Deport the journos

The transfer of the boat people from the Tampa to the Australian navy ship Minoora, for transport to Papua New Guinea, is imminent.

Contributors in this post are:

Fact box: Tyrone M Carlin, Andrew Solomon and JW Steen

Conversations: Colin Hubert, Venky Raman and Andrew Tan

Solutions: Barrie Stephens

Talkback: Andrew Cave

Meeja Watch: Jack Robertson

New Zealand view: Grant Neill

Norwegian view: Olav Torvund

Overseas view: Hansi Mann, Michael Sullivan

Australians for Howard: Helen O'Mara, John Ludlow, David McFadden

Australians against Howard: Glenn Murray, Nizza Siano, Steve Colman, Chris Dunne

FACT BOX

Tyrone M Carlin

My analysis of the reader contributions contained in the last five postings is as follows:

1) 23 postings approved of the government position in relation to the "Tampa Affair"

2) 75 postings opposed the government position in relation to the "Tampa Affair"

Give or take a decimal or two, this is roughly 25% for, and 75% against.

Interestingly, this result appears to be almost precisely the inverse of the support/opposition ratios compiled during the past week on the basis of broader underlying datasets.

Conclusion: Political actors may find it possible to cut research costs dramatically by simply relying on the Herald as a relatively robust contrarian indicator.

Long live clusters of recalcitrant outliers!

Andrew Solomon in Leichhardt, Sydney

If this situation weren't so awful for the folk involved, it would be absolutely hilarious. So, Nauru has "agreed" to take the majority of the asylum seekers. Some facts about Nauru from the CIA world factbook:

Coastline: 30 km

Terrain: sandy beach rises to fertile ring around raised coral reefs with phosphate plateau in centre (sounds like a holiday resort, no?)

Land use: arable land: 0%, permanent crops: 0%, permanent pastures: 0%, forests and woodland: 0%, other: 100% (Us Aussies: "But how can the country support these people with so few natural resources of our own?")

Environment - Current issues: limited natural fresh water resources, roof storage tanks collect rainwater, but mostly dependent on a single, aging desalination plant (come on over, but it's BYO) and intensive phosphate mining during the past 90 years - mainly by a UK, Australia, and New Zealand consortium - has left the central 90% of Nauru a wasteland and threatens limited remaining land resources (Bloody CIA-green-left bleeding hearts -it's not a 5-star resort - so what?)

Population: 11,845

Revenues: $23.4 million

Expenditures: $64.8 million

Economic aid: -$2.25 million from Australia

Televisions: 500

Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA (most of them don't know what's about to hit them)

Military: Nauru maintains no defence forces; under an informal agreement, Australia is responsible for defense of the island (but they're about to learn all about trust).

J.W. Steen

Not to diminish the human tragedy, but let us set the emotional issues aside for a moment so as not to confuse the simpler practical issues that help to set the scene for the tragedy.

There are a lot of Aussies expressing self-serving opinions in various media forums based on ignorance regarding Australia's contribution in accepting refugees. To the detriment of their fellow Aussies, they do it in foreign newspapers as well. Worse still, many of them take the opportunity to disparage Norway into the bargain.

No doubt that Australia's contributions are as valuable as they are welcomed, but it seems only Aussies are ignorant about Norway's record. There can hardly be a more potent way to exacerbate the damage Australia's international reputation has already suffered in handling the "Tampa" affair, than for Aussies to make snide remarks about the humanitarian record of Norway, of all countries.

It is a shotgun blast in the collective Australian foot. Norway's record is too well known and admired by all civilised and well informed people around the world.

The rest of the developed world knows only too well that at the top of the list of humanitarian donors per capita are Denmark and Norway, towering head and shoulders above all. Amazingly, the two small countries are also ranked 5th and 6th in total donations. (See UNHCR table at the end.)

The following UNHCR figures are from 1998, but with the established trend, they are likely to be too favourable to Oz in terms of the present)

Denmark donates .99% of their GNP,

Norway: .90%

Sweden: .53%

Finland: .32%

Canada: .29%

and the "True Blue", donate a whopping .27%!

According to UNHCR figures:

Denmark accepted one refugee/asylum seekers, per 77 citizens, Norway one per every 90 citizens, Canada, sparsely populated like Oz, accepted one per every 193 citizens. And Australia? Australia accepted one per every 454 citizens.

Come one Andre Louette, Australia, who in BBC's forum had the temerity to offer a clanger like: "We are compassionate and take in many genuine refugees (unlike Norway)..." Norway offers a home to 5 times as many refugees/asylum seekers per capita as Australia, and Denmark 6 times as many!

The Prime Minister was quoted as saying: "On a per capita basis, Australia takes more refugees than any country other than Canada and we will continue to do that." Amazing, Canada is not even at the top of the list. According to UNHCR records, Norway takes in twice as many refugees per capita as even Canada, Denmark even more. The world can only stand by in wonderment at the illusions of the "Wizard of Oz" at the helm of Australia.

The latest figures from the UN High Commission for Refugees records 2001 government Donors to UNHCR over US$100,000 as of 23 July 2001.

Rank Donor (USD)

1 U.S.A 166,011,000

2. Japan 84,631,517

3 Sweden 37,434,411

4 Netherlands 30,127,210

5 Denmark 25,982,065

6 Norway 25,339,148

7 European Commission 23,464,096

8 U.K. 16,323,276

9 Germany 14,226,531

10 Canada 12,857,656

11 Switzerland 10,691,713

12 Finland 10,166,733

13 Australia 9,486,335

Never mind per capita, even in total amount, Norway, with less than 1/4 of Australia's population gives over 21/2 times as much. (25,453,128 vs 9,486,355)

Tell your readers to suss it out, give the Norwegians a fair go and quit whining on the international stage! Do it soon, before the "Ozzies" from Oz become international caricature figures like the hillbilly "McCoys" from the Oz-arks.

CONVERSATIONS

Colin Hubert in Sydney

I usually restrain myself from arguing politics with people in the cab I

drive, but...

I had a fun night tonight, I was on a high because, early in the shift, I picked up two blokes from

Glebe, took them to Clovelly, and argued the Tampa case with them all the way.

They started it. Their first shock was that I didn't have the predictable opinions. Their next shock was that I knew a bit about the issues. Their biggest shock was that I was ready, willing, and able to argue them.

Anyway, I argued them into the ground. There were several 'touche' moments. The best of them was when one of them started on the line about these people in boats being 'opportunists'. I said "Opportunists? What have you got against opportunism, mate? Our economy runs on opportunism! What are ya, a commo???!!!"

These two guys were as well briefed as I on the figures, but hadn't thought of things from the other point of view, about the motivations of asylum seekers. They told me that one of them is in the army SAS and the other works at ADF (Australian Defence Forces) on defence resources.

Anyway, I did get these fellows to agree that, if they were in the position of that Afghani cabdriver, they would have done the same as he did. We ended up shaking hands and thanking each other for the fine debate.

I would rather be standing on the shore with arms wide open to welcome people, than hiding behind a rock with a gun.

Queue Jump

Venky Raman

It is patently unfair if Australia lets in the "refugees" of the Tampa ship. What about those who have been waiting legally for months and years to get their chance to migrate to Australia? Should they also take a leaking boat? Aren't we encouraging such adventures if we allow these people because of the media cry?

Andrew Tan in Sydney

What's wrong with jumping queues? Put yourself in their shoes.

Famine, lack of personal freedom, fundamentalist government and decades of civil war and their independence struggle with the Soviet Union - there wouldn't be anyone in Afghanistan who have known any peace in their lives.

It is natural that they would want to escape their ravaged country and seek out a better live somewhere else. Yes, they are jumping queues.If you were an Afghan, you would too!

SOLUTIONS:

Barrie Stephens in Alice Springs

Here is a note I sent to my local MP with a proposed policy in regard to Asylum Seekers. From:

To Warren.Snowdon, ALP, Northern territory

I heard you on ABC radio while driving across town (in connection with teaching English to a Sudanese refugee). I was sad that Labor had not totally opposed the government's actions in regard to the Tampa and its "passengers", but glad the Opposition had defeated the PM's "towing-out-to-sea" legislation in the Senate.

Clearly, the PM is going to use immigration as an issue at the next election. But Labor does not yet seem to have come up with a very clear policy on asylum seekers. I confess to being a bleeding heart who would go very easy on those seeking asylum. But I realise that such a viewpoint has no appeal out in the electorate.

Consequently, may I suggest to you a policy that would have components which would have support amongst both sides of the asylum seeker debate.

Firstly, although Mr Phillip Ruddock is someone straight out of the novel 1984 (being a minister of immigration who in fact mostly deals with non-immigration), he recently enunciated quite a good idea. Namely, that those who turned up after having thrown away their identity documents would be treated less generously than those who arrived with such documentation or who could clearly prove their identity (through relatives, DNA, etc, etc).

By widely publicising the commencement date of such a policy, and then rigorously implementing it, a clear message would be sent that, in my opinion, would considerably reduce the number of asylum seekers whose objective claims for asylum lacked merit.

The differentiation in treatment between those who are carrying valid identification documents and those who are not could include, for the former group, the right to live in the community while applications are being processed, work permits, welfare assistance and so on; for the latter group, something like we have now, except maybe a bit more severe so as to send the right message. Moreover, when those in the former group are granted refugee status they could be given permanent residence status, while those in the latter group would receive the current temporary visas being handed out.

.... The final point of my suggested policy would be that asylum seekers who turn out to have qualifications and experience of value to Australia (ie, doctors, IT specialists, etc) be invited to apply for permanent residence on the basis of their skills, and if successful no longer have to prove their refugee status. I have already heard of one doctor going straight from a detention centre to a rural hospital in Victoria. Why go to the hassle of a full refugee status audit for such a person? There's a doctor sitting in a detention centre in Sydney at the moment; he'd be a major human resource asset here in central Australia.

TALK BACK

Andrew Cave in Kuraby, Queensland

Talk-back can be defined as a media system with a central, charismatic figure and a willing audience. The host becomes a gatekeeper, controlling access to the public sphere through control of technology and the power of the media outlet's brand.

Talk-back radio flourishes best in times of moral or social crisis. Indeed it prefers to view all things in terms of moral crisis whenever possible. Ideally it allows intensely personal feelings like religious bigotry, obsessive fears about sex, of the young and of personal irrelevance to be aired in public, in an environment that allows these feelings to masquerade as intelligent opinion. Uncommon sense in fact.

So young Lebanese rapists are not just more brutal young men (of which the world has so many), but are symbols of that mysterious competitor to Christianity called Islam. Dusky, animalistic savages who have deliberately come to Australia to compromise the virginal innocence of our (white) Australian girls (not women) as, apparently, revenge for the Crusades .

People who break a rule of the immensely complex social security act, become cheats, thieves and bludgers. Moral rather than administrative failures.

Unfortunately for them, Islamic boat people who endeavour to short-circuit the byzantine UN refugee apparatus, allow a number of these close-held prejudices to be used as the basis of public policy.

There is an increasing vehemence in these declarations of moral fervour as the 'crisis' develops. Callers try to top each other in the virtuousness of their hysteria, and the violence of their solutions. From the outside it looks like pre-schoolers trying to gain the attention and approval of their teacher, a rather poignant regression away from adult responsibility.

In the end, when the 'crisis' has been resolved in the usual muddy compromise, people are embarrassed to look back and see how overwrought they had become.

Over the last week, the 'crisis' of the Tampa has been created, swollen, peaked and is now detumenescing. How did Web-diary differ from talk-back?

Looking at the contributions there was a large amount of how 'ashamed' we were to be Australian. There was very little analysis of why the actions of the government should cause us to be ashamed of being Australian. It was just assumed that there was a link.

One correspondent told of having to explain his country's position at a conference in the Netherlands. Why should he have to? If a group of European conference delegates are unable to distinguish between an individual born in a country, and the actions of that country's government, why are they any less idiotic and insular than a call-in who conflates Islam with some criminal youngsters brought up in that culture?

There was also a large amount of concern about our international reputation. This is a bit rich coming from Norway, when international distaste for their continued dalliance with whaling has signally failed to dissuade them from trying to up the quota.

In fact, I am puzzled as to why there were so many grovelling apologies to the Norwegians. The Norwegians were moderately inconvenienced in their commercial activities and were never going to be incarcerated or left to drift on the Timor Sea.

It was the Afghani refugees who were really left hanging. Perhaps we should have directed our apologies to the Afghanistan embassy, or at least an Australian Afghani support organisation.

Was it a hangover of the cultural cringe where the Europeans are the sophisticated inner circle to which we so desperately want to be admitted? Wasn't all our snivelling just a way to say "I'm not like them hicks down here. I'm really clever and in touch (I can use the web!). Please say you

like me."

This web-diary was supposed to be about discussion to achieve solutions. With some very welcome exceptions, the last week has been about knee-jerk emotional catharsis.

I would welcome some reasoned explanation of:

* why Indonesia is not able to take on refugees

* whether increasing our contribution to the UN refugee budget would achieve anything

* why we (and other countries - like Norway) can't increase the number of immigration officials working in the refugee camps of Pakistan

* whether a more generous refugee policy would indeed put our successfully multi-cultural society at genuine risk of slipping into UK type racial skirmishing

* why we only start loudly apologising when the Europeans and the European media are involved (ie we are noticed).

* why we apologise for delaying Norwegian sailors in the pursuit of global commerce (did any of those containers have Nike shoes in them?)

* why Web-diary is not just talk-back radio for techno-snobs

MEEJA WATCH

Who are the real chatterers here, Piers?

By Jack Robertson

Like most of the Blimps on the New Right, Piers Ackerman has an obsession with the Chattering Classes, and he gave us another serve on the ABC's The Insiders on Sunday.

From what I can gather, the Hindenberg of the South considers the Anne Summers, the Bob Mannes and the Tim Costelloes of this country to be hopelessly naive, intellectually watery, 'provincial' in outlook (figure that one out!), and above all else morally sanctimonious.

And yet this program's discussion segment, in which Barry Cassidy and Malcolm McGregor also essentially backed the PM's 'resolution' of the TAMPA impasse (leaving only Summers in courageous, if slightly discombobulated, opposition), revealed where the true intellectual and moral weaklings on this episode can be found.

Not one of the three men had the guts to enunciate the following ugly fact: if what Helen Clark (NZ) and Rene Harris (Nauru) has done is RIGHT and GOOD and ADMIRABLE, then what John Howard (Australia) has done MUST BE WRONG and BAD and DESPICABLE. I hope that all those who have backed the PM on this site can grasp the sickening hypocrisy inherent in his effusive thanks to these two nations.

The blunt truth is that there is no more intellectual justification for shunting these poor bastards to these other two countries than there ever was for allowing them onshore here. That's the essential nub of the shameful solution Australia has manufactured, and we all have no choice now but to judge our actions in the same way that - have NO doubt, folks - history will judge them.

Namely, WE gutlessly dodged our moral responsibilities, and the Kiwis and the Nauruans fulfilled them on our behalf. We're even stooping to PAYING them to do so. Forget everything else, all the obfuscating 'explanations' and 'pragmatic imperatives' and 'legal justifications'.. That's just CHATTER, Piers. What we got on this program, from the three 'tough, uncompromising' blokey intellectuals, was self-absolving chatter.

Just contrast Cassidy's interviews with our PM and Helen Clark. The ACTIONS that underpinned Ms Clark's words really highlighted the ugly choice we've made, didn't they? Fine, Howard's line in spin was equally slick and assured, but she was talking from GENUINE high moral ground, the way (so my grandad reckons) Labor politicians once used to in this country, too. Who were you, as a Human Being, more proud of?

Oh, well. At least we can still beat the bastards at Rugby, right chups? Sorry, Australia, but I felt no pride at all as John Eales hoisted the Tri-Nations cup high. I just wanted to know where John Eales - AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN FIRST, wealthy and adored sportsman second - personally stood on the TAMPA issue.

McGregor, a pundit I normally admire, demonstrated perfectly, with a tossed-off line, just how MASSIVELY we have buggered this one up. The enormity of our failure is only going to become truly clear as the weeks draw out and the refugee problem isn't suddenly, magically solved by our little bout of Sovereign dick-flashing.

Oh, we've sent a message to the world all right - and that message is that Australia is not a grown-up player when it comes to the global refugee crisis. We've shown ourselves to be not worth including in any discussion that's going to be had.

The Kiwis and the Nauruans, on the other hand, have earned themselves a front row seat with the big boys and girls. (You know - countries like Germany and Pakistan and the UK, who have REAL 'flood' problems.)

But this was Mal's early, throw-away remark on this affair: 'Of course, if I was in the chair, I would take the 400 (sic) people.' He then went on to CHATTER at length - intelligently, compellingly, pragmatically, maturely - about why it was 'right' for the PM not to do so.

This is a MORAL issue, people. It's not about anything BUT what you would do yourself, if YOUR bum was in the PM's chair. That's the whole point of moral issues - you gotta call 'em on your own compassionate instincts, otherwise you'll get 'em wrong. As Kant said: you cannot use Human Beings as a means to an end. Every Human Being IS an end. And so this was about NOTHING BUT 460 people stuck on a boat. No amount of intellectual discourse about 'sovereignty and 'sending messages' can skip around the single, powerful truth that Australia has failed Kant's Humanity test. It's the only test that matters, and we failed it.

Fine. It's apparently what we wanted. Talkback triumphed. Our nastier instincts prevailed. The Blimps won. Electoral 'reality' proved irresistible. All I ask is that we be brutally honest about what we've done.

All I DEMAND is that the Ackermans, the McGregors and the Alan Joneses of this once-decent country don't try to hide our rank moral cowardice behind babbling intellectual rhetoric and endless theoretical argument.

God forbid that us bleeding hearts should ever call you a self-deluding Chatterer, eh Piers?

NEW ZEALAND VIEW

Grant Neill

I was appalled to see an article in the Sun Herald that the reason NZ offered to take refugees from the Tampa was so a "deal" could be done on social security. This was a shallow effort of hack reporting, firstly asking a question that is impossibly difficult to answer, then twisting that answer to suit the vile personal prejudice of the reporter or sub editor who wrote the article. I guess that's the Aussie media for you.

NZ Prime Minister Clark has NZ's backing on her decision, but the decision was not made to "help John Howard" as he seems to think, but to help the refugees.

New Zealanders are disgusted with Howard, and Australia.

While Australia's attitude is shocking the world, it comes as no surprise to most New Zealanders, as it is usually us who are on the receiving end of Aussie hate rhetoric.

The Pacific region is well used to Australia's ignorance, racism, and selfishness. Now your time in history has come. The teflon has stopped working.

NORWEGIAN VIEW

Olav Torvund in Oslo, Norway

I have many Australian friends, I used to like Australia and I used to enjoy Australian wine. And I know that not all Australians are like your prime minister.

But after seeing how you prime minister has threatened the Norwegian ship "Tampa", and getting the impression that the majority of Australian people still support him, Australia is not what I liked to think that it was.

The Tampa acted in the best marine traditions: rescuing people in danger at sea. Australia has placed itself in the shameful tradition of the countries that refused to accept Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1930s and returned them to Hitler.

It comes to my mind that it was only 35 years ago that white Australia accepted that Aborigines are humans and not animals, and your Prime Minister's attitude confirms that 35 years is not a long time.

We have not forgotten that the same John Howard refused to apologise for what white Australians have done to the original Australians.

The Australian people must prove to the world that it is a civilized and human country by shipping John Howard and Pauline Hanson out to a remote political island thousands of miles from the political mainland and refusing to let them ashore in Australian politics.

Until then, Australian wine will have a bitterness that makes it undrinkable. There will be no more Australian wine in my glass until I do not have to feel ashamed for supporting your country.

PS: As I am concluding this message, the radio reports that a court has forbidden "Tampa" to leave Australia until it is decided what to do with the refugees. If Australian judges are better than Australian politicians, there is still hope!

OVERSEAS VIEW

Hansi Mann, Toronto, Canada

Regarding the subject of the Afghans and Australia, I'm glad to see the Australian government NOT give in. I say this as a Canadian whose government is not responding to the wishes of the public for a more orderly, restricted immigration policy based on the cultural suitability of people coming to Canada. I think Australia can afford to be, and ought to be, more choosy in whom it allows immigration status.

Immigrants often do not understand the kind of culture they are hoping to become part of and are disappointed once they make their move. This, I think is particularly so for Muslims who do not understand democratic, secular society, and who become marginalized by their own desire to maintain customs and practices which do not fit with the mainstream.

Hence, I am skeptical at the ability of Afghans to adapt and integrate into Australia. I would imagine allowing this boatload of refugees to land on Austalian territory would invite others to take the same illegal route, and it would be only a matter of time before Australia has additional racial problems trying to absorb a radicalized, religious group whose members have proven anti-Western and anti-secular.

Minister Howard did the right thing and I laud him for it.

Michael Sullivan in Toronto, Canada

Not for a minute do I think John Howard's position reflects the feelings of Australians. Just a self-serving politician, and believe me we have them too in Canada. He announces that an agreement has been made as if he's the hero here.

Hats off to the PM of New Zealand for showing signs of being a humanitarian. Was he upstaging the NZ Prime Minister to benefit himself?

From what we've heard coming out of Afghanistan over the last few years, who can blame people for wanting to leave? Girls are to be uneducated supposedly to prevent them from having any kind of 'feminist' feelings, and boys will be indoctrinated into the present feelings of the Taliban government. Didn't I read they have held some Christians, including some Australians, captive. Speak to the Australians that are/were held captive and see what they think.

AUSTRALIANS FOR HOWARD

Helen O'Mara

I feel that refugee status is abused. These Afghani citizens are in this predicament as a result of Pakistan funding the Taliban militia. They have travelled through at least two other countries including Pakistan to get on a slow boat to Australia. They were refugees once they had left Afghanistan, not when they left Pakistan. Let Pakistan take them back. They caused the problem in the first place. (MARGO: It was the Yanks who funded the Taliban, to get the Russians out.)

If the captain of the freighter diverted the ship from Indonesia (the closest port) to Australia 'under threats' as has been reported, then the Afghans are either hijackers or mutineers and should be dealt with.

If this is a ruse by the captain in order to help refugees out of some pity to get to Australia, he should be prosecuted under existing Australian law for trafficking a Human cargo, which is a criminal offence.

John Ludlow

This is a copy of an email sent in disgust to the "Norway Post" in response to the editor's recount of our countries poll results.

1) These immigrants are the financially secure citizens of their countries of origin, that is the reason they can afford to take illegal and high priced passage on these ships to dropped off in desolate areas on the north west edge of Australia.

2) These people are of Muslim faith and have proved to care less for Australian customs and our way of life.

3) If the Norwegian citizens cared to take a look at our news media of the last few years, you would find hundreds of cases of Muslim youth gangs in the inner west of Sydney's suburbs using fear, violence and home invasions on the elderly. They rape and torture our young female population under the guise of "you are christian sluts and whores" and "Australian bitches".

3) I am a Father of 2 daughters that FEAR for my daughters safety, they can NOT walk to the shops, they can walk in freedom or without fear for their safety after dark.

4) These Muslim gangs have declared "war" on our streets, importing drugs with help from their homeland, turning family areas into prostitution and drug havens, rape our young daughters, beat to death or disable our sons and brutalise and beat our elderly parents under the guise of "it is their religious right to take the suburbs under their control". They wish support from other Muslim countries. Don't forget we have a crowded Muslim nation of 300,000 million to our north west, Indonesia, that we must careful of at all times. We have a VERY REAL THREAT of losing our culture. If Norwegians had their life and culture under threat, would you not expect your government to protect you and your Families ?? STOP JUDGING OUR CITIZENS WISHES!!

David McFadden

I cannot believe how you have deliberately polarised this debate in your reporting. Who IS making this an election issue - the press or the politicians?

I lived overseas as a child and teenager in Indonesia, and from that jumping off point me and my family got to see pretty much the entire planet - Asia, Europe, the UK, the States, and what this taught me is how the world works.

We can't solve all the problems, all of the time. Wouldn't it be great if we could? YES!!! Give me your poor, etc. Wouldn't that be great? Sadly, there is only so much dough, to go so far.

You also have to realise how the rest of the world works. I admire Greenpeace and Amnesty International enormously for what they believe in, and what they are trying to do, but they are politically naive. The world is a tough ugly place with people battling to survive.

The fight for survival is getting harder. Sometimes you have to save yourself, and know what you are facing in terms of what you are letting in the door. I am not racist at all - I have friends from all over the world - it's just a fact.

Someone has to take a stand sometime on this issue, and though I never thought I would ever vote Liberal, I think the PM and team have done a good job.

The winners in the Tampa situation, if there are any, are those ravenous dogs called the media. I am amazed at one of your respondents who said we hadn't have any close-up shots of the refugees, as if this decision was a government ploy. They are on a ship in the middle of the ocean, what did you expect? Mike Munro there with a fucking camera? Well, of course you did, couch person! I am surprised the entire ship isn't now represented by Harry M Miller, and they haven't flown in Sarah-Marie Fedele to interview them all!

Wake up and smell the fucking cappucino, people. Its a tough world we live in, and getting tougher. If people are flying to Indonesia, to get on ships to come here, it is WRONG!! I had to let a lover go back to the UK because he couldn't stay here legally once his visa was up. Arrghhhh!! Wake up people. If you expect life to be accompanied by the soundtrack to 'The Sound of Music', you are sorely mistaken.

Now lets turn the page in the Herald and read the restaurant review of the lamb shanks served on a bed of polenta, for a bit of perspective. Three out of 10, and thats pretty tough considering the meal is free. You are SO in touch with the community as a publication.

AUSTRALIANS AGAINST HOWARD

Glenn Murray

Is there anything that the little heap of twisted misery and cunning that passes for a prime minister will not do for re-election?

In his attempt to save face after the debacle he created, he has arm-twisted any country he can find. After East Timor he found Nauru. Australia is to send the survivors there and pay all the costs. Australian officials will go there to help with the processing. Those acceptable will be spread amongst Australia and other countries.

The process is supposed to take 2-3 months, how come it takes so long here? Where will the rejected peoples go? Who will bear that cost?

It sounds like Nauru has been fitted up. I wonder how much pressure was applied or how many financial inducements were offered?

When all the costs are tallied including the SAS and the bureaucracy, it looks to me that Australia will be paying a very very high price to reduce the prime ministerial embarrassment and to aid his re-election.

Helen Clark has certainly exposed him for the little person that he is. Unfortunately Australias reputation will still be suffering long after he climbs into the historical dustbin.

The one positive outcome is that we have learned that we do not need elections. We just need to consult the lunatic fringe on talkback radio. Jack Robertson in Welcome to Spring is spot on, although we shouldnt hold our breath waiting for the Meeja to respond.

Nizza Siano

I am disgusted that the Howard government managed to fob-off its responsibility - moral and legal - to the asylum seekers. The fact that two other countries have agreed to assist does not let Australia off the hook. In fact, I don't see it as a win for Howard but rather a sad loss for this country.

It would have been a great opportunity for this nation to have shown that it still had a generosity of spirit but we lost our opportunity thanks to mean-spirited politicians. I only hope this does not set a precedent for the way we will treat future asylum seekers.

I feel like mourning.

Steve Colman

As a former displaced person who was finally allowed to go to UK in 1948, I hope that none of the politicians who now bring shame onto Australia will ever need to be looking for refuge in any country.

If they had been homeless, if they would have needed a place to live and work in, they would not allow the asylum seekers on the Tampa and in the concentration camps to suffer.

With the exception of those convicts on the first few fleets, we are all boat people who came here because of economic reasons or because of persecution. We were all seeking a better life.

Chris Dunne

So we're close to a glorious victory in preserving the integrity of our borders according to John Howard, and as many rabid racists and half-informed talk-back jocks as he can muster to his cause.

But what is this victory? Even if the Tampa is dragged into international waters and scuttled with all aboard instead of dumping them on Nauru (or anyone else), it won't solve the problem of those who are queued up to follow the same path in similar leaky boats. Nothing will deter those seeking to escape violent regimes, starvation or political persecution from coming here, even the chance of death at sea.

The entire episode, with the Norwegian's acting as good Samaritans, is a red-herring, because this is an unusual set of circumstances which are not likely to occur again. If we ever again asked a foreign vessel to rescue a distressed boatload of refugees, they'd probably say no anyway. (Well done Mr Howard, that's going to help).

No, the next load of human misery won't be aboard a Norwegian cargo ship, they'll be in their usual form of transport, a rotten and overcrowded tub listing its way into our waters, and what will we say to them? "Look, just turn around and follow the course of the Norwegian cargo ship"?

In typical fashion, the Prime Minister has created an enormously divisive debate with no real outcome, solely to shore up his position with the right-wingers and white-whingers. And as usual, a small group of already desperate and helpless people are the real victims.

That's 'statesmanship', Australian style.