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

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Tim Josling wrote:

There are better ways of dealing with it. Some of them are even discussed in parliament (e.g. by Melissa Parkes who I mentioned before).

Refugees for regional development:

We have skilled migration programs. People who do not qualify can apply to get a visa excluding wortk in Metroplotean areas for the first years. We have regional shortages in some regions - and a need to decentralize our population.

Camps help local communities. They are job providers and welcome there.

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. The camps in PNG and Nauru are ridiculous expensive and absolutely useless.

Studies show that immigration is an economical long term win for developed countries.

It depends. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the quality of the immigrants, the state of the labour market, natural resources etc. In general except for underpopulated countries around 100% of the benefits of immigration go to the immigrants. Some benefits also to employers due to lower wages and to industries that are population driven (eg housing). The pre-existing population is faced with more competition in the labour market and housing market, higher infrastructure costs, etc.

Another means is the establishment of a "wealth belt" which makes it less likely people want to go "all the way" to Australia. People take the risk of the boats even if they end up in Nauru now (they know it now), it is better than dying in a war zone after all.

We see our neighbours still like a colonial power and are interested in mining and plantation exploits only - our contribution to establish sustainable growth in PNG (e.g.) is small.

The European Union has spread material wealth significantly since foundation in the 50ies. People stop coming in troves when their home countries are stable societies and offer hope. ...

Well, I mentioned some of the suggstions before. To ignore them is

convenient. It is as I would play peek-a-boo wih a three years old;-)

Regards Peter

I spent some time going through the archives for your policy proposal and did not find it. The best I could find was random half thought out ideas like those above. An actual policy proposal would straightforwardly answer these questions: 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? 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? 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? 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. 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? 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. As any aboriginal person would tell you (some have certainly told me in no uncertain terms) people arriving in boats do not necessarily benefit those who were already here. 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. 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? Tim