Thoughts on the asylum seekers deal with Australia
February 12th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarA few thoughts:
- Isn’t it amusing that when Helen Clark agreed to take some boat people who were seeking asylum in Australia she was lauded by the entire left for her humanitarian gesture yet when John Key agrees to do much the same, but annually, he is condemned by the exact same people. And yes, the Tampa refugees were treated as part of the quota also.
- How can one criticize this deal for encouraging queue-jumping yet also advocate that Australia should resume onshore processing which has been shown to massively encourage boat voyages and queue jumping.
- Personally I think there is a legitimate criticism that this deal may encourage queue-jumping, but probably not significantly enough to actually lead to a group of people deciding to make a boat voyage they otherwise would not have.
- There is a surprising lack of sophistication in understanding our relationship with Australia is not purely a transactional one. The decision by the NZ Government helps Julia Gillard (and any successor) in what is arguably her most difficult domestic issue. That will not be forgotten.
- The notion that Australia bullied NZ into this is ridiculous. In fact as reported it was a NZ initiative
- What is surprising is the lack of focus on a centre-right NZ PM helping out a centre-left Australian PM. It’s a nice example of not letting domestic politics interfere with having a strong relationship.
- I’m surprised also no one has cottoned on to Gillard making an unprecedented early announcement of the election date, almost certainly being because Key the same thing in 2011.
- Personally I think taking in refugees is one of the better things a country can do, so long as they are able to integrate well into their new country and that the level is sustainable. Note that Australia takes in 20,000 to our 750. I’d like that to increase at some stage in the future when our economy is stronger. But I think it is best increased through the UNHCR process, not through increasing the number in the bilateral agreement with Australia
- You have to love Labour’s strong clear policy on this issue. They are outraged of course, but when asked what they would do, the answer is “Shearer said if elected, Labour would discuss the policy with Australia.” – you can’t make this stuff up.
Related posts:
- The Sri Lankan asylum seekers
- The dangers of boat asylum seekers
- Gillard calling the election
- Colin Craig says Kiwis will flee to Australia to escape gay married couples
February 12th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
“…so long as they are able to integrate well into their new country….”
That’s the problem, DPF. Muslims have shown (all around the world) that they do *not* “integrate well” into their new country. IIRC, we already have Somali gangs in Auckland. Do we have Chinese ones? Vietnamese ones?
If so, I haven’t heard of them.
You’d like the quota to increase? I wouldn’t (and I suspect 98% of others in NZ wouldn’t either). As for “increasing it through the UNHCR process” – yeah, right. Just what we need – get the corrupt UN involved, with Helen Clark’s corrupt mates sending us the most useless and stroppy refugees in the world.
[DPF: Not all refugees are Muslims. I do share a concern about Muslim integration - especially in Europe. However many Muslims do integrate well - as we see in NZ. You can't generalise over an entire religion. There is a huge difference between say Malasyian Muslims and Egyptian Muslims.]
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Indonesia told Australia last year “To get the sugar of the table to stop this trade.”
That WAS Indonesia telling Australia!
It is not only about ‘illegal entry’ to Australia, but more importantly, men, women, and children, who sale in dangerous boats and drown – in their hundreds!
Nothing good can EVER come of that – ever!
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
It won’t be forgotten by the libs either, and they will become the government in September. Everyone I have spoken to in Australia about this thinks that John Key is mad for even going down that road.
Could more accurately be written as “What is surprising is the lack of focus on a centre-left NZ PM helping out a centre-right Australian PM.”
Arguably she announced the election because she knew that Craig Thompson was going to be arrested the following day and she needed to look like she was in control of the situation.
No disagreement. The big issue that Australians have with boat people is the queue jumping. Offshore processing and keeping people in camps while they are waiting for a place will end up solving this problem provided that the Australian government is committed to making it work.
Vote:Arguably the economy would get stronger by taking in more people.
And the UN can get fucked, who a particular country take in should be up to that country not an international body.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Yes, there are Chinese and Veitnamese gangs in Sydney and Melbourne. There are also gangs of predominantly white people. They are probably in Auckland too.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
In his dealings with Australia, Neville Key has shown what he’s made of: gelatin, wobbly gelatin.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Thor
Vote:Chinese gangs have been alive and well in NZ since the 70s. I have personal knowledge of their activities in Wgtn and CHCh. I could tell a horrible story but won’t do it here..Also Japanese gangs were well established in AK by the 80s. I am not familiar with other Asian groups.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
@ thor,
Yes, the issue of integration is significant, particularly when some groups appear to be overrepresented in crime. When there are already issues of large unemployment and welfare dependency it makes little sense to importing more people who will be state dependent. In some cases this leads to a second generation that is particularly alienated and hostile to the majority culture. The trend in terms of employment appears to show that second generation non-european men do worse than their parents. The second generation women on the other hand tend to have higher rates of employment than their parents showing signs of assimilation.
http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/second-generation-immigrants-in-europe.html
Here are some stats on employment:
“Let’s look at the employment rate of three immigrant groups who have difficulties in the Swedish labor market with in other countries using the Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries. By comparing Swedish outcomes with market-liberal countries we can test the theory that everything will be fixed by free-market reform. Some of these countries are often uncritically used as shining examples of success for Sweden to follow.
The figures refer to the number employed as the share of the 15-65 population for each immigrant group.
Immigrants from Iraq:
Sverige 29%.
Danmark 22%
Storbrittanien 42%
Nya Zeeland 40%
Australien 32%
Kanada 52%
USA 62%
Immigrants from Afghanistan:
Sverige 24%.
Danmark 18%
Storbrittanien 23%
Nya Zeeland 23%
Australien 34%
Kanada 46%
USA 54%
Immigrants from Somalia:
Sverige 24%.
Danmark 16%
Storbrittanien 15%
Nya Zeeland 25%
Australien 22%
Kanada 36%
http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/free-market-economies-also-struggle.html
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Manolo, not to be picky but isnt gelatin hard clear sheets you add to stuff to make it set? It dont wobble!
But your intent is noted.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Bob R – your post would have more relevance if it was in English.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Yes, your challenge of hypocrisy is probably valid.
But, I’d have to say that not everyone on the left was so enamoured with Helen Clark’s Tampa deal. Around that time I wrote the following: ‘although Helen Clark was able to appear as a great internationalist and humanitarian when she accepted 150 refugees from Tampa, the fact is that she required that the 150 be part of New Zealand’s annual refugee quota of 750… And by ordering that families be selected as refugees, Clark calculated that this would reduce the likelihood of add-ons arriving later to join the refugees’.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Why make a deal that will only cost the country money?
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 4:01 pm
@ gazzmaniac,
It’s not that hard to interpret the names of the countries is it?
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
@ EverlastingFire,
Good question, but you could say that about much of the whole UN apparatus. Remember political power doesn’t really flow upward based on what people want. It flows downward from the “beige oligarchy.”
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes-and-th.html
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“Every day, I’ve heard a different reason for why we needed to take 150 refugees.
“It was because we needed intelligence, it was to stop Australians shepherding them over here, it was because there was a queue of boats all lined up. Every day it’s been a different story”
John Key has revealed he received advice late last year that Australian authorities stepped in to stop a vessel from coming here
Labour Leader David Shearer calls it an incredible claim and is demanding evidence be released that confirms it.
————————-
Vote:Totally agree with shearer. Front up with the credible evidence. Not interested in bullshit make beleive.
February 12th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
This is what we got in return. – Student loan money!
http://www.3news.co.nz/Student-loan-deal-in-NZs-favour/tabid/1607/articleID/286342/Default.aspx
Kiwis in Australia will now have to pay their student loans back through the Australian System. That worth quite a bit of money to us and makes things easier for Kiwis in Australia.
Of course this is just my speculation.
Vote:February 12th, 2013 at 6:01 pm
They are not asylum seekers.
They are illegal immigrants.
They commit criminal acts in third countries to enter Australia.
They are not “refugees”.
Most of their travelling is done by aeroplane,until the touchy feely bit at the end.
Vote: