by Keith Locke
John Key made millions by trading currencies, but he doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of business principles when it comes to the economics of boat people coming to New Zealand.
Those running asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia use rickety boats, because they wouldn’t cover their costs with anything more substantial. They know the boat will be confiscated by the Australian government, and asylum seekers cannot pay a huge amount for passage.
If you look at a map the boats don’t have to travel that far across the Indian Ocean. It is another ball-game altogether for them to go thousands of miles further to the Pacific and across the stormy Tasman sea. The sort of boat required would be very expensive, and the ship provider would be unlikely to make a profit.
If one boat did happen to arrive, what would be wrong with processing the people here? We don’t need what John Key calls ‘a [regional] facility that we could send a ship to in the event that once came here.’
To send asylum seekers off to such as centre unprocessed would be contrary to the Refugee Convention we’ve signed up to.
Note: For a more positive spin on refugee issues check out this stories about a former refugee who I predict will be playing for the All Whites in the not too distant future.
Refugee’s football obsession pays off
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Keith Locke on Fri, July 16th, 2010
Tags: john key, Refugees, UNHCR convention
More posts by Keith Locke | more about Keith Locke
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Doesn’t happen often, but I agree with Keith. The prospect of even one boat arriving is at the ‘impossible’ end of the ‘unlikely,’ but if one did arrive the souls aboard should be processed on the presumption that unless firm proof exists that individuals aboard constitute a clear and present threat, they should be allowed to cross the border freely.
And to avoid complaints about “welfare abuse,” why not encourage the idea of sponsorship–i.e., existing NZers signing up to “sponsor” one or more of these new NZers by taking responsibility for them while they find their feet. It seems to me that would be a good way not only to take any heat out of any debate that would be bound to begin, and a good way too for people to put their money and time where their humanity should be.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Asylum seekers coming to Aotearoa, tend to arrive on the great iron waka that crosses the skies.. then risk being booted out the same way.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I don’t think that the NZ government should foist it’s refugee ‘problems’ on Pacific countries like the Aussies are doing to East Timor.
And the international community need to look at the causes of the refugee problem.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
….
A TV program about Afganistan showed beggars from families with 10 children. Could it be overpopulation is a factor?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
“For a more positive spin on refugee issues check out this stories about a former refugee who I predict will be playing for the All Whites in the not too distant future.”
—
for a less positive spin there was the Somali woman who hijacked a plane flying from Blenhiem and then there was the bloke with HIV who had unprotected sex.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
PC Says:
“And to avoid complaints about “welfare abuse,” why not encourage the idea of sponsorship–i.e., existing NZers signing up to “sponsor” one or more of these new NZers by taking responsibility for them while they find their feet. It seems to me that would be a good way not only to take any heat out of any debate that would be bound to begin, and a good way too for people to put their money and time where their humanity should be.’
-
that would go down like the pork chop in the synagogue at Green HQ.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I am also afraid that our capacity to accept such arrivals is very limited.
We can’t just be “nice”. We can’t afford that luxury. The nature of lifeboat ethics is that it hurts like hell, but those are the ethics we have to apply. We accept the refugees in the numbers we have agreed to accept. We MUST NOT get a reputation as a “soft touch”. Climate change and overpopulation are going to cause a lot of grief. I don’t doubt that we will do more than we currently do… we CAN do some little more I think… but there is a limit and we mustn’t tempt people to breach it.
Which means, little as I like it, that in this case we cannot be guided by simple compassion. The economic refugees could destroy us, and the climate refugees could sink us beneath the waves. Making it LOOK easier to come here… and in particular easier than coming to Oz… is a mistake. This has nothing to do with “welfare”. It is in the end, about the survival of the country.
Also, sorry to say, this is another way to lose votes and influence nothing.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
We could double them up with our state house tenants.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
BJ,
Is the difficulty legal or logistical? Do we need more blue-water navy?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Legal, logistical and moral… but no, not more “blue-water” navy.
Different perhaps from what we have (I should think more but slightly lighter units that are expected to operate here, not in the Persian Gulf), but the IMPORTANT point is that entry to NZ cannot be perceived as easier or more reliable than entry to Oz. We certainly do not want that to be a perception gained before the real crunch arrives.
The real challenge is the moral one, and I am not happy to accept it. Not happy that it will come to our children to have to accept having to condemn people for the sin of not having been born lucky, which may well destroy this nation’s soul, or to accept the death of a society being overwhelmed by refugees. Crushed by the weight of a planet wide unwillingness to simply control ourselves.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Keith. The whole point of your posting appears to score points off John Key by pointing out small fallacies in his argument. Congratulations. My you are clever.
Let’s look at the broader context. Key has tried to bring refugees back onto the political radar. First, as a Green Party member, I would expect you to applaud that. Are we not going to see more refugees heres a result of climate change and over-population and our general inability as humans to live in a sustainable fashion? Shouldn’t we be thinking about how to deal with this burden? And what would be the Green Party’s policy on this issue?
Oh but please, let’s not let debate and discussion get in the way of an opportunity to score petty political points.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Good point jcknz!
In many parts of the World, apart from numbers of children, families require “a son” to support the parents financially in their old age, or “a daughter” to physically care for them …etc
(Not all Kiwis are immune to this way of thinking. A member of my own extended family had seven children … the last-born was the only male.)
This is a major reason why it is desirable for the concept and practise of gender equality to go hand in hand with population control.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
bjchip says,
Which means, little as I like it, that in this case we cannot be guided by simple compassion. The economic refugees could destroy us, and the climate refugees could sink us beneath the waves. Making it LOOK easier to come here… and in particular easier than coming to Oz… is a mistake. This has nothing to do with “welfare”. It is in the end, about the survival of the country.
Not the survival of our country but definitely the survival of our material standard of living. Compassion will be in conflict with our comfort. Also the sustainability of ecosystems will be threatened.
Regards ‘Climate Change’ refugees NZ will not be able to absorb significant numbers. The first wave will be the wealthy which we will welcome because they have lots of money. Then some of this wealth will be used to prevent the poor and desperate getting in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess its lucky that the ‘west island’ is closer to Indonesia that the rest.. but determined people will find their way here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just subscribed here – interesting commentary! I totally agree re NZ operating outside the UN Convention. It’s a low blow for Ms Gillard to use those in desperate circumstances as an election vote winner, and we should keep well clear of this positioning. As a small nation with a reputation for standing up for human rights – we have an opportunity here to lead the way. Let’s see if it all fades away post Australian election.
BtW – There’s a new FaceBook site you can ‘like’ if you support refugee resettlement in NZ – it’s called “I support refugee resettlement in NZ” (dah) – so visit the page SOON – and add your thoughts /supportive messages!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Asylum seekers already know that they’ll get a frosty reception in Aussie. If it was feasible for them to cross the Tasman they’d already be doing it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The method is not yet considered. It would require pooled resources. It is feasible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)