Originally Posted by tapout View Post

Why? Genuinely curious, to me it's seems a pretty measured response. PNG isn't a war torn country and it's removing the incentive to make the journey by boat, I'm happy to have my mind changed but it seems like a decent solution to me.

I might be a bit late to this conversation, seems like people have been talking through it already, but nonetheless I think this policy is inhumane on a number of levels

1. It is unfair to asylum seekers/ refugees because PNG simply doesnt have the infrastructure that would allow asylum seekers to meet their basic rights, let alone recover from the trauma of conflict, threat of violence and flight. Even if we are to assume that resettlement in PNG will mean some sort of allowance from the aus government, schools, hospitals and living conditions are below basic standards. We have the ability to provide good services to asylum seekers and refugees, and we should. And, although Papua isnt war torn, it isnt a safe country (http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-c...pua_New_Guinea). 5 days ago armed soldiers attacked a hospital (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/444985/...t-png-hospital) and earlier this year four chinese were killed (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/444985/...t-png-hospital). I am concerned that asylum seekers could become victims of xenophobic violence, not to mention discrimination and flat out disadvantage (the australian asylum support system struggles as it is to provide basic language services to the diversity of people it encouters). We can provide a safe conditions and better services and we should. This is not to say that PNG is an irredeemable shithole, Im certain there are many fantastic things full of mostly wonderful people, but it is a highly inappropriate place for asylum seekers.

2. It is unfair to the people of PNG. PNG is already an incredibly poor and the resettling of asylum seekers will further burden the job markets, education, hospitals and other infra/services. Im not sure what type of support the aussie government will provide to PNG, but i think the increased competition to what the limited things available will be inevitable, especially as the infrastructure that exists is so limited throughout the country.

3, It violates our obligations under the refugee convention, which is bad for two reasons. Our obligations to international laws and human rights frameworks should be treated with much more respect and regard if we are to build on these 'orderly international systems' rudd professes high regard for. These frameworks outline basic levels of treatment people can expect from each other, respecting these standards role models good behavior and helps to materialise international standards of treatment. Its not the only thing, but its certainly an important part in helping to address causes of flight, violations of people's rights (dont give me that economic migrant shit unless you have more compelling evidence than this http://theconversation.com/factcheck...migrants-15601)

4. It sends a bad message to regional and international countries about the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. We do no good for asylum seekers/refugees globally by treating them inhumanely ourselves. We should remember that most asylum seekers and refugees are not in Australia or coming to Australia, they are in and tend to stay in countries neighboring where they flee. While where they are treated like shit and have generally have no access the their basic rights. Similarly to above, we should be role modeling good behavior and encouraging others to do the same.

my 2 c, sorry for typos