Talk:Pacific Solution

Cost of the pacific solution

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) - $69.9 million

Administered Items

$52.7m adjustment for strengthened assistance to the Solomon Islands; ($0.2m) adjustment for policing assistance to East Timor; and $15.5m adjustment for the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nauru. [1]

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The cost of the Pacific Solution is much higher than the figures stated here. As soon as the article is unlocked, I will add the newer figures (with references).--Lester 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs work

What we basically have here right now is a definition of the Pacific Solution followed by criticism. The cost is listed as a "criticism" and the links are mostly to groups who oppose the PS.

We need to present the arguments for and against this policy as both exist - The article makes it look like a government policy everyone hates. 70.189.213.149 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation 9, which is in support of the claim "Only around 40% of Pacific Solution boatpeople were granted Australian Visa's, another 30% went to other countries and another 30% were sent home. This compares to around a 90% approval when coming via boat through the current Rudd/Gillard Scheme." This citation links to a Human Rights Commission submission which doesn't discuss approval numbers at all and in any case is dated 2006, so could not possible attempt to compare approval percentages before and after the PS.

Suggest replacement of this citation with a 'citation needed' tag on the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.170.94 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This citation 9 has been replaced with a citation needed, but I think the sentence itself should be removed, further down in the comments there is a year/boat/people chart that if sourced, would be more effective in solving the perceived bias against the pacific solution. But right now the sentence itself seems to be unfounded. Suggest deletion, sourcing, or replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.54.209 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The number of genuine refugees who were put through the Pacific Solution process was much lower than those who are currently seeking asylum. Only around 40% of Pacific Solution refugees were granted Australian Visas, another 30% went to other countries such as New Zealand (who have the right to settle in Australia) and another 30% were sent home.[citation needed]" has issues:

(1) The first sentence is not a statement of fact: needs citation. (2) The remaining statistics are false: see citation [2] in the article that states "96% of refugees were resettled in Australia and NZ. --> Therefore this sentence should be removed if not cited. Antenatruth (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Transportation and penal transportation

Please explain why thie link from 'transportation' to 'penal transportation' is being undone...???? Paki.tv 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article you keep directing it to deals with the dealing of "convicted" criminals. The transportation that is described is of people who have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The rescue operations conducted by the Australian Navy are in fact just that. The are Humanitarian transports, usually saving people from the dilapidated craft they are on. If you think they are "penal" journeys then you need a reference describing it so. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I take the point. The claim is verging on OR ... Paki.tv 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found a reference. Hope thats OK with you ;> Paki.tv 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't meet the definition of Penal transportation, the article you are trying to link to. Let me quote from that articles first line; "penal transportation is used to refer to the deporting of convicted criminals to a penal colony". Like I said before the unauthorised arrivals to Australia were not convicted of any crime and the islands in question are not penal colonies. This is another case of you synthesizing facts out of the opinions of a single non notable person. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So John Howard and the government of Australia are non notable? i don't think so. As for penal transportation, the author maybe obscure but it is a contemporary topic and this is an encyclopaedia entry - not a tabloid or 'gutter' press article - as such it is well researched as well as verifiable. as i have stated, check the article. i have added a reference addition to the definition of transportation. Paki.tv 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the point I am making. Why are you claiming these people have been "convicted" of a crime as is required to fit the definition of Penal transportation? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK yes, sorry - I've changed the definition - How now? Paki.tv 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes firstPaki.tv 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that a more correct and WP:NPOV term would be "transferred" which is the word used by a majority of discussions on the subject. "Transportation" is only supported by a single rather obscure reference and even then, it doesn't make the assocation, just the analogy. I recommend that the expressed "Transportation" is removed from the lede and a comment is made in the body of the text only the lines of "Some commentators have likened the policy to transportation" with the appropriate wikilinks. There is no need for changes at Penal Transportation as the discussion is about the Pacific Solution being likened to something rather than the other way around. Shot info 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias

We seem to have a couple of sentances on what the Pacific Solution is, followed by paragraphs of critisism of the policy. The 'equal weight' given to both sides of the argument is not here. I think it needs a re-write. Matt5091 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

More information on why you feel it could be bias and what sections need a re-write? Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be to add some praise of the Pacific solution, or criticism of its end. I've made a step in this direction. Cap'nTrade (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a claim that a report says that the Pacific Solution did not reduce the amount of arrivals. This is clearly an opinion and not one of actual fact as the government numbers show they did infact drop signficantly after the implementation of the Pacific Solution: [2] Therefore the opinions of a non-government leftwing organisation are being contradicted with actual figures, I request the last point of the Pacific Solution not reducing arrivals be removed as the claim is clearly false. Crocodile2009 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not 'clearly false'. Correlation is not causation. 27.32.126.190 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Correlation is not causation"

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" was the Latin label for the logical fallacy of attributing causation to a prior event just because it was prior. However, the simplest and most often ignored rule of aetiology is that no effect can occur before its cause. As a result, an aetiologist works backwards from the effect, testing for causal links.

Monsoons? Push factors? Both fail the test. The only factor alleged to have stopped the flow of boat people which checks out is the "failed Pacific Solution.

Unauthorised boat arrivals

Year Boats People

1999 86 3721

2000 51 2939

2001 43 5516

2002 1 1

2003 1 53

2004 1 15

2005 4 11

2006 6 60

2007 5 148

2008 7 161

2009 59 2828

2010

6 mos 59 2982

Correlation is not causation, but correlation is certain one effect of causation. The numbers are, I believe, quite convincing. Tom Lawson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.143.196 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless this ignores statistics of boats intercepted outside of Australian waters and in either, Australia's exclusive economic zone that is also international waters or in Indonesian waters with forward defence and with permission to intercept with the Indonesia government. Thus the statistics are unreliable and paint a rosy picture.Liberalcynic1 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

These statistics also ignore the SIEV's that sunk or where otherwise lost track of. Antenatruth (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I think you do reveal your bias even though the numbers do appear strong in isolation for 2009. You are selective in your data, ignoring available information before 1999. Very sloppy and suspect as it is typical of the cherry-picking we see to bolster so-called conservative politics now. You dismiss 'push factors', but how do you explain the big jump from virtually nothing during the '90s in 1999-2001? Howard Government policies or the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan? Or Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s. Fraser policies or the end of the American War in Vietnam? How is the end of the Sri Lankan civil war different? Or a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan? Both in 2009. Asylum seeker numbers were rising everywhere into 2009 as shown by the UNHCR - an inconvenient correlation it seems.

And can you be sure that the so-called 'people smugglers' are not more prevalent or crafty now. There is also the High Court case in 2010 that ruled the 'procedural unfairness' which was one point in the deterrent of asylum seekers was invalid and those shunted to a Pacific Island had to have the same rules and rights of appeals as other. This arguably makes the 'Pacific Solution' less effective as a deterrent. It is very clear that factors other than the government response of the day is involved.

All this doesn't necessarily negate the idea that changed policy attracted some people, but it means any numbers game on 'correlation' has to be qualified. This article isn't the semi-literate mob spouting xenophobic crap they have learnt from a shock jock...Gmelina (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation here being spread about what actually has been happening in worldwide asylum seeker numbers. We are told that the Pacific Solution wasn't the cause of the sudden decrease in asylum seeker numbers from 5500 in 2001 to only 1 single arrival in 2002 and this is because of the Afghan War(weird connection there). However numbers from the UNHCR disagree. Worldwide asylum seeker numbers actually peaked in 2002.. not decreased. After the 2002 peak the numbers were indeed on a downward trend, with ups and downs but never returned to their previous 2002 high. Indeed 2010 numbers were about half those reached in 2002. You can see this graph for yourself here: UNHCR Asylum Numbers

So as we can see on the UNHCR graph asylum seeker numbers overall have been on a downward trend since 2002's peak. So now we must look at other reasons why Australia's number dropped to almost Nil in 2002 from a previous high of 5500 despite 2002 being a peak year for Asylum Seekers. Then we must look at what happened in 2008-2009 which in the UNHCR chart was on a downward trend yet Australia's boatpeople number increased from 160 to 2900 arrivals. 2 very clear and concise changes that can't be explained away with worldwide asylum factors. We may get a 3rd chance to see another clear and concise change when Abbott introduces Pacific Solution Phase 2.Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Very little due diligence has been even attempted on this subject (or in this "debate", as i keep hearing), and given that the relevant statistics are easily available, I would have to presume that either widespread statistical illiteracy or the fingers-in-the-ears principle are at work here.

Of interest are the UNHCR figures for Afghanistan available here in PDF [[3]]

In section D, the number of "Refugees/Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan" worldwide dropped from 3.8 million in 2001 to 2.5 million in 2002, again dropping to 2.1 million in 2003 (2004: 2.4m , 2005: 2.1m where the figures cut out). This is a definite drop in refugees outside of Afghanistan, but where do 1.6 million people go?

Well, go to section A, and you will see 1.9 million refugees returned to Afghanistan in 2002 alone. Why so high a figure? That's because, in the same table, you will notice that in 2001 there were 1.2 million Internally Dispaced Persons(IDPs) within the borders of Afghanistan and 0.75 million of them resettled in 2002. This ties in very well with the development of the current Afghanistan War, which began in October 2001 and ousted the Taliban from control of the country.

Since then the war has certainly not de-escalated, but the statistics show that for a number of years refugees had the confidence to go back to their country and resettle.

The situation in Afghanistan can best be represented by this map [[4]], which shows a resurgent Taliban recapturing a lot of their former influence and control. The question is: what is the push effect of this new development?

To digress slightly, a graph that might be interesting is the number of Coalition Military Casualties during the war, [[5]]. This gives an idea of the war's increasing intensity.

Also of interest is: [[6]]. This section gives a concise picture of the troop surges during the war, to a peak of 100,000 US troops alone in 2011. It's unclear whether the deployment and withdrawal of troops has helped or harmed the war effort, but certain public relations disasters have almost certainly helped the Taliban insurgency, notably the "August 2008 Azizabad airstrike in Herat Province, which killed 91 civilians, including 60 children and 15 women." Continuing, "The attack sparked protest over "collateral damage"; with a 40% increase in civilian deaths in 2008." (Push effects?)

So it is hard to decide what the biggest push factor is, because there are different regions of Afghanistan (Taliban-era refugees had a large component of shi'ite Hazara, to name one regional group), and the Taliban is a problem also in Pakistan where most refugee camps are, as seen by this report of a bombing in a Pakistani camp: [[7]] Any push effects here?

In the absence of data, I can only speculate. But I do so with much more real evidence to hand than the maker of that irrelevant graph on the page of our subject in question.

Of further interest is a paper “Destination anywhere? Factors affecting asylum seekers' choice of destination country” ([[8]]) written by Harriet Spinks the co-author of “Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976” on which our incognito graph plotter partly based their work. ([[9]]) Monsieur Puppy (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias

The use of the expression 'illegal entrant' is biased. It is not illegal to enter Australia and seek asylum to the best of my knowledge. RichardA64 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) IT is certainly not illegal under Australian law vis-a-vis the treaties we have ratified. Liberalcynic1 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree: all references to "unauthorised" is irrelevant as above. Antenatruth (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is illegal to attempt entry to any country without a visa or through other than an official entry point. These people are attempting to unlawfully enter Australia so it is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.114.48 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To the previous unsigned contribution, an unsigned reply: It is in general (and certainly in Australia) perfectly legal to enter a country without a visa and not through an official entry point if your reason for doing so is a legitimate claim to asylum. The Howard-era criticism of "boat people", while rarely spelled out explicitly, was that a large fraction of their number were not legitimate asylum seekers but were, instead, economic migrants (Remember: Like it or not, living in poverty and in a country with repressive social norms does not make you a legitimate asylum seeker). This, then, was the basis for the endless arguments over whether such people were entering the country illegally. The truth, as an honest broker might expect, is that some of them were illegal and some of them were perfectly legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.65.110 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of legality in claiming asylum, by whatever means, needs clarification. On the face of it, it is not illegal to claim asylum, nor to enter a country to do so, but issue and discussion should be about Australian and International law, not the party-political views of people who have been duped by muck-raking politicians and shock jocks. Actually, this isn't always condemned for political purposes, but is often celebrated for propaganda reasons, ie when people "illegally" escaped from East Germany to West Germany without permission from either place.Gmelina (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Bipartisan means with the involvement of 2 groups/individuals(bi), each with significantly differing(partisan) views. Possibly non-partisan would be more appropriate.

Bipartisan is not hyphenated, just as bicycle binoculars binary biped biplane bisect etc,etc.... are not hy-phenated. Be-ware in-accurate spell-checks.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This article was tagged in 2008 as "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Is there consensus that the article is now balanced? And can the POV tag be removed? If not could you provide some advice or assist with finding the balance. CamV8 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I’d say remove it now. If someone says there’s a problem, chances are it isn’t the same issue from 2008.

Personally I think POV tags are bad news, although I admit to using them too. It’s something that all readers (remember them?) see – yet editors often seem to use them as a weapon in content disputes between other editors, with little regard to the actual users. POV tags regularly seem to be used as kind of a hostage tool. Ie, “This is staying here til I get my way, and don’t remove it til there’s agreement cause that’s what the tag says. Oh, and I only agree to what I want, so let it stay”. Some tags have been around for years. They are often selfish signs of childish and cantakerous tantrums. --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boat Arrivals image POV

A discussion is underway at [10] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the juxtaposition of the numbers of arrivals and the pacific solution policy could lead the reader to believe that a causal link has been established. The graph does not contain enough information (for e.g if the number of arrivals is the numerator, what is the denominator or quantum? What world events may have affected the numbers seeing asylum?), and therefore does not stand alone in my opinion. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should go at the talk page of the image as it is used in a number of articles dealing with the subject. [11] Djapa Owen (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kelly assertion biassed?

The last line of the section ==Suspension of the policy== states "Since the abandonment of the policy there has been a massive increase in arrivals by sea of asylum seekers, with over 45,000 arriving since 2008." with a reference from the tabloid journalist Paul Kelly who is not known for neutrality. Does it really make sense to include such a sweeping assertion when we do not have consensus about whether correlation equates to causality here on the discussion page? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the claim isn't true? If not, why not? Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we have consensus about reporting correlation as causality? That is the real question here. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the data can be correlated to government policy is NOT true, and that IS what the claim is, end of story.--Monsieur Puppy (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Need more discussion

I'd like to mention that the comment "Graph is irrelevant because Afghans make less than 20% of illegal arrivals. Try UNHCR Worldwide Asylum Claim numbers instead" left as an edit summary properly belonged on this talk page, especially considering it was accompanied by a deletion. So let me kick off the discussion by asking for references to the claims being made. We are actually building a concensus based on readily available information about the subject at hand. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The quoted statement is totally illogical with or without references, as the arrivals under discussion are not illegal under Australian or international law. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I do of course have the stats that show Afghans make less than 20% of illegal arrivals now, but as you are the instigator of the graph it's up to you to prove otherwise it shouldn't be my job to fact check your claims. Also the graph has major issues in that if a majority of Afghans returned home in 2002, what relevence does the graph have from then on? Of course nothing. What if every single Afghan returned home, would that cause more boats or less? Common sense dictates your added Afghan returnees is therefore irrelevent. I've told you what you need to do to remain non-biased and want to include push factors... worldwide UNHCR Asylum Claim Numbers, here it is here to get you started: http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/files/2012_Asylum_Trends.pdf

Also you have doubled up on a graph which is already on the page, take your complaints and recommended changes to the Talk Page for the main GraphCrocodile2009 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You realise that you are engaging in an edit war by removing the graph twice. The object seems to be to remove from view relevant information. That aside, it is difficult to make perfect sense of your objections, given that you were involved in the development of the other graph on this page, and one that has been continually objected to as an NPOV violation, i don't strictly agree now, so i haven't removed it (twice), i ask you to extend the same courtesy. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

SIEVs

In response to the comment Boat Arrivals under Howard were designated Suspected ILLEGAL Arrival Vessels, please check facts first before editing left in an edit summary (!), i'll direct you to the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[12]], "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" is the term used, this is current official usage. Thats what i checked before i edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Puppy (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Monsieur Puppy (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)