring our obligations.

You did not answer the question.

...

5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?

I described them in detail above.

...

...

Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with them in Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and timeframe which is balanced on needs to run security checks, as well as helping refugees to adapt and train to fit into our society. Running the internal affairs while in the camp (e.g. cook for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and maks it cheaper for us too.

What does this mean? What you are saying is that we could establish a policy and it would be good. That is not the same as actually stating your policy.

If we aim for all peopke being processed in a year - that would give them hope and us time to screen.

You cannot apply an arbitrary limit to a legal and investigative process. This is nonsense. There will be people whose cases are not determined within 12 months. Then what?

...

6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? please explain what we will do with

...

them in Nauru or PNG?

As done before. We send them back.

OK. We now have two answers - 2/6.

...

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.

As Trent wrote, there will be false positives. I mean, even I sneaked in this country - who knows what I did in the past? False papers happen for 1000 years. It is the job of the processing parties to figure out - it has done before and until now we did it more or less right, the Opera House is still standing;-)

No answered.

...

8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this?

We have that in place, we have regional visas.

Every employer asks for the visa, and Centrelink too, I believe.

No answered. Saying <we have that now> does not answer the question of what is your policy recommendation.

...

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

Well, the current government thinks we are doing so badly that we have to slash International aid..

There is a problem with International aid - it is subject of being purpose-driven and feeds corrupt regimes.

Personally I believe it is better to donate on a personal level to an organisation you trust.

...

Then you should be able to have a chance of estimating the impact on the existing occupants of Australia. In particular, impacts on government finances, the job market, funding requirements for infrastructure, and social impacts.

Half-way self-serving community camps, regional development visas (taking in account "our needs" etc. are helping us to cope with the costs we have now.

I mean, we are dealing with the Navy, with lifeboats, financing camps in other countries - do you think that is cheap?

It is not. Curiously nobody asks how much we spend on this. And you know what answer you what get from Shire Scotty. "Operational matters" - we do not even have the right to know.

...

I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is needed, in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas.

Well, that's what I can illustrate (to give you an idea) in a few minutes.

I asked you before:

...

...

please explain what we will do with them [refugees] in Nauru or PNG?

Can you please answer one question? Thank you.

See my previous email. They would be detained in spartan conditions until they reach the top of the queue (if they are accepted refugees) or they are repatriated.

...

Again I ask if people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing - why don't they come up with a specific proposal and show us the analysis of its impact?

Did you do one for the politics in place?

By definition the current policy is defined by what is currently being done. I can reverse engineer this as well as anyone. It is much the same as my policy with the exception a) more legal aid in the current policy b) a lower quota than I propose.

The one we have in place is above scrutiny, an operation where the government cries foul if someone wants to report etc. - do not ask questions!

Since when is the Migration Department responsible for running the navy? What is the Department for Defence for? What is that dude of a general standing next to Scotty when he does not report about his service for our glorious country?

It is a shame that this country not even sees how pathetic this show is. Monty Python is just half as funny as this.

Well, Hitler was funny too. Just watch Charlie Chaplin.

As an aside, Chaplin actually got into a bit of trouble for that movie. It confirmed in the minds of some that he was a leftist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator#Reception) "During its production the British government announced that it would prohibit its exhibition in the United Kingdom in keeping with its appeasement <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement> policy concerning Nazi Germany." Of course things changed shortly thereafter as views about Hitler changed.

The politics in place are made up to buy votes and to distract from other problems.

Thinking about Corby and the boats may prevent you from thinking why, finally, our industry falls apart while some are getting fatter and fatter.

But the falling apart is good for Liberals and fat cats: at Ford and Toyota and Alcoa and SPC the workers have the smell of unions on them.

Well, it is as having a fly in your ear. Take the gun and shoot the fly!

That's how this country gets governed. With a foresight of three millimetres.

I could not find an answer to the question among all that. Plenty of abuse of the stupidity and evil of governments, the Australian people, evil corporations etc. This suggests you would not increase official aid "Personally I believe it is better to donate on a personal level to an organisation you trust." so I will give you 1/2 for this questions.

Good luck with this Pete

You scored ... 2.5 out of 9. About the same as the "Greens". I believe that is a person is genuinely interested in helping the needy of the world they will a) Donate significant resources of their own ( http://80000hours.org/what-is-an-effective-altruist) to that cause, and b) If they believe Australia's refuges policy is significant in this regard they will have in mind a well thought out policy whose implications they have considered. On the other hand, a person who is more interested in status whoring will a) devote large fractions of their postings to denunciations of the evils of other people, and b) Be less interested in articulating and analyzing an actual policy proposal. Applying Bayes's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem) to most posts on this topic, the probabilities have shifted more to the latter hypothesis in my view. Sorry for the slow reply. I have had some health issues in my family and other technical problems, to wit an exploding PC. Also I was trying to find a way to get people to actually articulate their policies with no success. Tim Josling