So I was initially under the impression that PNG would be used for processing, and then transferred to settle in Australia. Apparently not. We have decided we have no obligation to accept refugees who arrive by some means of travel, and will shift them to a poorer nation, with the bill landing on us.
In the mean time the Nauru Detention Center is burnt to the ground in riots over the poor living conditions and indefinite detention. Do we really think that it is
wise to fill a center in PNG with these refugees?
And with such a diverse cultural heterogeneity, I'm sure there's plenty of tolerance for non-indigenous refugees.
Haha nope. It may very well just be the lens of the media, but so far signs are that locals are not happy. They don't like the idea of foreigners being given special treatment in such a poor nation, and many are intolerant of the Islam faith.
I do like to
try and be objective about these things, although I am limited to piecing together a story from often bias pieces, but all evidence so far is that this is unlikely to last. The military officers who would be required to implement the policy are skeptical, the refugees are rioting, the locals are forming mobs. The only people who showed any support for this, liberals and liberal voters, are now pointing out the fact that we are responsible for anybody not found to be an asylum seeker, and the Greens are pointing out the insane cost of the operation.
The only thing this policy does is win over uninformed voters who either think this will save lives, incorrectly, or think that boat people are taking jobs, also incorrectly.
Fuck you Rudd.