Labor to turn back the boats.

[Dangles]

[Tannin]

[Mugwump]

[David]

Can we cut the "economic migrants" stuff? The majority of the people on these boats are genuine refugees. The fact that they've managed to scrape together a bit of money from who knows where (life savings, relatives, loans) in order to pay a people smuggler doesn't change that.

Despite the government's seeming belief in its own omnipotence, taking a tough-on-refugees stance is not going to stop the boat trade. This is what I mean when I say we're passing the buck: for those refugees who are motivated by 'push' as opposed to 'pull' factors (I believe there's been a bit written on that topic on here before and the extents to which each apply), their destination will just have to be elsewhere. And that will just put more pressure on that (inevitably, poorer) country which can't afford to maintain a quota.

And what if, as the Labor delegate says, all countries adopted Abbott and Shorten's policies? Refugees would have nowhere to go and would remain at the mercy of the (as we know, completely insufficient) world's voluntary intake. Talk about deaths at sea...

[Mugwump]

[Tannin]

[David]

Tannin, I certainly applaud that particular decision. But the problem is that we're still dealing with quotas.

The world's various humanitarian crises do not have a quota attached, unfortunately. What happens to the people left over once the quota has been filled? Where do they go? To the countries that haven't bolted the gate shut, obviously. That's how we're still passing the buck.

[Tannin]

Wow! Have you gone completely insane? Did you read what you wrote? You just argued for NO LIMIT AT ALL!!!!!!!! I'm in shock! Even by your extraordinary standards this is loopiness above and beyond the call of sanity or duty. Do you even know how many refugees there are in the world? Are you seriously asking that we set no limit? FMD, that's 20 million extra people this year alone.

[Mugwump]

^ Thanks, David. Higher than I expected. I withdraw.

Still, the question nags - why, given the many UNHCR signatory countries that lie intermediate to Australia, would so many refugees risk so much to get to Australia ? It does not make sense, unless economic reasons figure largely in the process. The Uk - another country less far from the world's hotspots has a genuine number of 35%. Very strange

[Tannin]

The obvious answer, Mugwamp, and doubtless to a large extent the correct one, is that the people making the decisions are different. Also, it takes much less time to travel the short distance from, say, Libya, to Italy and thence the UK than it does to travel from that same place to Australia, and doubtless costs less too. One has a great deal more time (and probably money) with which to work up an appropriate story.

[Mugwump]

[Tannin]

That would be my guess too, Mr M. And I'm not going to waste a beautiful balmy Ballarat evening with the wind howling fit to lift the iron off the roof and the rain turning to sleet.

[stui magpie]

[David]

[Mugwump]