New Plan to Deal With Illegal Refugees

The idea of a multicultural Australia is one that few Australians accept. We accept immigrants, but we want them to become part of us ... to become Australians.

We don't mind if they start up a Chinese Restaurant or build a Greek Club so they can remember their homeland. Provided they integrate, learn our language and at least make an effort to fit in, we will accept them.

Our history of immigration is evidence of this.
It's probably true to say that most Australians (that is Australian born people) don't want dozens of people sailing in from overseas in old boats. Our illegal immigration policy has been a shambles. We need a new approach to dealing with illegal refugees.

One approach would be to establish Refugee Processing Offices in the countries from which most of our refugees are now coming. Instead of having to save up $15,000 to pay some Indonesian for a trip across the Indian Ocean in an endeavour to reach our mainland, they could lodge their applications at one of our Refugee Offices, completely free of charge.

This would demonstrate our generosity, humanity and willingness to grasp cultural and language diverse peoples.

Muslims, criminals and anyone found undesirable for political or other reasons would be prohibited entry and have their application refused. Economic refugees would also be refused. Having an office in the countries of refugees' origins it would be easier to check such things as birth certificate, whether they were generally victimised and so on. Medical examinations could be carried out to ensure no unwanted diseases eg, tuberculosis, weren't imported to Australia.

Those who passed the test for genuine refugee, could be paid to fly to Australia, given a Medicare card, a cheap government apartment, set up with Centrelink payments for life, and spend the rest of their days living at tax-payer expense.

They would be so grateful, that as soon as they were eligible, they could be signed up as members of the Labor Party and have a real opportunity of getting a cushy job as a politician in an ethnic electorate, representing the diversity of thier electorate.

Eventually, when enough of them got into politics, they could use the great democratic system to change laws to allow millions of uneducated, poor, refugees into the country thus showing everyone what a great country we have.

As the rivers died off, the productivity of farms and orchards decreased and people began to become hungry, thirsty and felt victimised, they could get into boats and travel back to countries from which they came which now have new people, fresh crops, a sound government and democratic systems since they had time to replenish and redevelop without all the dead wood being there.

This is what is called the cycle of life.

If you believe Australia should have offices in high refugee intake countries, write to your local member today and request it. You never know, you could finish up in a seaside office with your computer drinking pina colados and processing the odd refugee application.

Who Owns the Land?

I've never been a communist or a socialist, although some of my ideas certainly border on socialism and not my usual right-wing self. One such idea is that about land ownership. I believe that ALL land should belong to the State.

Now that's a brave comment.

In my scheme, instead of someone buying a block of land for their house or business and paying for it, they'd simply get a 99 year lease (or some other period lease) from the government agency controlling land development. The government would charge a nominal rental fee annually to contribute to national taxation.

If the tennant of the land built something on it or otherwise improved it, the ability to transfer the lease would exist, but it would be a government-authorised transaction. Perhaps a slightly higher rental fee would be charged for improvements.

Land acquisition would be on a first-come-first-served basis.

The State (or governments in this sense) has perpetuity, whereas you and I die. It seems to me that it would be more sensible to have an enduring entity in charge of all the land in a country rather than have a false economy built on supply and demand of something that noone can really own.

What do you think?

Australian Human Rights Bill

There is a minority of people who believe Australia should have a Human Rights Bill. We don't. Australia has a plethora of acts of Parliament that provide for our rights and in some cases, our responsibilities.

Every time the Australian Government enacts social engineering legislation, it shoots itself in the foot. For example, the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act have resulted in the lock out of millions of hectares of land that cannot now be used for housing development. In many places, house prices and rents have gone through the roof because there is no land available for development.

As a result of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the Australian Government has purchased dozens of functional, profit-generating cattle stations and turned them over to indigenous groups. In nearly all cases, the cattle died through neglect and the land now lies unused and unprofitable with the inhabitants still a drain on the welfare system.

You can bet your life that if we introduce an unwanted Human Rights Bill, there will be unforseen negative consequences.

At the end of the day, the only rights any of us have are those our society wishes to allow us. Australians live in a free, democratic society and there are many other things we could focus our attention on than an unnecessary Bill of Rights.