Pacific Solution Debate, Second Speaker, Affirmative
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, tonight as the second speaker of the affirmative team I will be discussing the ethical and social side of the debate. But before I go on, I would just like to point out a few flaws in the opposition’s argument. Rebuttal
Now onto my first point, that John Howard’s Pacific Solution is much more ethical than other suggested solutions. During the 7 years that his solution was in place- 2001 till 2007- only 404 asylum seekers died while at sea. This number was shockingly doubled in the next five years, 2008 to 2012, to 814 deaths. That means 814 families torn apart, 814 friends lost, 814 neighbours gone. This is an awful statistic, and what makes it even worse is that we knew that something could have been done to save these people- to bring back Howard’s Pacific Solution.
The opposition can attempt to persuade you however they like into making you believe that this solution is supposedly ‘cruel’, but as the affirmative team, we believe that out of this ‘cruelty’ is kindness. With this solution, Howard not only stopped numerous people smugglers from pursuing Australian grounds, but also saved hundreds of people from risking their lives to come here via boat.
Howard knew that if these people know that they might be deported and that there was a very slim chance that they will receive a complimentary protection visa (a temporary visa given to people who are not considered refugees as such, but are allowed to remain in Australia while it is dangerous for them to return to their own country.) they will be discouraged to come, and he was right. Julia Gillard has obviously realized this too, or why else, like our first speaker has already mentioned, is she sneakily bringing Howard’s solution back again? Howard’s Pacific Solution had strict guidelines that encouraged the asylum seekers who wished to come to Australia for refuge, to go through the official procedures. The two aspects that are used mainly by Australia to provide
Now onto my first point, that John Howard’s Pacific Solution is much more ethical than other suggested solutions. During the 7 years that his solution was in place- 2001 till 2007- only 404 asylum seekers died while at sea. This number was shockingly doubled in the next five years, 2008 to 2012, to 814 deaths. That means 814 families torn apart, 814 friends lost, 814 neighbours gone. This is an awful statistic, and what makes it even worse is that we knew that something could have been done to save these people- to bring back Howard’s Pacific Solution.
The opposition can attempt to persuade you however they like into making you believe that this solution is supposedly ‘cruel’, but as the affirmative team, we believe that out of this ‘cruelty’ is kindness. With this solution, Howard not only stopped numerous people smugglers from pursuing Australian grounds, but also saved hundreds of people from risking their lives to come here via boat.
Howard knew that if these people know that they might be deported and that there was a very slim chance that they will receive a complimentary protection visa (a temporary visa given to people who are not considered refugees as such, but are allowed to remain in Australia while it is dangerous for them to return to their own country.) they will be discouraged to come, and he was right. Julia Gillard has obviously realized this too, or why else, like our first speaker has already mentioned, is she sneakily bringing Howard’s solution back again? Howard’s Pacific Solution had strict guidelines that encouraged the asylum seekers who wished to come to Australia for refuge, to go through the official procedures. The two aspects that are used mainly by Australia to provide