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: 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)

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.

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.