Not really because it was the TPV"s that stopped the people investing thousands in a smuggler's boat ticket to get here and then to find a TPV which looks after you until it is safe to go back home but does not allow the family waiting back home to come once you get citizenship under family re-union.

well a complete waste of hard won funds and one has wonder how many in the families it took to put all those thousands of dollars usually US together in countries most of these Muslims are fleeing from because of poverty rather than any other reason.

I think most media and MPs and the 30% who still cling to Labor are not capable of thinking this out.

Forget where the processing takes place - when Howard put in this scheme the boats stopped and Christmas Island under way was a white elephant until Rudd/Gillard/Brown/Sarah HansenGreen- opened the borders to illegal arrivals once more and the UN Refugee Convention which is 65 years out of date - and under which Howard should have given our notice in in 2001 - stopping the invasion of a ideological people who have no intention of assimilating entering the country to unbalance society as it has.

It was the TPV's that actually stopped the people smugglers luring folk here when it became obviously a waste of money because object is visa, house, and bring in the rest of the extended family back home.

I hope that Abbott does not cave in to the lefties who are in the wrong party and cringe and pander to the minorities just like Labor and the Greens do without any thought of the effect it has on those already here and now and in need too.

Best solution would be to give our notice to the UN and choose who comes from those we know assimilate. Pity Howard didnt do as he said.

'Asylum shopping' has to be deterred.  TPVs do that. 

The electorate is strongly in favour of TPVs.

The TPVs can be reintroduced with the stroke of a pen according to the opposition.

Why worry Nautilus?  According to you the people smugglers can all be arrested & thrown into an Indonesian jail under Australian Law.  BTW I don't know where you got the idea that the TPV's can be re installed with the stroke of a pen.  We have Statute Law that requires some minor Parliamentory involvement.

I have made a few more comments regarding the Australian Law & also mutiny which you have apparently decided to totally ignore.

BTW  The Master of a ship has legal powers that are beyond those of the Prime Minister of a Democratic Country.  He can legally chain & incarcerate a paying passenger for disobeying his commands.  The owners of the ship can remove him if they will, when he returns to land,  but whilst he is at sea, he is the closest thing on Earth to God Almighty.  Bear in mind that he is not subject to any Country's Laws whilst he is in International Waters.  Nobody can be ordered to take up a crew position, but once they sign up, with no knowledge of any Law, they are under the total command of the Master.  There are very few circumstances where a crew can take over a ship from the Master, the most common of these is where the crew believe that on return to land, they are willing to try to prove that the Master was mentally incapacitated or legally "insane"  The Bounty was a typical example of this. If the crew under Christian had returned the ship to England, they would have been found guilty of mutiny & hanged.

How can we possibly get the democratically desired outcome when the Minister has approved the PR's of every applicant put in front of him, even including the scum who tried to burn down Villawood & cost the tax payers of Australia $millions.  THEY WERE ALL APPROVED BY THE MINISTER PERSONALLY, after they were charged with the offences.  We are being governed by a Caucus of 2nd rat morons. 

Again, I am sorry if I offended you in an earlier post but it was unintentional and yes I am endeavouring to respond to your argument.

I said, "The TPVs can be reintroduced with the stroke of a pen according to the opposition."  Here you go, it was Scott Morrisson speaking today in an ABC interview,

"SCOTT MORRISON: We do think absolutely the temporary protection visas need to be part of any effective border protection regime as they were previously and that can be done with the stroke of a pen."

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3397162.htm

I did not say or if it appears that I did it was not my intent that, "..people smugglers can all be arrested & thrown into an Indonesian jail under Australian Law".  I do not blur jurisdictions.

I don't know how anyone could prove mutiny where it involved simple disobedience, especially refusal to commit an unlawful order or insubordination.  It has to involve intent to remove the master of the vessel from command.  That consideration is key.

As well, mutiny would be most unlikely to apply where the ship is in dock, home port (which is a sensible condition).  So a crew signing on for a passage could not rely on 'It was captain's orders' to relieve them of any responsibility for their unlawful acts (or their omissions in not reporting any current or intended unlawful acts, which must should be reported too).  Claimed ignorance of the ship's cargo or destination is unlikely to provide relief from culpability.  Claims of being forced to crew or commit unlawful acts would be silly where the ship is in dock.

Even if one might argue that people smuggling might not be an offence in the country of departure, or under the flag of the ship, overloading a boat is, as is taking an unseaworthy craft to sea.  That is especially blameworthy where the ship's cargo is passengers.  In fact in most countries their own maritime law requires immediate survey paid for by the captain, of any ship reported as unseaworthy.

At dock or at sea the crew has a duty to disregard any unlawful order.  I'd add that 'crew' includes the passengers (and the captain -in case he also claims someone, eg an owner 'made' him perform an unlawful act). 

Can the Master of the Oasis of the Seas clap someone in irons without (very serious) due cause?  Absolutely not, he would be looked at in disbelief and if he persisted the First Officer would relieve him of command.  Could a charge of mutiny be successful against the First Officer?  Absolutely not, he performed his duty as was required of him, whereas not to do so would have consitituted an offence through deliction of his duty.  That responsibility and accountability flows down through all levels of the ship's command.

Without going further into it because it is not an area I could claim knowledge of, there are also obligations upon ship's masters flowing from consular agreements between countries, as well as from the internalional rules and maritime law (viz., flag of the vessel).

Dereliction of duty being the intentional or unintentional failure to perform a legal or moral duty.

Nautilus, I was stating knowledge about mutiny on the High Seas, where the Law of the Land does not apply.  Everything you state makes logical sense, but it is incorrect.  Without going into every facet, I suggest you read up on the mutiny charges that have been laid by the Captain against the Officers of the German 3 masted, Square Rigger, The Gorch Fock.

innes,

Yes, thanks I will have a look at that. 

I am already aware of the morass of jurisdictional problems relating to other offences commited at sea, to do with ship's flag, territorial waters where applicable and so on.

The only reason that I have any knowledge of the subject, Nautilus, is because I studied & qualified for a Master's 5 at the Marine College of Vanuatu in 1980.  One of the few things that I do remember about the morass of International Marine Law is that it is probably the most ancient of all Law & the Barristers who practice it are probably the highest paid in the Legal Profession.  Also, we were taught that it did not matter what went wrong at sea;  it was the Master's fault entirely.  BTW, I vaguely remember the Captain of the Fairstar locking up a drunken passenger in a storage room where he was fed & kept until the Ship arrived at the next Port & he was put ashore.

The Gorch Fock

At first sight and without knowing all of the details I cannot fault the (relieved) Captain's orders.  The outcome will be interesting, all western militaries are having some difficulties managing women under feminist imperatives. 

Speaking of women, Australia's Defence Minister Stephen Smith is sitting on a report and says he will continue to do so until next year.  An apology is due to the previous head of the defence academy I believe.