No place for xenophobia in a modern nation (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-place-for-xenophobia-in-a-modern-nation/story-fn558imw-1226377763713)
WHEN politicians appeal to a country's fears, you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan have resurrected the class war and xenophobia in an attempt to defend their policies and to appease the troglodyte unionists, who like them, live in a world that is on the way out.

Enterprise migration agreements are an undiluted good for Australia. They create jobs for far in excess of the numbers of skilled migrants who are brought in. They create wealth for all Australians.

Doug Cameron and Paul Howes should take a basic course in wealth creation to replace their outdated qualifications in wealth distribution.

The basic deal here is recently we have seen a big uproar by those in the Unions and some in the current government over the use of such Visa's to get migrants to work in areas of the economy, since our economy is doing rather well when compared to the rest of the world. So here are some facts about migration in the Australina workforce.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/howes-crying-wolf-on-foreign-workers-20120528-1ze6y.html
The number of 457 applications granted in the 10 months to the end of April for 457s jumped by 48.6 per cent to 102,630, of whom 56,010 were primary visa holders and 46,620 were secondary applications – family members. Applications for primary 457 visas in the 10 months was up 35.4 per cent to 57,570.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s monthly statistical release provides an excellent breakdown of the guest worker scheme for anyone who really wants to know – and it’s not the ominous picture the AWU and CFMEU tend to hint at of Asian hordes undercutting the semi-skilled white man’s living wage.

The construction industry has surged to the top of the 457 visa application class this financial year thanks to the resources capex boom, but the 7880 applications still make up less than 14 per cent of the total and are not all that far in front of the 6700 in health care and social assistance, the 6160 in information media and telecommunications and the 6630 in “other services”. The mining industry accounts for 5340 applications – 9 per cent of the total.

WA with 24 per cent has overtaken Victoria (19 per cent) for second place in the nominated location for 457 applications, but the boom state is still well behind NSW’s 31 per cent (31,570 total applications in the 10 months) – and the NSW resources boom is relatively muted while Victoria’s is miniscule. Indeed, NSW total population growth lags the national average, as does its economy, as locals continue to pack up and move north.

And it’s not AWU and CFMEU members who are most likely to face competition from 457 visa holders. The number of “technicians and trades workers” applications has soared 80 per cent so far this year, but still only accounts for a quarter of the total. “Professionals” applications are up by 21 per cent and make up 54 per cent of the total.

The biggest source of 457 applications remains the UK (23.3 per cent) followed by India (17.7 per cent) and Ireland (8 per cent).

Perhaps the biggest surprise for many about our skills shortages that have to be filled with guest workers is the number in industries that protest most about struggling in hard times and grab headlines for job losses. Applications for primary 457 visas in retail trade are up by nearly half to 1880 and manufacturing applications jumped by 69 per cent to 3580.

-JHJilk4nD0
"How's side are you on?"

You have to stop all those Brits and Irish from diluting your pure white Australian blood... oh, wait.

;)

#lolstralian

This is of course the same newspaper which shrieks about a few hundred refugees. Pretty ludicrous for them to talk about "xenophobia" when they and their fellow News Limited newspapers have been howling about the INVASION of BOAT PEOPLE for years.

I do agree though, Australia needs more foreigners. I'm fairly certain 457 visas mean they don't get to eventually apply for citizenship, so that isn't very good. Temporary work contracts are also exploitable as a tool to drive down wages unless workers rights and union access are properly protected. Which is a big part of why the relevant union is angry about not being consulted (unlike when similar programs have been brought in for other industries).

I assume, c_h, you're fine with being flooded with MUSLIMS.

I do agree though, Australia needs more foreigners.

From your post I thnk what you meant to say is we need more citizens, not foreigners.

From your post I thnk what you meant to say is we need more citizens, not foreigners.

It doesn't. Australia is probably far beyond it's reasonable carrying capacity at this point.

If we are having this conversation two hundred years ago I would've agreed with you.

Edit: Fun fact: Australia is ranked sixth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country) in the world by arable land area.

If we are having this conversation two hundred years ago I would've agreed with you.

Edit: Fun fact: Australia is ranked sixth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country) in the world by arable land area.

How much of it is dependent on irrigation? How are the water sources looking? Is there no salinization going on? Etc. etc. etc.

Australia can of course circumvent these issues through application of modern technology (and trade), but that is costly, especially due to the distances involved. If you now base your economy on exploitation of natural resources (thus turning yourself into an Asia-Pacific version of Saudi Arabia), be prepared for serious problems later when they run out. These problems will be far more grave if the population which faces them is too big.

Ah, screw it - in short, the idea that a country needs to have a permanently fast growing population to be relevant or successful is nonsense.

Australia also ranked 27th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_renewable_water_resourc es) in total renewable water resources (that's higher than any European country except Russia).

The issues facing Australian agriculture are much the same issues facing agriculture elsewhere on the planet; salinity, erosion, water, overuse of chemicals, climate change. Australia is still better off than many more densely-populated parts of the world, and will continue to be if we don't do silly things like chop all the trees down or try to irrigate obviously desert land. If Australia is "beyond capacity", as you say, I'd worry about some countries like say, the Czech Republic (cultivated land > arable land) or Israel (one of the most water-poor countries even by Middle Eastern standards).

Oh, and to avoid the fate of Saudi Arabia, we need to diversify the economy and develop human resources. A large(r) population helps with both.

#lolstralian

This is of course the same newspaper which shrieks about a few hundred refugees. Pretty ludicrous for them to talk about "xenophobia" when they and their fellow News Limited newspapers have been howling about the INVASION of BOAT PEOPLE for years.

I do agree though, Australia needs more foreigners. I'm fairly certain 457 visas mean they don't get to eventually apply for citizenship, so that isn't very good. Temporary work contracts are also exploitable as a tool to drive down wages unless workers rights and union access are properly protected. Which is a big part of why the relevant union is angry about not being consulted (unlike when similar programs have been brought in for other industries).

I assume, c_h, you're fine with being flooded with MUSLIMS.

Their is a big difference between someone who is legal and documented and someone who is illegal and undocumented. The first group improve the economy since they are here to work. The second group costs us money since we have to find out who they are and if they are wanted somewhere else for crimes they have committed. The benefit of the first group is so much better than illegal aliens coming into the country.

Their is a big difference between someone who is legal and documented and someone who is illegal and undocumented. The first group improve the economy since they are here to work. The second group costs us money since we have to find out who they are and if they are wanted somewhere else for crimes they have committed. The benefit of the first group is so much better than illegal aliens coming into the country.

There is hardly any difference between illegal and legal migrants. The only difference is that with illegal immigrants, the government prevents them from becoming legal.

Their is a big difference between someone who is legal and documented and someone who is illegal and undocumented. The first group improve the economy since they are here to work. The second group costs us money since we have to find out who they are and if they are wanted somewhere else for crimes they have committed. The benefit of the first group is so much better than illegal aliens coming into the country.

You do realize that by the far the largest source of illegal immigration to Australia is Brits who have overstayed their visas? You do also realize that Australia was built by Brits who arrived here due to "crimes they have committed"?

Now let's put one and one together....... Now that the maths has been done, let's look at the irony of marginalizing people leaving their war torn nations to come here and ask who Australia is currently at war with?

I could go on

c_h clearly doesn't understand that seeking asylum is a legal right. Calling refugees illegal migrants is just plain wrong.

Australia has no irregular migration situation comparable to Europe or the United States. Instead we have this weird thing where the right wing media and dog-whistling politicians call refugees "illegal immigrants". So, Kaiser, when c_h refers to "illegal" migrants he is actually referring to asylum seekers and refugees.

It doesn't. Australia is probably far beyond it's reasonable carrying capacity at this point.

Australia actually has the lowest population per square km of arable land in the world, and an economy consuming maybe 1% of the water (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/CAE301277A675941CA257956000E646E?opendocument) that falls on the continent (2009-10 saw 13,476 GL consumption from 64,076 GL extraction. Rainfall in a relatively dry year like 2004-5 was on the order of 2,000,000 GL with runoff around 200,000 GL).

Water scarcity is entirely an agricultural and hydro-electric industry issue and it's an economic scarcity, not a physical one. The linking of population with agricultural water usage doesn't actually make much sense. Tailless has the right of it - Australian industrial-scale agriculture faces issues similar to other parts of the world, but it's not especially doomed. What we actually have is a poorly managed agricultural basin (the Murray-Darling) with probably an overallocation of water rights, which is in serious need of crop use changes and a more rational approach to water allocations.

Specifically, when you look at Australian farming, the value add (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4610.0.55.008Main%20Features62000-01%20to%202009-10?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4610.0.55.008&issue=2000-01%20to%202009-10&num=&view=) by irrigation is only about 30% of total agricultural production - mostly fruit, grapes and dairy. The rest of our farming is all meat production, cereal, sugar, and the like, which are all far less affected by irrigation water availability. The impact of serious drought or long term drying from climate change is our export cropping gets severely limited, we take an economic hit and industries and communities disappear, not that we run out of food. That's what I mean by economic scarcity rather than physical.

More to the point, when you consider that:

-over half Australian water consumption is for agriculture
-a lot of that water is self-extracted (ie, rain water)
-and that a lot of that water-intensive farming activity is for export

...then physical water scarcity really has very little to do with population growth. Demand for water doesn't grow very much with each new person added. Household water consumption is about 14% of total water consumption, so you can double the population and households are still using less water than agriculture. The way you deal with potable water supply issues is with storm-water collection, water recycling, greywater usage and general demand-side water efficiency, with desalination as a stand-by water security option for activation in times of prolonged drought.

Finally, Australians are currently some of the most resource-wasteful people on the planet. In terms of environmental sustainability we will get far more bang for our buck changing our lifestyle patterns (reduced resource usage, reduced house size, increased city density, etc) than by restricting immigration and damaging the whole economy and tax base.

We're not saying that rapid population growth is an absolute imperative. Population growth levels will be whatever they are depending on net migration flows from year to year (one reason Australian population is growing rapidly is large chunks of our huge diaspora returning home to escape Northern Hemisphere financial woes), but restricting migration in the interests of the environment is not even really a thing. Water is really not a real constraint on population growth here - merely a major management challenge and a sometime brake on parts of the economy.

Oh, and to avoid the fate of Saudi Arabia, we need to diversify the economy and develop human resources. A large(r) population helps with both.

It doesn't. The larger the population, the higher the inertia. Even if you diversify and change the focus of the economy, large number of people end up being "left behind". It goes without saying that if the absolute numbers are bigger, then so is the problem. Smaller countries are generally far more flexible and adapt better to rapidly changing conditions.

Australia seems obsessed with expanding its population because it looks big on map. How many times have I seen Australians write things like "We're as big as the US, we should have similar population" - utterly ridiculous.

I'd worry about some countries like say, the Czech Republic

We're in the temperate zone, which translates roughly to "victory by climate" :) Overcultivation is easily solved once you stop giving farmers subsidies for overproducing.

Australia seems obsessed with expanding its population because it looks big on map. How many times have I seen Australians write things like "We're as big as the US, we should have similar population" - utterly ridiculous.

Nobody serious has said that for half a century. Just a few of the less perceptive or more delusional members of the National Party.

However, the converse, that we should artificially restrict population growth, is also silly.

You do realize that by the far the largest source of illegal immigration to Australia is Brits who have overstayed their visas? You do also realize that Australia was built by Brits who arrived here due to "crimes they have committed"?

Now let's put one and one together....... Now that the maths has been done, let's look at the irony of marginalizing people leaving their war torn nations to come here and ask who Australia is currently at war with?

I could go on

The difference is that those who overstay their visa's are much easier to catch and send home since we know who they are, this is not the case for the undocumented illegal aliens. We simply don't know who they are.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/31/3515475.htm

@Arwon, there is a legal method for Asylum seekers to go through. I know some people who have gone through the process so they could come to Australia. They went through a whole process and had to prove they were suitable candidates for asylum. That process is still available and Australia does have assigned to and does accept and help refugees. The people that come here are not refugees. But the fact of the matter is that you are giving preference to those who can pay to come, whereas those who are too poor are left to suffer, so in effect you are saying that it is acceptable for the rich to do whatever they want to get here. In fact Australia is increasing it's migrant intake so there is no need for such thing to happen, and yet you are approving a procedure that is risky whereas I am and people like me are making sure no one is put in peril.

Doesn't matter. The right to seek asylum is just that - a right. So you can retract the "illegal" label now.

Oh and your faith in the orderliness of the UN refugee "process" is extremely naive. The idea of this orderly "queue" in war-torn countries is basically nonsense. And the zero-sum game between sponsored refugee places and asylum seeker refugees is purely a creation of Australian government policy.

Edit: oh, and "the people that come here are not refugees" is actually just plain wrong. Nearly all undocumented boat arrivals end up being accepted as refugees. After we lock them up for long periods of time and create new mental illness problems, of course.

I am generally pro-immigration. But I have more reservations able guest workers than I do about regular immigrants. It seems to me that with that the country gets the benefit without the responsibility, and so creates a group of second class people that don't get full rights. You want immigrants to fill jobs, get people who will become citizens over time.

I'm fairly certain 457 visas mean they don't get to eventually apply for citizenship, so that isn't very good.

Yeah, there's no inbuilt means of transitioning over.

The basic deal here is recently we have seen a big uproar by those in the Unions and some in the current government over the use of such Visa's to get migrants to work in areas of the economy, since our economy is doing rather well when compared to the rest of the world. So here are some facts about migration in the Australina workforce.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/howes...528-1ze6y.html


its understandable you don't follow Union issues... but the uproar is not really about the visa's ... actually Unions fight for the rights of these workers on pay, and conditions ... thats part of the deal the visa's come with...(equivalent to Australian standards)

its also part of the deal that the jobs are made avalible to Australans first... most minners do a good job negotiating their rights (offering training and jobs to Aboriginal stake holders in the area who hold the land rights)
BUT this particular mine belongs to a company that
Hancock is quoted as saying,[15]
"Mining in Australia occupies less than one-fifth of one percent of the total surface of our continent and yet it supports 14 million people. Nothing should be sacred from mining whether it’s your ground, my ground, the blackfellow’s ground or anybody else’s. So the question of Aboriginal land rights and things of this nature shouldn’t exist."
In a 1984 television interview [16]
Hancock suggested forcing unemployed indigenous Australians - particularly "no-good half-castes" - to collect their welfare cheques from a central location: "And when they had gravitated there, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future."

So given the high unemployment in outback Australia ... very strong scruitiny should be given to see if Australian workers have been given the chance to take up these positions

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-problem-with-enterprise-migration-agreements-20120529-1zg1v.html
Her Enterprise Migration Agreement involves 100 Aborigines and more than 1700 migrant workers. It should be the other way around.

Third, Enterprise Migration Agreements are a confession that the permanent migrant worker program is a failure.

The permanent migrant worker program is supposed to be giving us workers to help with the mining boom, but it isn't.

As reported in research from Professor Bob Birrell of Monash University last week, more than half the people who come to Australia under the permanent migrant worker program end up in Sydney and Melbourne, competing with Australians who are out of work.The permanent migrant worker program should be cut back and properly targeted.

The permanent migrant worker program ("skilled migration") has risen from 24,000 in 1996 to more than 129,000 now. It is driving rapid population growth and causing cost of living and congestion problems – pressures on food, water, land and energy supplies, housing affordability and species extinctions.

We have 600,000 Australians on Newstart Allowance and 800,000 on Disability Support Pension. These people should be our first priority.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-problem-with-enterprise-migration-agreements-20120529-1zg1v.html#ixzz1wve1pelp

now i should declare a bias here
1. its my Union that covers this project
2.more than likely i will be involved in the infrastructure construction phase of this project
3. many of these skilled "migrant" workers actually end up in melbourne directly taking low skilled jobs from Australians... like the 400 jobs lost as told by Dale in the other thread
4. my union regularly tries to help these visa holders working in underpaid conditions... unfortunately they get fired and have to then leave the country

all up its a bad system open to abuse...

if its run properly i don't realy see aproblem with bringing in 1700 workers for 6000 Australian jobs
but just 100 aboriginal jobs is just plain laughable in a project of this size and cost

most laughable of all is the fact that the main player in this mine project has just acquired a large stake in the very newspaper you linked as the source of your points


THE inference you take from numerous reports over Fairfax Media's apparent reluctance to offer its biggest shareholder, Gina Rinehart, a board seat (or the requested two) is that she has been reluctant to pledge not to try to directly influence editorial policy.

A second inference, arising directly from the first, is that Rinehart actively wants to influence editorial policy at Fairfax.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/under-the-influence-of-gina-rinehart/story-e6frg9to-1226381993488

well worth a read by skeptics

Overcultivation is easily solved once you stop giving farmers subsidies for overproducing.

I sympathize with this for the most part but what I really don't understand is how this has become a rallying cry for the same people that generally support progressive rather than regressive taxes, for example. The developed world has enjoyed remarkable price stability to the consumer in food over the past 60 years. What tool, do you suppose, is used to do this?

Nobody serious has said that for half a century. Just a few of the less perceptive or more delusional members of the National Party.

However, the converse, that we should artificially restrict population growth, is also silly.

Indeed.

I am generally pro-immigration. But I have more reservations able guest workers than I do about regular immigrants. It seems to me that with that the country gets the benefit without the responsibility, and so creates a group of second class people that don't get full rights. You want immigrants to fill jobs, get people who will become citizens over time.

I agree. You want people who are interested in the country's future, who are emotionally invested in the country and call it home. Creating an underclass of foreign guest workers is a recipe for social unrest, and feeds xenophobes.

Caveat: I'm involved in Indigenous demographic research focusing on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris%E2%80%93Todaro_model).

all up its a bad system open to abuse...

Agreed. There should be mechanisms in place to protect those being shafted. I'm aware of at least two cases where companies have been caught underpaying workers, copped the fine and then kicked the poor buggers out when the dust has settled.

but just 100 aboriginal jobs is just plain laughable in a project of this size and cost

I would be surprised if even those jobs get filled. Government's need to work on the skills that enable Indigenous people to e.g. driving, literacy, numeracy and basic financial skills.

Solution:

1. Build a really big solar power plant
2. Air-condition all the deserts

Caveat: I'm involved in Indigenous demographic research focusing on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris%E2%80%93Todaro_model).


interesting link


Agreed. There should be mechanisms in place to protect those being shafted. I'm aware of at least two cases where companies have been caught underpaying workers, copped the fine and then kicked the poor buggers out when the dust has settled.


I would be surprised if even those jobs get filled. Government's need to work on the skills that enable Indigenous people to e.g. driving, literacy, numeracy and basic financial skills.

some miners actively form relationships with communities offering training,jobs and community infrastructure, to take into account that the project will most likely raise local rents to something like $1500-2000 week (for people like me, to fly in fly out ) and drastically reduce conditions for local nurses,shop workers and teachers in the commnunity... when negotiated at the lease/land rights stage ... fair enough
But what really annoys me... is that SOME mining companies use this very negotiation to prove that an agreement can not be reached and then use the legislation to by pass this stage completely

Complaining that Australians will not move to these harsh environments when on their very doorstep are community's fighting to maintain living in this very environment and about the lack of employment opportunity....

is the most laughable excuse of all to bring in overseas workers

Speaking of xenophobic policies (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-unveils-tougher-asylum-policy-20120609-202fw.html):
Asylum seekers who are believed to have destroyed their documents before arriving in Australia will have a presumption against refugee status under a coalition government, Opposition leader Tony Abbott says.

As part of three policy "enhancements", which the opposition leader said would immediately be put in place under a coalition government, Mr Abbott said there would be a "strong presumption that illegal boat people who have destroyed their documents not be given refugee status".

[...]

Under the third proposal put forward by Mr Abbott, an integrity commissioner would report to the minister every six months on what is happening to the processing success rates.

"What is happening now is that 90 per cent of people who arrive illegally via boat are given successful outcomes."

Mr Abbott said other countries had "heavier rates of rejection" and he wanted to know why this was the case.

The "enhancements" would be on top of the party's current immigration policy, which includes the re-establishment of offshore processing at Nauru, the re-introduction of temporary protection visas and the option of turning boats around.

It boggles my mind that the response to 90% success rates isn't to acknowledge the vast majority have legitimate refugee claims, but to insist that the government should go out of its way to make it as hard as possible for these legitimate claims to be approved.

turning boats around

Reading this I thought of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

...

Australians should be proud that we are such a great nation that so many people are prepared to abandon everything they know and risk their lives to be one of us. People who show this sort of commitment to the country should be welcomed with open arms, not this disgrace we choose to inflict on them.

But, you know, Labor and Greens voters don't like the idea of using often-abusive temporary guestworker programs as a battering ram against workers rights and wages, so they're the xenophobic ones, amirite.

Speaking of xenophobic policies (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-unveils-tougher-asylum-policy-20120609-202fw.html):

It boggles my mind that the response to 90% success rates isn't to acknowledge the vast majority have legitimate refugee claims, but to insist that the government should go out of its way to make it as hard as possible for these legitimate claims to be approved.

but it should not surprise you ... the government gets just one day of positive news coverage and tony puts his phyphon grip back on the front page again... julie is just no match with her cobra stike

yes... my mind has been boggled every day bar one, since the last election, it dose things to you...

even with his "new?"policey he even makes the point that he wants Mr Abbott said his government would also ensure that his Immigration Minister "exercise the right" to appeal against affirmative decisions.


he wants to change the system and then give his minister the power to go against his own systen... yep boggled again :crazyeye: :crazyeye:

Well may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save us from Tony Abbott.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Shudder.

God damn Labor.

Could be worse. We could also have a President John Howard.

Xenophobia has a definition, wanting restrictions on immigration does not qualify.

Ah, true. Then again, it isn't white British illegals we worry about (I do a lot) but a smattering of brown people. So I guess that makes it xenophobic racism right?

Brown Muslims, at that.

Xenophobia has a definition, wanting restrictions on immigration does not qualify.

anywhere else that would be a valid comment... except in Australia ... some of our politicains ask journalists to "please explain" when the word is used...

she's long gone ... because the mainstream right took up nearlly all her catch cries to protect their own voter base.... "stop the boats" is a daily proclimation from the leader of the party... we even jail Asylum seekers indefinately and don't tell them the reasons why... just because they are a security risk... but they can't challenge this as that would be a security risk to tell them why... very few countries would have a former respected prime minister resign from his own party out of shame, and it barely raised a ripple in the parties platform on "boat people "

Xenophobia has a definition, wanting restrictions on immigration does not qualify.

It doesn't follow from the fact that wanting immigration restrictions is not necessarily xenophobic, that wanting immigration restrictions cannot possibly be xenophobic. The Australian debate is unfortunately heavily tainted by alarmism and popularism skewed towards the historic racism of the apparently vital "working families"/"Howard's battlers" demographic. And Abbott's policy is far from being an exception to this. He harnesses such sentiment as much as he can.

Speaking of xenophobic policies (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-unveils-tougher-asylum-policy-20120609-202fw.html):

It boggles my mind that the response to 90% success rates isn't to acknowledge the vast majority have legitimate refugee claims, but to insist that the government should go out of its way to make it as hard as possible for these legitimate claims to be approved.

Without documentation they can say anything they want and most get in. Do these people look like refugees to you? They sure don't look like that to me.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/labor-a-soft-touch-on-boatpeople-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1226390584355
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/389935-120611-christmas-island.jpg

Go to Africa to see those who are being denied a place due to these so called refugees. They can't afford the $10,00 price tag it costs to get them here from Indonesia, so you have to wonder why people like Captain Emad. It is basically a joke when rich people can force their way in, and yet the poor have no alternative but to rely on handouts at the camps just to survive.

yet you link us to an article about tony critcising labour when he refused to support their tough policey on overseas processing of refugees (one i think is dreadfull) just another example of using "boat people" to score cheap "xenophobic" votes ... even when his own policey is overseas processing
chances are that they are refugees... 90% of boat people are ...so thats 10% that get rejected
... hard to tell just looking at a photo tho,

Without documentation they can say anything they want and most get in. Do these people look like refugees to you? They sure don't look like that to me.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/labor-a-soft-touch-on-boatpeople-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1226390584355
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/389935-120611-christmas-island.jpg

Go to Africa to see those who are being denied a place due to these so called refugees. They can't afford the $10,00 price tag it costs to get them here from Indonesia, so you have to wonder why people like Captain Emad. It is basically a joke when rich people can force their way in, and yet the poor have no alternative but to rely on handouts at the camps just to survive.

Ye gods you're serious aren't you.

As posted earlier: the "queue" is a creation of Australian government policy. We created the zero-sum game between asylum seekers and UN-sponsored refugee entry. It is the right of all people to seek asylum in other countries, and the fact that over 90% of boat-arrivals get refugee status is a pretty clear indication that they are, in fact, refugees.

we just have to get them to cover up more,clothing wise... to meet Australian safety standards

I'm still getting over the fact that "Do these people look like refugees to you? They sure don't look like that to me" is a thing a person actually wrote.

Also, from the Parliamentary library (http://clubtroppo.com.au/files/2012/06/asylumfacts2.pdf)

Are asylum seekers ‘queue jumpers’?

There is a view that asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive in Australia by boat, are ‘jumping the queue’ and taking the place of a more deserving refugee awaiting resettlement in a refugee camp. The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process. Paul Power, CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) notes that:

Implicit in this view is that Australia should not be bothered by people seeking protection under the Refugee Convention and that genuine refugees should go to other countries and wait patiently in the hope that Australia may choose to resettle them.

[b]The reality is that only a small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR:
UNHCR offices registered some 119 100 applications out of the total of 923 400 claims in 2009, a 62 per cent increase compared to 2008 ... The Office’s share in the global number of applications registered in 2009 was 13 per cent compared to 8 per cent in 2008 and 12 per cent in 2007. This was due to the higher number of applications registered with UNHCR offices in Malaysia, Somalia and Kenya. Europe remained the primary destination for individual asylum‐seekers with 359 400 asylum claims registered. It was followed closely by Africa (336 400). These two regions accounted for 39 and 37 per cent respectively of all claims.[/i]

Once registered with the UNHCR, many refugees seek resettlement to a country such as Australia. Refugees do not have a right to be resettled, and states are not obliged under the 1951 Refugee Convention or any other instrument to accept refugees for resettlement. It is a voluntary scheme co‐ordinated by the UNHCR which, amongst other things facilitates burden‐sharing amongst signatory states. Resettlement therefore complements and is not a substitute for the provision of protection to people who apply for asylum under the Convention.

Unfortunately we treat refugee resettlement and asylum seekers as a zero-sum game. We should not be doing that.

Edit: Actually, you know what? I'm pretty sure I can disprove the "destroying one's documents because a people smuggler told you do" thing is actually a big advantage by comparing boat arrivals to other arrivals by country. Since to fly here you generally need some form of ID, you'd assume the document-destruction wasn't an issue like it is with maritime arrivals.

Looking at this (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2010-11.pdf), currently virtually all boat-arrival asylum seekers have come from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq or Iran (page 36) or are stateless. Refugee status grant rates are all pretty high.

Compare these rates to non-boat arrival acceptance by country (page 23) and you can see the highest grant rates are those same countries, plus Burma, Pakistan and Zimbabwe and a few others. Meanwhile acceptance rates from places like China, Indonesia and Fiji are far lower.

So to compare the countries' refugee status grant rates for 2010-11:

Iraq - Non-boat 93%, boat 90%
Iran - Non-boat 96%, boat 94%
Afghanistan - Non-boat 80%, boat 90%
Sri Lanka - Non-boat 79%, boat 83%

So given that the refugee status grant rates for non-boat arrivals are very high for the countries which also produce all the maritime arrivals, the conclusion really has to be that document destruction isn't creating a big advantage for maritime arrivals.

TL;DR: Most asylum-seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are given refugee status because they come from countries which made them refugees, and they had no alternative in this region but to take their chances with people smuggling operations.