Administrator Stanhope soon to be returned to us

johnboy 23 September 2013 93

The ABC has news on Jon Stanhope’s stand against the Government out on Christmas Island:

Christmas Island’s administrator Jon Stanhope says he will have to reconsider his position if told not to speak publicly about boat arrivals.

His comments come a day after the first asylum seeker vessel since the Federal Government implemented its new border protection policy arrived on Christmas Island, carrying about 30 people.

The Government is not providing any details of the boat, but the ABC has been told by people on Christmas Island that the passengers include men, women and children from the Middle East.

Under the previous Labor government, media outlets were notified each time a boat was intercepted.

However, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison imposed new restrictions on the flow of information about asylum seeker boats, saying he will only provide weekly briefings – the first of which will be today.

One imagines that if Administrator Stanhope doesn’t stick to his knitting the Abbott Government will not hesitate for a second to sack him.

It is also worth noting that the decision to announce via media release every single boat arrival is largely what made this stupid non-issue into the maker and breaker of Governments.

We do not announce every 747 arriving at Sydney Airport with asylum seekers onboard (they are never, ever announced, nor are British backpackers overstaying their visas).

Ceasing to bother with the feverish announcement of boat arrivals is the best thing we can do to de-politicise the issue and stop worrying about them in the much bigger picture of the huge migrant inflows to Australia that continue under both parties.

But Jon Stanhope has never been one to let pragmatism or even his own ideals get in the way of a chance to play the martyr.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
93 Responses to Administrator Stanhope soon to be returned to us
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
TFarquahar TFarquahar 6:49 am 11 Oct 14

dks00k said :

“We do not announce every 747 arriving at Sydney Airport with asylum seekers onboard (they are never, ever announced, nor are British backpackers overstaying their visas).”

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, the analogy is probably not the best one to use.

We dont report on every visa overstay or asylum seeker that gets off a plane, cruise ship or freighter, however I’m sure a chartered 747 full of refugees landing at Sydney with no clearance sure as hell would make front page news.

dks00k, just to fill you in a a few facts. Asylum seekers, the very few, that may arrive on a 747 at Sydney Airport would do so with a valid passport and visa. If they did not possess these they would be denied uplift in the country from which they are travelling. The same applies to Visa overstayers. They arrived with a current passport and visa. This takes me directly to my point. If it was that easy to obtain asylum in Australia why would people pay anywhere from $5000 US to $12000 US to get on a boat and travel to Christmas or Cocos Island? Why? Because they do not arrive with a passport, visa or any usually any other form of documentation. They obviously possessed these types of documents previously as they just did not teleport from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq or other places to Indonesia. No they flew.

Please get a grip on reality and check your facts.

IrishPete IrishPete 7:41 am 28 Sep 13

I posted this on another thread, in response to an off-topic post by someone else, but it’s more appropriate here:

“Two boats have arrived since the government was sworn in. http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/residents-report-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival-on-christmas-island-20130926-2ugnr.html

The incident you describe is not being described as a “turn back” even by the Australian government. It’s being described a a rescue, in Indonesian waters. Now maybe they are playing diplomacy, suddenly and belatedly, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.

I think there have been three rescues this week, the most recent (after you posted) with significant loss of life. As I heard about it on the radio this morning, I wondered about three boats in one week incapable of making the journey – that’s actually not far off what lots of people predicted would happen when “turn back the boats” came in – boats would be disabled or scuttled.

Perhaps the smugglers are actually not willing to risk a “good” boat and are instead sending dodgy ones, but so far they haven’t got out of Indonesian waters so they haven’t yet been able to test the Australia Government’s bravado.

IP”

Aeek Aeek 8:48 pm 27 Sep 13

Postalgeek said :

Two sides having nuclear weapons doesn’t prevent war. The concept of M.A.D

It can if they use them.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 4:14 pm 27 Sep 13

Two sides having nuclear weapons doesn’t prevent war. The concept of M.A.D might deter nuclear exchange, and concern about escalation might deter direct conflict, but there were plenty of proxy wars between the US and USSR during the Cold War, including Korea, Middle East, Latin America, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

IrishPete IrishPete 3:00 pm 27 Sep 13

howeph said :

Can we not go OT on nuclear deterrence.

Just for the record, someone has used quoting wrongly and the Thatcher reference appears to have been made by me. It wasn’t. I’d rather not remember my years living under Margaret Thatcher’s iron fist.

IP

howeph howeph 2:05 pm 27 Sep 13

Can we not go OT on nuclear deterrence.

johnboy johnboy 1:57 pm 27 Sep 13

housebound said :

So why the arms race between India and Pakistan?

well:

a) the US still has an official policy of maintaining a second strike capability so a growing body of thought is by no means dominant.

b) India and Pakistan are not the US

c) India and Pakistan are tiny nuclear arsenals so far, so mutually assured destruction isn’t on the table (yet)

housebound housebound 1:53 pm 27 Sep 13

johnboy said :

When it comes to nuclear deterrence there’s a growing body of thinking in the US military that it’s crap. Simply on the basis that who wants to be the winner anyway once the whole world is a nuclear wasteland?

So why the arms race between India and Pakistan?

caf caf 1:38 pm 27 Sep 13

Robertson said :

IrishPete said :

Thatcher famously claimed that nuclear weapons prevented war. Some people believe that magic rocks can keep tigers away. Aren’t both those statements the same kind of nonsense?

I don’t think so – the whole concept of nuclear deterrence has been explored and its mechanism analysed in some depth, and many people find it quite credible.

It’s not really possible to rigorously test either, though, and there is a decent chance that much of deterrence theory is nothing but post-hoc rationalisation.

Certainly there are also many people that believe the highly intricate deterrence theories of analysts like Herman Kahn are nothing but elaborately constructed nonsense.

    johnboy johnboy 1:44 pm 27 Sep 13

    When it comes to nuclear deterrence there’s a growing body of thinking in the US military that it’s crap.

    Simply on the basis that who wants to be the winner anyway once the whole world is a nuclear wasteland?

Robertson Robertson 10:59 am 27 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

Thatcher famously claimed that nuclear weapons prevented war. Some people believe that magic rocks can keep tigers away. Aren’t both those statements the same kind of nonsense?

I don’t think so – the whole concept of nuclear deterrence has been explored and its mechanism analysed in some depth, and many people find it quite credible.

The concept of magic rocks has no such such detail associated with it.

JC said :

Correct the migration ACT is the law that covers entry of people into Australia. Though I suggest you go read the bit about asylum seekers, .

How about you quote us that bit, and provide a reference?

IrishPete said :

When the facts don’t suit, attack the messenger.

The messenger, in this case Hoffman, left out most of the facts.

I didn’t attack her by criticising her for being fat, or for being an AJP voter, I simply pointed out the glaring deficiency in her analysis, based as it was not only on cherry-picked facts, but also on tiny sample sizes.

IrishPete IrishPete 9:22 am 27 Sep 13

Thumper said :

Howard created the refugee problem by invading Iraq and Afghanistan

Little Johnnie the War Criminal

Hyperbole much?

Perhaps I couldn’t help poking the Rabid Right on here with a sharp stick, but it’s an arguable case. Victors are never tried, that doesn’t mean they”re not guilty.

IP

Thumper Thumper 8:36 am 27 Sep 13

Howard created the refugee problem by invading Iraq and Afghanistan

Little Johnnie the War Criminal

Hyperbole much?

JC JC 7:25 am 27 Sep 13

CraigT said :

Firstly, the Migration Act is the law governing how people enter this country, and it defines people who come here without valid visas as people who have broken that law. They entered the country illegally. They are here illegally.
I know Denial of this basic fact is one of the basic tenets of the illegal immigration lobby, but do try to take this onboard.

Correct the migration ACT is the law that covers entry of people into Australia. Though I suggest you go read the bit about asylum seekers, as that does NOT make you an illegal. If you get assessed and found not to be a genuine asylum seeker then yes you are an illegal.

Secondly might I point out that Howard made islands like Christmas Island outside the Australian migration zone (something I don’t believe Labor changed). This of course means that the asylum seekers having made it to these islands have not technically made it to Australia, and hence have made no attempt to enter Australia, so again are not illegals.

So who is denying basic facts? Specifically being an asylum seeker does not make you an illegal, but denial of this basic fact is one of the basic tenets of the xenophobic boat people lobby, but do try to take this onboard.

nhand42 nhand42 10:10 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

… it is complete nonsense.

It’s supposed to be nonsense. It’s making a point about illusory correlations. It resembles other comments in this thread that make similar nonsense statements and come to similar nonsense conclusions.

Robertson said :

Rocks aren’t designed to keep tigers away. You are not in a position where you expect6 tigers to come your way.

Thatcher famously claimed that nuclear weapons prevented war. Some people believe that magic rocks can keep tigers away. Aren’t both those statements the same kind of nonsense?

nhand42 nhand42 10:00 pm 26 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

Anyway why are you crediting TPVs and not the Pacific (Final) Solution, and Mandatory Detention, and a whole host of Howard’s incredibly cruel responses to asylum seekers?

Exactly. More than one change occurred in 2001.

IrishPete said :

Would it undermine your argument to say that the reduction in arrivals was a result of multiple changes in policy, because that might open the door to admitting that there might be events outside of Australia that contributed?

One of my favourite quotes is by Mencken; “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. The “TPVs stopped the boats!” meme reeks of over-simplification.

IrishPete IrishPete 9:41 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

I think you should believe the facts, not the selective misuse of statistics and projecting an incredibly small handful of interviews as somehow representative of all the thousands of others by a person trying to push an agenda and supporting her pet theory which is clearly contradicted by the facts.

Hoffman failed to analyse post-2001 figures, and failed to analyse post-2007 figures. Why do you think she avoided talking about those facts?

She also seems inordinately obsessed with the 353 people who drowned in Indonesian waters after their indonesian boat sank (SIEV X), but has nothing to say about the 4,000+ people who drowned during the ALP’s misrule on this issue. Why do you think that is?

When the facts don’t suit, attack the messenger. Good work Robbo. Keep digging.

Also feel free to look into the difference between qualitative research and quantitative research, and how they complement each other.

IP

Robertson Robertson 4:56 pm 26 Sep 13

I think you should believe the facts, not the selective misuse of statistics and projecting an incredibly small handful of interviews as somehow representative of all the thousands of others by a person trying to push an agenda and supporting her pet theory which is clearly contradicted by the facts.

Hoffman failed to analyse post-2001 figures, and failed to analyse post-2007 figures. Why do you think she avoided talking about those facts?

She also seems inordinately obsessed with the 353 people who drowned in Indonesian waters after their indonesian boat sank (SIEV X), but has nothing to say about the 4,000+ people who drowned during the ALP’s misrule on this issue. Why do you think that is?

howeph howeph 3:32 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

Must be very hard work convincing yourself TPVs don’t affect people’s choice to employ people smugglers.

Sue Hoffman submitted her doctoral thesis concerning the journeys of Iraqi asylum seekers to Australia which examines, amongst other things, their experiences in countries of first asylum and transit countries, and dealing with people-smugglers.

Here is how she summarises her research with respect to the efficacy of TPVs:

“In summary, the numbers and personal accounts support the argument that TPVs were a factor in the growth of asylum seeker numbers and were the main reason that so many women and children got on smugglers’ boats.

“As for evidence that TPVs were a deterrent – there isn’t any. There is only speculation by those who haven’t bothered fact checking or doing a bit of research. If anyone tells you that TPVs were a factor in stopping boats in 2001, rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about, or they are simply lying.”

[Source: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2757748.html%5D

I wonder who I’m going to believe… ?

IrishPete IrishPete 12:44 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

Oops, you haven’t been paying attention.

TPVs were not implemented as the definitive visa for illegal boat arrivals until the law change in September 2001. It is discussed up-thread.

Change to TPVs in late 2001. Illegal arrivals by boat stopped dead.

It is not reasonable to assume some other unpredicted and still unidentified mechanism caused the sudden cessation of illegal boat arrivals when there is the very simple explanation available that TPVs worked.

Are you enjoying that cake that you are both eating and saving for later?

You know, when I said “So now I’m going to make a totally unsupportable presumption like yours” I wasn’t encouraging you to make more of your own. But feel free. You just look foolish. Your world is black and white, simple. The rocks in front of your house keep the tigers away. If that’s what you want to believe, feel free, just don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

Howard created the refugee problem by invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so I don’t see why he should be given any credit for solving it (not that I am accepting he did solve it, because no public policy issue is so simple as to be solved so easily).

Anyway why are you crediting TPVs and not the Pacific (Final) Solution, and Mandatory Detention, and a whole host of Howard’s incredibly cruel responses to asylum seekers? Would it undermine your argument to say that the reduction in arrivals was a result of multiple changes in policy, because that might open the door to admitting that there might be events outside of Australia that contributed?

I think I am going to leave this debate, as you are clearly still in mourning for Little Johnnie the War Criminal, and one cannot reason with someone like that.

IP

Robertson Robertson 12:05 pm 26 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

I have asked you to present evidence, and you have not. So here it is for you:

arrivals by boat, calendar years:
1999 3721
2000 2939
2001 5516

Let’s just add in the remaining years from 2002 when TPVs became effective until TPVs were scrapped in 2008:

2002–>2008: total boat arrivals, 449 people, less than 100 per year.

Now, let’s add in the years from the point TPVs were scrapped and the issuing of permanent visas was resumed:

2009: 1033
2010: 5609
2011: 4940
2012: 7983
2013: 25173

Must be very hard work convincing yourself TPVs don’t affect people’s choice to employ people smugglers.

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site