[Swagman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-30/legislation-shifts-goalposts-on-offshore-processing/4341310

The Federal Government is preparing to excise the entire mainland from Australia's migration zone, as part of efforts aimed at stopping asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The idea is one of the 25 recommendations put forward by the expert panel on asylum seekers, which the Government has already committed to introducing.

The move would strip away any legal advantage asylum seekers have by reaching the mainland, over those who are taken directly to Christmas Island.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is expected to introduce the legislation today, having discussed the move with Caucus colleagues this morning.

Chris Bowen has had a change of heart from his dummy spit in 2006 when the Howard Govt tried the same thing....

http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/speeches.do?newsId=2061

Coalition attempts to excise Australian mainland from migration zone
Posted August 10, 2006

Mr BOWEN (Prospect) (10.17 a.m.)?In 1951 the United Nations convention for the protection of refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many Western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, ?Never again.? I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.

This bill represents an extension of the so-called Pacific solution, in which we saw individuals who were processed offshore being treated differently from those processed in Australia.

....and Anthony Albanese.....

The Labor Party supports border protection but does not accept that excising the whole of Australia is an effective means of border protection. You do not deal with boat arrivals by pretending that you do not have sea borders or by pretending that, if you arrive by one particular mode of arrival—boat—you do not arrive in Australia at all. In a statement on 19 April the UNHCR expressed serious concerns about the Australian government’s announced changes to the processing of boat arrivals. It said

I guess Johnny Howard was right afterall and Labor are now (finally) admitting it.

[colliric]

[mod edit: off topic, deleted.]

[ness31]

Who cares if they back flipped? Can't we just be happy that they took decisive action? Nothing ever stays the same...

[Swagman]

Who cares if they back flipped? Can't we just be happy that they took decisive action? Nothing ever stays the same...

I care that they stuffed up and should wear the flack.

Why was it (Quoting Bowen & Albanese)

"a stain on our national character", "a bad bill with no redeeming features", "hypocritical and illogical", "a disgraceful shirking of responsibility by Australia" "excises our law. It excises our upholding of human rights. It excises our dignity" "undermines the global framework of the 1951 refugee convention", "abhorrent legislation" "is a test of this parliament and this government. It has been a test of the Australian Labor Party and we have risen to the occasion"

in 2006?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Johnny Howard wasn't right according to his own party. If the libs wanted that legislation in 2006 they could have had it passed - since they had a majority in both houses. So why didn't it pass?

Having Chris Bowen claim now that this is now the right thing to do doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that he stuffed up in opposing it in 2006. Everything in that speech you quoted is still true.

[Swagman]

Having Chris Bowen claim now that this is now the right thing to do doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that he stuffed up in opposing it in 2006. Everything in that speech you quoted is still true.

So everything Bowen said in 2006 is still true is it? yet as the responsible Minister currently Bowen is essentially advocating the introduction of the same legislation now? You do not see that this is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted and a blatent admission by him and his party that the Coalition policies on Asylum Seekers that he so passionately argued against were the correct policies? In my book that's just another monumental "stuff-up" that can be added to the growing list of other stuff-ups......

[GandalfTheGrey]

You do not see that this is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted and a blatent admission by him and his party that the Coalition policies on Asylum Seekers that he so passionately argued against were the correct policies?

It absolutely is an admission - an admission that he now believes he was wrong in 2006. And he is very open about that. It doesn't mean though that he is right in that belief. I repeat my previous statement that everything he said in his 2006 speech is correct - regardless of what he says about it now.

As to why he has had this rather humiliating change of mind - its mainly because the government committed themselves hook line and sinker to the Huston committee recommendations. They didn't really have a choice.

[Salohcin]

I remember saying to a friend before the last federal election that I preferred Labor's policies on immigration, but that it was irrelevant because Labor are too chicken after children overboard and will end up following the Liberal policy anyway.

The whole thing is a farce, just a political show to please those that are distressed by the multiculturalism path that both parties are taking this country down. Refugees are such a tiny proportion of immigration as to be pointless.

We would be better off processing refugees as quickly as possible to save money. At least if the refugees are processed here it is Australian jobs we are creating. At the moment it's just off-shoring, except for the purpose of saving face rather than money.

[Swagman]

I remember saying to a friend before the last federal election that I preferred Labor's policies on immigration, but that it was irrelevant because Labor are too chicken after children overboard and will end up following the Liberal policy anyway.

The whole thing is a farce, just a political show to please those that are distressed by the multiculturalism path that both parties are taking this country down. Refugees are such a tiny proportion of immigration as to be pointless.

There's no doubting that the issue is a political football, but it is used by both sides in the debate to gain voter support. The Greens are equally as guilty for using it to syphon votes away from Labor.

The whole point (IMO) is to remove the incentive of gaining the Australian migration zone in order to deter people from the unauthorised and often deadly ocean trip in unseaworthy vessels and the illegal commercial trade of same. It is not and has never been about not accepting genuine refugees.

We would be better off processing refugees as quickly as possible to save money. At least if the refugees are processed here it is Australian jobs we are creating. At the moment it's just off-shoring, except for the purpose of saving face rather than money.

BUT we would also be guaranteeing the compounding of the number of deaths at sea as more and more people scramble to make the trip due to the relaxed policies. We'd be giving the illegal people trade an economic stimulus which is exactly what has happened since Labor relaxed the policies of the Howard Govt.