austranger wrote on Jul 6
th, 2014 at 6:04pm:
The fact that Howard ignored infrastructure in favour of pork-barreling has little to do with it, except as yet another example of our poor leadership problems.
Constantly increasing our population artificially, especially with uneducated masses of poor people, defeats any real prospect of the necessary improvements I suggested.
I'm in complete agreement with your points about taxes and prioritisation. Since Foreign aid is mostly spent within Australia, and/or should be, I'd suggest only a small reduction in it, focusing it on our immediate neighbours and the truly needy. Giving Aid to Indonesia and such is a ludicrous idea, their budgets are bigger than ours, and they should solve their own problems. Accepting refugees is not a necessity, it's an ideological gesture only and does our nation little good in real terms, the rest of the world doesn't care one way or the other if truth be told, that's realpolitik.
The point is that the issues we have in Australia are not because we have signed the refugee convention and as a result accept people seeking asylum in this country, but rather it's because of poor governance by both parties. Howard ignoring issues in favour of pork-barreling has very much to do with it because it's the pork barreling that causes the inaction on real issues. It's also the pork barreling that results in this suggestion that a large population is unsustainable. And stopping the processing of refugees is hardly going to stop that. We need to do a complete overhaul of our major parties, let them know as a society what we actually care about, and only then will we see issues tackled.
Accepting refugees is something we do as a lucky country that demonstrates our true strengths. Let's face it, wars, genocide, greed for power are all things that happen in reality, and there are things that we aren't exactly going to rid by some magical policy; not with the complex foreign relations that currently exist. And when people get tangled up in this, it's hardly their fault. And rather than us saying, "Oh it isn't a necessity for us to help you", we should be saying, "We recognise that as a human being you need help, and we are extending our help to you." That is why the refugee convention exists, to protect people who are in fear of persecution, it's not just because it was put in place under the cold war as a way of helping people out of communism, as Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests.
As for immigration, yes, in many cases these people come without wealth. Big deal. Our strength as a society is shown by helping these people to their feet, and as generations pass, their future kids, grandkids, etc will not, in the liklihood, be poor. They will be big contributors to our society, and that's a great thing.
And let me make this clear: When we talk about refugees we are not talking about economic migrants. I do agree that the left in the past has also debated the issue incorrectly, myself included. We should be looking at asylum seekers as people who are TRULY facing persecution; not hard economic conditions. We should be looking at offering people protection only in the circumstances of potential persecution, and I do believe the left is wrong in disregarding temporary protection. The key to remember is that we need to offer protection, but perhaps looking at the issue as "resettlement must also be provided permanently" is incorrect. The key is to help in the interim, and help externally to ensure people can return to their homeland.
Like I suggest, I share your anger at inaction on key Australian issues by governments current and past. But removing ourselves from the refugee convention is HARDLY going to help make this any better. It'll only guarantee that more money is in the kitty to distribute in the form of diesel rebates for Gina and her fat mates. And that's about it.
With regard to the refugee convention, I do think it's outdated. But not for the reasons that Tony's women intimidating buddy suggests. It's outdated because it doesn't treat the issue equally amongst signatory parties, and all nation members. I'd suggest that they do a proper review that looks at ensuring the permanent resettlement program is NOT a voluntary program amongst some nations. I'd also suggest that if nations decide to sign up, then they MUST ACTUALLY be able to provide proper protection; there is no worth in combodia signing up for instance, and not being able to actually offer adequate protection. ANd I do believe that it's time to put an end to this bullcrap that some countries, like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand can stay away and not sign up, yet still actively and fully participate in the global economy. If we want the issue to properly be looked at, all nations must provide adequate responses, and do their share.
Forum
Pages: 
The UN Refugee Convention/Protocol is out of date (Read 3582 times)
