Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » The second boat in a week, Hmm definitely not a one off…

The second boat in a week, Hmm definitely not a one off…

When i wrote about the first of the Rudd regime boat arrivals my leftist commentators were so keen to down play the  implications of that event .

A SECOND boatload of illegal migrants has been intercepted in the Timor Sea while heading for Australia, undermining an assurance by the Rudd Government that Labor’s softening of its refugee policy has not been exploited by people smugglers.

A wooden fishing boat carrying 17 people, believed to be three crew and 14 passengers, landed at an offshore oil facility called the Front Puffin in the Timor Sea at 1.30pm AEST yesterday.

The Front Puffin is located at the Puffin oil field, which is in Australian waters about 700km west of Darwin.

The people in the fishing boat, who are understood to be from the Middle East, were later picked up by the navy. Last night, they were en route to Christmas Island, where they will join a second boatload of suspected asylum-seekers who arrived almost exactly a week before them.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans denied the latest arrival was a consequence of Labor’s recent changes in policy.

“While people smugglers have continued to be active, regional governments have been effective in preventing people-smuggling activities in recent times,” Senator Evans said.

Keri asked

Are there any actual facts to back up your assertion that we will see more boat people in the future? Can you inexorably link any such increase to the policy implemented by Rudd?

The first question has been very clearly answered in the affirmative and the second seems to be very well supported by circumstantial evidence as well.

and Mark L demanded

This is an astonishing bit of crystal ball-gazing on your part, Iain. I trust that in a year’s time, if the quantity of boat people hasn’t increased as per your forecast, you’ll admit that you’re wrong? That’s if you don’t shift those goalposts again.

Perhaps Mark and Keri should be eating the humble pie and admit  that they are the ones who were wrong on this issue.

Cue Leftist wriggling and “yeah but, no but, yeah” Vicky Pollard impersonations 😉

Cheers Comrades

😉

Advertisements

60 Comments

  1. cosmicjester says:

    so two boat arrivals this year, compared to five last year

    where is this sudden increase Iain?

  2. keri says:

    I’ll ask the question again, Iain.

    ” Can you inexorably link any such increase to the policy implemented by Rudd?”

    As Comicjester has pointed out, there were five boat arrivals last year, compared to two this year. Comparatively, we’ve actually seen less this year.

    You haven’t actually proven anything here, Iain. Except maybe that you can count.

  3. Mark L. says:

    It’s amazing that you hammer away at these alleged ‘Warministas’ for their crummy logic and then you produce comedy gold like this, Iain old chap.

    It’s so ludicrous it doesn’t really deserve a reply.

  4. Toaf says:

    I’m looking forward to the rest of this thread.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Names, dates and number of arrivals please because to be honest the only arrival that i remember in the last year was that mob from West Papua
    But looking back through my archive I found this post from November pointing out that there was another arrival during the reign of Brother Number One. So that is three. Where is the proof of the five claimed for the last year of the Howard government?

  6. keri says:

    The one from November would have been part of the five last year, Iain. And I believe the claim was five last year, not five in the last year of the Howard Government?

    I’ve only just had a chance to start looking into this, so I’ll get back to you shortly.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Keri the one last November falls under the watch of Brother number one so it should be considered together with the two most recent boats.
    After all isn’t the point of contention that the change of government changed the minds of people smugglers and their customers?

  8. keri says:

    Not unless someone has changed the calender and November is part of 2008, Iain. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    as you wish Keri , But that still does not make the five claimed by CJ now does it?
    I did a quick google search and could not find em.

  10. keri says:

    That’s because Google is not a research tool, Iain.

    I contacted the Department of Immigration, and they pointed me to this media release from Chris Evans, Minister for Immigration.

    It contains this line: “Senator Evans said it was the second unauthorised boat arrival this year. There were five unauthorised boats last year carrying a total of 148 people”

    So there were 5 boats for a total of 148 people last year, and so far this year, there’s two boats for 29 people.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    I still want to know more about those arrivals Keri and the link you provided does not give any details.

  12. keri says:

    I’ll do my best to get them, Iain, but I think first you should concede that what you’ve written in your post in regards to me is not supported by fact, and, on the contrary, seems to be disputed by fact.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    What have i said in my post about your claim that is wrong ? Only in retrospect will my sad prediction about future boat arrivals actually be shown to be true or false, As much as you and CJ want events of the recent past to disprove my concerns for the future you would have to concede that they don’t do precisely that now do they?

  14. PKD says:

    You could always try the Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au). They may well have the statistics on boat arrivals along with other immigration stats…

  15. keri says:

    “Are there any actual facts to back up your assertion that we will see more boat people in the future? Can you inexorably link any such increase to the policy implemented by Rudd?

    The first question has been very clearly answered in the affirmative and the second seems to be very well supported by circumstantial evidence as well.”

    Given that I’ve provided you with a press release from the relevant department with numbers that dispute that there’s been an increase in interception of boats of “illegal immigrants” this year, your first assertation is incorrect.

    “and the second seems to be very well supported by circumstantial evidence as well”

    First, we’ve got the contradiction in terms that circumstantial evidence can “very well support” any assertation, and then we’ve got the fact that you’ve failed to provide even circumstantial evidence that links an increase with the policy of the Rudd government.

    But of course, you’re not going to be able to are you? Because there isn’t any increase.

  16. keri says:

    I’m having problems trapping the individual boat interceptions from the Department of Immigration, as Kevin Andrews, reprehensible, lying thug that he is, stopped providing details of seizures from Feb of last year.

    I’ll give the department a call again shortly and see what information I can track down. The ABS hasn’t reelased the statistics specifically for boat captures as they aren’t technically “arrivals”, and Customs runs on the financial year, so they haven’t released 2007/2008 yet. I’ve got figures for 2006/2007, but of course I can’t isolate the 2007 figures from the 2006.

  17. cosmicjester says:

    “I still want to know more about those arrivals Keri and the link you provided does not give any details.”

    christ Iain, you didnt provide that much information when you tried to prove that Rudd somehow increased the amount of people smuggling. one rule for us and a different one for you.

    correlation does not imply causation anyway, if they did increase it isnt necessarily because of rudd’s policies. the original spike in boat people in 2001 wasnt because we were seen as a soft target but because indonesia was turning a blind eye to people smugglers as payback for east timor. the decline in numbers afterwards was more to do with relations with indo getting back on track.

    anyway iain, i believe we pwned you pretty good 😉

  18. Iain Hall says:

    🙄
    CJ I am talking about future trends and suggesting that two boats in a week is something that can not be ignored, or easily dismissed, Get that? FUTURE trend, and as the Rudd government have only recently changed their policy.
    I actually hope that I am wrong on this one and I have said so a number of times so unless you have the power to see into the future you can dance around as much as you like about Past events while we wait for the future to become the present and then the past and we will judge if i was right or wrong.

  19. Toaf says:

    This last point about future trends is crucial: two boats in a week carrying 29 people, extrapolated out to the next two and a half years of the Rudd regime, means we may have 260 boats arrive bringing with them 3,770 terrorists/criminals! I hope someone’s pre-ordered the razor wire. Then, of course, we can elect a Turnbull government and we’ll be orright.

  20. Toaf says:

    Oh yeah: I didn’t use a calculator, but in hindsight I perhaps should have.

  21. cosmicjester says:

    dont calculate it by the week toaf, go by hour. let me see, 1 boat in 1 hour, if that trend continues we will have 8760 illegal boat arrivals next year 🙂

  22. keri says:

    Point being, Iain, that you used this as to crow at me and Mark saying that you’d proved my contention that there hadn’t been an increase in boat captures this year incorrect.

    Which, even you would have to admit, is completely baseless. You also quoted me as saying that you could prove a correlation between any increase and Rudd’s policies and said you had circumstantial evidence that proved me wrong.

    How can you have circumstantial evidence that proves a correlation in increase when there isn’t an increase, Iain?

  23. Toaf says:

    Cosmic: LOL!

    TEH FLOODGATES!

  24. Iain Hall says:

    Keri

    Point being, Iain, that you used this as to crow at me and Mark saying that you’d proved my contention that there hadn’t been an increase in boat captures this year incorrect.

    No the point being that when You and Mark responded to my previous post you were both very keen to suggest that the arrival was of no consequence, and maybe that argument could carry the day ,if another boat had not arrived in very quick succession, In my previous post I was merely speculating that is could be the beginning of a new trend this post continues with the same speculations. I will concede that two boats do not prove any trend exists and as amusing Damian’s speculations are if he is even 25% of the way to being right in his extrapolation the numbers would be far more than at any time during the Howard years. Time may yet vindicate my speculations.

    Which, even you would have to admit, is completely baseless. You also quoted me as saying that you could prove a correlation between any increase and Rudd’s policies and said you had circumstantial evidence that proved me wrong.

    I think that you have this sentence rather confused Keri but the fact that the Rudd government has changed its policy on illegal arrivals is significant and I can not for the life of me believe that it will have no effect on the people smuggling business as You and mark are so keen to suggest. Which is precisely why i singled you two out in my post. Of course this whole issue begs the question of just how may illegal arrivals should we be willing to accept and how many we should send back? Care to give us an opinion on that?

    How can you have circumstantial evidence that proves a correlation in increase when there isn’t an increase, Iain?

    my actual words were

    second seems to be very well supported by circumstantial evidence as well.

    No claims of anything being proved here Keri

    Jason
    seems to be a case of arguing two different things to me.

  25. Jason says:

    I have to say Iain – I think you got pwned too, buddy. Time to back out gracefully.

  26. Toaf says:

    I knew this would be a good thread.

  27. Mark L. says:

    No the point being that when You and Mark responded to my previous post you were both very keen to suggest that the arrival was of no consequence, and maybe that argument could carry the day ,if another boat had not arrived in very quick succession

    And if you happen to take two dumps in the same day do you run off to the doctor and tell him you’ve got chronic diarrhea?

    It’s two boats, Iain… two fricken boats. It shows and proves nothing, it can’t be used to prove a trend or to dispute one. You have resorted to trolling at your own blog just to get a bite.

    Of course this whole issue begs the question of just how may illegal arrivals should we be willing to accept and how many we should send back? Care to give us an opinion on that?

    Anyone arriving from England who wants to start up a blog.

  28. Craigy says:

    Ah, Iain uses the old ‘time will tell that I am right’ line.

    Well you claimed that the Bush/Howard wars were going to succeed.

    Buzzz…. wrong.

    You claim that the conservatives are the best economic managers.

    Buzz… wrong again.

    You claim that the intervention in the NT would work given time.

    Buzz… wrong, wrong, wrong.

    You claim that carbon trading will destroy our way of life and what’s left of our economy.

    Buzz… dam it, wrong again (the economy is already gone).

    With that record Iain, I think the odds are good you are wrong again!

  29. keri says:

    “when You and Mark responded to my previous post you were both very keen to suggest that the arrival was of no consequence”

    Bullshit. I asked what facts you had to back up your assertion. I never said – in any manner – that the arrival was “of no consequence”

    “I will concede that two boats do not prove any trend exists”

    Which knocks down your first imaginary point against me.

    “No claims of anything being proved here Keri”

    You claimed you had circumstantial evidence that “very well supported” your claim that there was a link between an increase in arrivals and Rudd policy.

    I’ll ask the question again:

    How can there be circumstantial evidence linking the increase to Rudd policy if there isn’t an increase?

  30. Iain Hall says:

    How can there be circumstantial evidence linking the increase to Rudd policy if there isn’t an increase?

    As I am talking about the future and I lack a Tardis I suggest that you supply the chicken and we can examine its entrails together so that there is no dispute about how we read the future from them.
    As I said, time will tell if I am right and no amount referencing the past is going to make any difference to the future.

    PS
    I still await a response to this from the previous thread

    And since we’re on the downside of the globe, technically, day follows night.(Keri)

    Utterly stupid claim to make as well Keri as we alternate between day and night which one follows the other is dependant upon when you start from. If you start in the day night follows and if you start in the night then day follows, sheesh I expected better than that from you. Which hemisphere you are in has nothing to do with it.
    Moi

  31. keri says:

    Here’s what you said, Iain:

    “The first question has been very clearly answered in the affirmative and the second seems to be very well supported by circumstantial evidence as well.”

    How can the “first question be very clearly answered” without your rhetorical Tardis? And I’ll ask the question for the third time:

    How can there be circumstantial evidence linking the increase to Rudd policy if there isn’t an increase?

    I’ll keep asking it until I get an answer.

    As for the above, if you couldn’t tell that was a joke, I feel sorry for you.

    And while we’re reminding each other about unaswered comments, how about:

    – The one where you fail to respond to my questions about moderate carbon reduction

    – Your complete ignorance of my completion of your “Just name ten Christian lefties” challenge.

  32. Iain Hall says:

    I’ll keep asking it until I get an answer.

    Well you do that But I have given you an answer and you will have to live with the fact that it is not the answer that you want.

    As for the above, if you couldn’t tell that was a joke, I feel sorry for you.

    Really? Hmm I think that joke is that you said something silly and now you are trying to wriggle out from under….. 😆

    – The one where you fail to respond to my questions about moderate carbon reduction

    For crying out loud we must have fully exhausted that one surely 🙄

    – Your complete ignorance of my completion of your “Just name ten Christian lefties” challenge.

    Your links did not work for the majority of them and those I did check out did not show much devotion to the Christian faith in their writing, for instance you cited “Bron” who is too hate filled to be any kind of Christian.

  33. Craigy says:

    Time has proven you wrong….

    Time and time again……

  34. Iain Hall says:

    On this occasion as me being wrong would mean less miserable souls being exploited by people smugglers I will wear it with good grace 😉
    Because I care…

  35. Craigy says:

    If you did truly care Iain, not just care when it suits you ideology, you would have been calling for the end of mandatory detention, an increase in our refugee program and a massive increase in our foreign aid.

  36. Iain Hall says:

    If you did truly care Iain, not just care when it suits you ideology

    I feel grossly insulted by this comment Craigy, I am a compassionate man. Why is it that the left think that they have a monopoly on compassion?

    , you would have been calling for the end of mandatory detention,

    Sure lets have mandatory repatriation instead, the reality is that those slated for removal have a nasty habit of not being available for deportation when they have exhausted the appeals processes how would you solve that problem?

    an increase in our refugee program

    I don’t think that this is a good idea because this country already does enough of this.

    and a massive increase in our foreign aid.

    There is a great possibility that aid is going to be the first causality of a world wide recession so don’t hold you breath on that one.

  37. Iain Hall says:

    sorry Damian but i was too lazy to type “comment pending”

  38. Craigy says:

    Iain, you say you are compassionate yet you support the mandatory detention of woman and children just because a few disappear, this is not a compassionate view.

    We are a very rich country who could afford to increase our refugee program with very little problem. What would Iain Hall, compassionate man, say to the starving kid, whose life is in danger and wants to come to Australia……hmmmmm?

    Do you personally sponsor any aid Mr compassionate man? Would you be happy to stop feeding your kids from the fine Scottish restaurant to aid the poor in other countries?

    Why should we not be giving all we can in order that others may have a life?

  39. Iain Hall says:

    Iain, you say you are compassionate yet you support the mandatory detention of woman and children just because a few disappear, this is not a compassionate view.

    As I said i support swift decisions on illegal arrivals about may stay and then an equally swift repatriation to their countries of origin if it is determined that they cannot stay here.

    We are a very rich country who could afford to increase our refugee program with very little problem. What would Iain Hall, compassionate man, say to the starving kid, whose life is in danger and wants to come to Australia……hmmmmm?

    Yes Craigy you and those like you keep saying this sort of thing but where do we draw the line? Come on you tell us just how many “refugees’ we should accept?

    Do you personally sponsor any aid Mr compassionate man? Would you be happy to stop feeding your kids from the fine Scottish restaurant to aid the poor in other countries?

    Yes and no

    Why should we not be giving all we can in order that others may have a life?

    What if giving actually does more harm than good?

  40. Toaf says:

    Iain, I’d like to know how you respond to Craigy’s scenario, too. If you are standing before a malnourished child whose family has fled a war zone, will you be able to explain that you cannot permit entry to Australia because it will open the floodgates? If so, then compassion is clearly secondary to something else.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    Damain
    The problem is not that individual child but the larger one of the reasons for that child’s suffering. The brutal fact is that we can not allow every starving child into Australia and i ask you once again just where do we draw the line?

  42. Toaf says:

    Iain, I am not a policy maker and don’t have the information I’d need to come up with a number. That said, it is clear that Australia can do far more than it does at present.

  43. Iain Hall says:

    Come on Damian you must have some idea of where you would draw the line , a ball park figure will do.

  44. Mark L. says:

    How about we let in ten boats Iain. Then you’ve at least got a chance of naming ten, just ten.

  45. Toaf says:

    Iain: a million. 😉
    Mark: LOL.

  46. Iain Hall says:

    And what would you say to “starving” refugee number 1,000,001 Damian?

  47. Mark L. says:

    I would say “Bad luck, you’ve just missed winning a car for being our one-millionth refugee”.

  48. Toaf says:

    I’d make an exception based on their need. The number is only there to keep nasty people happy.

  49. Iain Hall says:

    So you are effectively saying we should take everyone who asks to come to this country?

  50. Toaf says:

    Let me put it this way, Iain. I know what you want me to say and how you will represent my view, and I don’t care.

    In fifty years’ time, an estimated 30 million people will be displaced by sea level rise in the Bangladesh delta. That’s one example. Similar displacement may take place elsewhere for different reasons, environmental or political.

    If you and I are living in a house on a nice block in a nice suburb, and up the road an entire village is starving to death, it is immoral for us to lock the gate and say we have no space. We have plenty of space, and people are in need.

    There will be a limit to the number of people that Australia can support. I don’t know what it is – even though you insist on me using a ball park figure so you can play “gotcha” – but it is much higher than our current population.

    While people are starving and dying and we have food and space it is immoral to lock the gate. There will come a time when a decision must be made about whether more people can be supported. We can only hope that we have competent, compassionate, ethical leaders in place at that time.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    Let me put it this way, Iain. I know what you want me to say and how you will represent my view, and I don’t care.

    In fifty years’ time, an estimated 30 million people will be displaced by sea level rise in the Bangladesh delta. That’s one example. Similar displacement may take place elsewhere for different reasons, environmental or political.

    And your evidence that sea level will rise enough to displace those people is what exactly? Here we go on the AGW express again 🙄

    If you and I are living in a house on a nice block in a nice suburb, and up the road an entire village is starving to death, it is immoral for us to lock the gate and say we have no space. We have plenty of space, and people are in need.

    Assuming(for the sake of argument) your environmental disaster Perhaps a better analogy is that of shipwreck survivors in life boat that is already full traversing a debris field where there are many desperate survivors who may want to scramble into the boat, but if we let “compassion” overrule good sense and take on as many from the sea as want to climb into that small boat it will surely founder and everyone will be drowned. then effectively no one will survive, so what would your compassion really have achieved?

    There will be a limit to the number of people that Australia can support. I don’t know what it is – even though you insist on me using a ball park figure so you can play “gotcha” – but it is much higher than our current population.

    Really? Just how are you going to decide where to draw the line ? at the point where every inch of productive land is devoted to feeding people? what about the native fauna? are we to degrade the environment so much in the name of “compassion” that the Australian environment will like the life boat founder? where is the water and energy going to come from for these new people ? especially if the green religion tells us that we should cease using coal as an energy source? Don’t be fooled by the large land mass here we have the driest continent on earth after Antarctica.

    While people are starving and dying and we have food and space it is immoral to lock the gate. There will come a time when a decision must be made about whether more people can be supported. We can only hope that we have competent, compassionate, ethical leaders in place at that time.

    Just letting innumerable refugees into this country is not a solution to their suffering because if they come here with the same mindsets that have led to the destruction of their own environments then they bring with then the seeds of our own destruction.You see from my point of view what has exasperated this problem is in fact an excess of compassion in the first place mainly from the spread of effective modern medicine which has allowed many of the people who may have died from so many diseases to survive and what we are seeing now in the overpopulated third world is the legacy of that.

  52. Mark L. says:

    And your evidence that sea level will rise enough to displace those people is what exactly?

    Don’t you live in ‘Ocean View’? Isn’t Ocean View about 50km from the coast and at the foot of a mountain range? What evidence is there that you can actually view the ocean from Ocean View?

    Just letting innumerable refugees into this country is not a solution to their suffering because if they come here with the same mindsets that have led to the destruction of their own environments then they bring with then the seeds of our own destruction.

    Iain, if we are operating on the presumption that that man-made global warming does lead to ocean level rises then it won’t be the people of Bangladesh or Bandeh Aceh or Borneo who frigged up their environments – it will have been Western countries, India and China. But what’s more interesting is your fundamental view of people in poverty-stricken countries: ‘They’ve stuffed up their own country, I don’t want them stuffing up mine’. In other words, you don’t want them here because they’re dirty and nasty and might do horrid things that changes your way of life – and that is the mark of a xenophobe, if not a bigot.

  53. Toaf says:

    Iain, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond. I could answer all of your questions, but neither of us would gain much by me doing so. All I can say is that we disagree fundamentally.

    Reading your comment, though, I do wonder whether you have read the work of Garrett Hardin. If not, you may find his essay, ‘Lifeboat Ethics’. I disagree with Hardin (on this and other issues) but his work is certainly provocative, and that’s often what we need when contending with matters of this magnitude.

  54. Toaf says:

    Ah bugger. That should say, “you may find his essay, ‘Lifeboat Ethics’, of interest.” I’m having a Barry Crocker.

  55. Iain Hall says:

    Mark
    I have zero respect for your opinion on this because you are just using the issue to attack me personally, as usual. 🙄

    Damian
    that is a very interesting essay and it makes many of the points that I was trying to get towards . this is a difficult issue and one that i think that we can agree is not going to be amenable to simple solutions. I respect that you are personally involved in trying to work on the problem but I suspect that by doing so you are maybe a bit too close to see the bigger picture.

  56. Mark L. says:

    I have zero respect for your opinion on this because you are just using the issue to attack me personally, as usual.

    No, I’m attacking your views – and you are avoiding the question, as usual. You don’t want the little brown people in our country because they have stuffed up theirs (a bizarre stance for someone who’s an immigrant himself) and now you refuse to engage in debate about why or how this has happened.

    In the news today, the Rudd government has put the number of migrants up to 200,000 per annum or 20% more than previously. More power to his arm I say.

  57. Iain Hall says:

    Mark this is a personal attack

    But what’s more interesting is your fundamental view of people in poverty-stricken countries: ‘They’ve stuffed up their own country, I don’t want them stuffing up mine’. In other words, you don’t want them here because they’re dirty and nasty and might do horrid things that changes your way of life – and that is the mark of a xenophobe, if not a bigot.

    The fact is that I have not claimed said people are “dirty or nasty” you misrepresent the point that I am trying to make here and instead you are just intent on scoring cheap points. But that is nothing new for you.

    And so is this

    No, I’m attacking your views – and you are avoiding the question, as usual. You don’t want the little brown people in our country because they have stuffed up theirs (a bizarre stance for someone who’s an immigrant himself) and now you refuse to engage in debate about why or how this has happened.

    If the colour of their skin mattered to me I would say so, It doesn’t so I don’t. As for my being an Immigrant myself, I had no real choice in the matter as I was a child when we came here and That is the good fortune of my own personal history in all practical terms I am no different to any person who was born here in my devotion to Australia.

    In the news today, the Rudd government has put the number of migrants up to 200,000 per annum or 20% more than previously. More power to his arm I say.

    That may well change if the meltdown is a serious as some commentators expect this will be a very bad idea in a climate of rising unemployment.

  58. […] this year Posted on November 29, 2008 by Iain Hall When I previously wrote (here and here) about the way that the changes made by Brother Number One to the policy of detaining illegal […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: