# Asylum Seekers Crash on Christmas Island



## Sean K (15 December 2010)

Possibly 50 dead.

Crikey!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...eeker-boat-crash/story-e6frg6n6-1225971549420

JG heading back early from leave. Must be bad.


----------



## noco (15 December 2010)

What a tragic event which could have been avoided if Rudd had not changed the rules. His decision has cost many people their lives, Shame on him. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/blood_on_their_hands/


----------



## -Bevo- (15 December 2010)

How many policy failures from Labor have killed (bats) now this, some bad days ahead for labor all self inflicted.


----------



## pixel (15 December 2010)

noco said:


> What a tragic event which could have been avoided if Rudd had not changed the rules. His decision has cost many people their lives, Shame on him.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/blood_on_their_hands/




What a load of crap!
With all respect and sympathy for lives lost, blaming the Australian Government for the deaths of refugees, who want to come from one "safe" country (Indonesia) to a better one (Australia) is the biggest beat-up since the "children overboard". Who blamed Howard for those poor dead children? 

If blame must be apportioned, start with the Taliban and other inhumane groups of fundamentalists, who wage war against their own people; who mutilate women for fear a guy can't keep it in his pants when he sees a female face or strand of hair; who are stuck in milennial antagonism between two tribes over a patch of flea-ridden desert.

Sure, blaming those morons doesn't help the shipwrecked victims; but blaming a Government that is willing to help all comers, as long as they submit to an orderly process, doesn't help anybody.


----------



## Happy (15 December 2010)

pixel said:


> ...
> 
> blaming the Australian Government for the deaths of refugees, who want to come from one "safe" country (Indonesia) to a better one (Australia) is the biggest beat-up since the "children overboard".
> 
> ....





I wander why Indonesia cannot stop people putting themselves in harms way?

Is it that hard?

Would Australia have that much trouble if the wave was the other way?


----------



## Macquack (15 December 2010)

Happy said:


> I wander why Indonesia cannot stop people putting themselves in harms way?
> 
> Is it that hard?




Indonesia is the 4th most populated country on the planet. 

Do you really think Indonesia gives a rats **** about refugees?

Indonesia is quite happy for refugees to continue passage onto Australia because then it becomes our problem not theirs.


----------



## noco (15 December 2010)

pixel said:


> What a load of crap!
> With all respect and sympathy for lives lost, blaming the Australian Government for the deaths of refugees, who want to come from one "safe" country (Indonesia) to a better one (Australia) is the biggest beat-up since the "children overboard". Who blamed Howard for those poor dead children?
> 
> If blame must be apportioned, start with the Taliban and other inhumane groups of fundamentalists, who wage war against their own people; who mutilate women for fear a guy can't keep it in his pants when he sees a female face or strand of hair; who are stuck in milennial antagonism between two tribes over a patch of flea-ridden desert.
> ...




Why can't those Afghan cowards stay and fight the Tailban instead of our Aussie soldiers fighting their battles for them. After all the majority of these illegal immagrants are male. Send them back with a white feather tattoed on thier arms and tell them next time come through the front door and do it legally with all the right documentation. 30 year olds trying to pose as teenagers with the same birth date 31/12/1993. Same applies to Pakies.
Of course Rudd and Gillard are responsible. Gillard's spin before the election was to turn the boats in the direction of East Timor. What a joke this dame is. She should resign along with Krudd.


----------



## TKline (15 December 2010)

Tragic event. Kids of 3-4 years old among the wreckage. Every sad.


----------



## Macquack (15 December 2010)

noco said:


> What a tragic event which could have been avoided if Rudd had not changed the rules. His decision has cost many people their lives, *Shame on him*.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/blood_on_their_hands/




"Shame on you" noco and your deadbeat hero Andrew Bolt for writing such utter trash.


----------



## noco (15 December 2010)

Macquack said:


> "Shame on you" noco and your deadbeat hero Andrew Bolt for writing such utter trash.




Sorry Macquack if I have hit a political nerve relating to  your beloved Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. Some times it is hard for the likes of you and other strong headed Labor supporters to accept the reallity that the political decisions made by Rudd and Gillard on assylum seekers were wrong and have resulted in such a tragedy and others before this one..


----------



## Julia (15 December 2010)

pixel said:


> What a load of crap!
> With all respect and sympathy for lives lost, blaming the Australian Government for the deaths of refugees, who want to come from one "safe" country (Indonesia) to a better one (Australia) is the biggest beat-up since the "children overboard". Who blamed Howard for those poor dead children?



Plenty of people.



> Sure, blaming those morons doesn't help the shipwrecked victims; but blaming a Government that is willing to help all comers, as long as they submit to an orderly process, doesn't help anybody.



Don't you think, pixel, that the ease with which asylum seekers have been admitted into Australia since the change of government will have filtered through to Afghanistan et al, and encouraged further boatloads not to wait their turn in a UNHCR camp, but rather to set sail via people smugglers to Australia?
Do you actually believe the present government has not, with its changes in policy, encouraged people to come to Australia by boat?





Macquack said:


> Indonesia is the 4th most populated country on the planet.
> 
> Do you really think Indonesia gives a rats **** about refugees?
> 
> Indonesia is quite happy for refugees to continue passage onto Australia because then it becomes our problem not theirs.



Absolutely right.   Any window dressing that our government tries to apply to this situation is pathetically inappropriate and stupid.


----------



## drsmith (15 December 2010)

If there wasn't a trade for the people smugglers, this is much less likely to have happened.


----------



## pixel (16 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Don't you think, pixel, that the ease with which asylum seekers have been admitted into Australia since the change of government will have filtered through to Afghanistan et al, and encouraged further boatloads not to wait their turn in a UNHCR camp, but rather to set sail via people smugglers to Australia?
> Do you actually believe the present government has not, with its changes in policy, encouraged people to come to Australia by boat?




Here could be a point for common ground, Julia:

All the bleeding-hearts demanding free entry for everyone that came by Sea have to shoulder part of the blame. The fact that they received ample press coverage and subsequent support in Canberra has a lot to do with the change of policies. 
After years of detention, prolonged by the usual hearse-chasing lawyers that lodge appeal after appeal, the populist opinion makers turned the tide against Howard's "Pacific Solution". Any Government that wanted to be elected had to relax the rules. Stupid as it may have been in hindsight, Labor only executed the will of the peepull, i.e. in reality give in to the opinion makers. It's quite possible that this time, it was a different mob of journos to preach mercy with the poor captives. Sad fact is though: they prevailed. And now we have the mess back again in open view, rather than hidden on some Howardian camp on a Pacific Island.

So, if we must lay blame on somebody's shoulders for the risks some refugees accept for a better life, I suggest we consider the press that sold magazines and papers with tear-jerker stories by blue-eyed idealists and advocates for free entry. Whether it's the same mob or a different group is beside the point. Claiming that it's all Labor's fault is the idiocy that gets my goat.

Yet I repeat what I said the first time: Let's pause and think *WHY ARE THERE REFUGEES* in the first place? It's because of militant fundamentalists of various persuasions. Part of the polarisation and escalation we witnessed this century must also be blamed on the Coalition of the Willing - including ... 
I rest my case


----------



## gordon2007 (16 December 2010)

Hmmm...am I the only person who just does not give a crap at all this? Complete and total apathy.


----------



## nukz (16 December 2010)

noco said:


> What a tragic event which could have been avoided if Rudd had not changed the rules. His decision has cost many people their lives, Shame on him.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/blood_on_their_hands/




This is garbage, its not good people anywhere have died but they have come here presumably illegally. 

They the people who died made the decision and the people smugglers are who you should be pointing your anger at more than Rudd.


----------



## nukz (16 December 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Hmmm...am I the only person who just does not give a crap at all this? Complete and total apathy.




This story is sorta just a filler, just like when you see the scrolling text down the bottom of the CNN channel that says 1000 dead in Congo.


----------



## joea (16 December 2010)

Happy said:


> I wander why Indonesia cannot stop people putting themselves in harms way?
> 
> Indonesia is "breeding" itself into further poverty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy (16 December 2010)

Change of Government?


----------



## Agentm (16 December 2010)

i think the story in this is why no action from the navy?

the boat imho should have been intercepted, the naval boat was in eyesight of the refugee boat. you cant tell me they had no idea the boat was there.

the tragedy of these deaths is obvious.  i think 11 of the survivors were under 18. 

what may be coming out in the future is whether it was entirely avoidable.

no one can figure out what the inaction of the navy was all about.. everyone including them fully realise the wild weather and the dangers of trying to land on christmas island..


----------



## noco (16 December 2010)

Agentm said:


> i think the story in this is why no action from the navy?
> 
> the boat imho should have been intercepted, the naval boat was in eyesight of the refugee boat. you cant tell me they had no idea the boat was there.
> 
> ...




The Navy obviously new of the cyclonic  weather conditions and most likely believed not even the people smugglers would be stupid enough to venture a sea trip at this time of the year. We will probably see fewer boats in the next couple of months due to the monsoon conditions and no doubt Gillard will take credit for the reduction.

How many other boats have suffered the same fate in the last couple of years, we may never know.


----------



## Mofra (16 December 2010)

noco said:


> Why can't those Afghan cowards stay and fight the Tailban instead of our Aussie soldiers fighting their battles for them.



What a ridiculous argument. You going to label all Jews as "cowards" as they didn't fight the Nazis effectively?
You want to arm civilians to allow a perpetual state of warfare in a country - you don't think that will further entice people to leave, making the problem worse? You also might need to check the country of origin as well - I beleive that a high proportion were from Iran in this instance.

FWIW Aussie soldiers aren't there to wipe out the Taliban - it's a training mission to create an effective Afghan military force to take care of their own affairs.


----------



## noco (16 December 2010)

There is no doubt in most Australians minds that the Gillard/Rudd Labor Government should take full resposibility for the tragic loss of life due to their asylum seeker policy. They should both resign. 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...blamed-for-wreck/story-fn59niix-1225971755329


----------



## Mofra (16 December 2010)

Agentm said:


> i think the story in this is why no action from the navy?
> 
> the boat imho should have been intercepted, the naval boat was in eyesight of the refugee boat. you cant tell me they had no idea the boat was there.



That is a story in itself - boats are normally intercepted earlier and the people transferred to another vessel for passage onto the Island, or towed away for dangerous areas. 

The two RIBs deployed had no chance of interception/recovery.


----------



## noco (16 December 2010)

Mofra said:


> What a ridiculous argument. You going to label all Jews as "cowards" as they didn't fight the Nazis effectively?
> You want to arm civilians to allow a perpetual state of warfare in a country - you don't think that will further entice people to leave, making the problem worse? You also might need to check the country of origin as well - I beleive that a high proportion were from Iran in this instance.
> 
> FWIW Aussie soldiers aren't there to wipe out the Taliban - it's a training mission to create an effective Afghan military force to take care of their own affairs.




Mofra, there is no comparison to be made between the Jews and Afghans. There were Polish Jews, German Jews and Russian Jews. The Germans went on ethnic cleansing by sending millions of Jews to the gas chambers. The jews had no country of their own untill after the WW11 when the current Jewish state was formed. The Afghans have their own country and 'democratic' government.

Some of our Aussies may be in Afghanistan to train their army but the majority are are in combat conditions hence the loss of Aussie diggers. Those young Afghan asylum seekers arriving in Australia should be at home being trained by the Aussies in order for our fellows to come home.

So you see Mofra, you've got it all wrong ole mate.


----------



## Mofra (16 December 2010)

noco said:


> Mofra, there is no comparison to be made between the Jews and Afghans. There were Polish Jews, German Jews and Russian Jews. The Germans went on ethnic cleansing by sending millions of Jews to the gas chambers. The jews had no country of their own untill after the WW11 when the current Jewish state was formed. The Afghans have their own country and 'democratic' government.



So they were a people within their own country?
Exactly the same as the many tribes who live under the loose definition of country that make up modern Afghanistan. Of course, I'm not sure semantics are coming into it if you want civilians to fight against the Pashtun-dominated Taliban (ignoring the fact that a militia of poorly trained civilians would be anhialated against any sort of well-trained and armed force).



noco said:


> Some of our Aussies may be in Afghanistan to train their army but the majority are are in combat conditions hence the loss of Aussie diggers.



Absolutely wrong noco, they are there to train the Afghans and form battalions who are able to operate autonomously. This does involve combined combat operations which is why so many of our training force see so much front line action. The mission is to train them, there is no secondary mission to "green" some areas as an Australian force.



noco said:


> Those young Afghan asylum seekers arriving in Australia should be at home being trained by the Aussies in order for our fellows to come home.



Not all are suitable, and many who are Pastun who reject the Taliban cannot fight as they wont be taken by armed forces unwilling to let possible double-agents into the Afghan military. Not sure how that effects the Iraqi & Iranian asylum seekers though that made up the bulk of passengers on the doomed vessel though.



noco said:


> So you see Mofra, you've got it all wrong ole mate.



Given your mistakes above noco, I'd suggest you have a bit more research to do


----------



## noco (16 December 2010)

How the worm has turned. Beasley and Faulkner accused the Howard Government for the loss of life on the Siev X in 2001 but the lefties will protect Gillard and Rudd by blaming the Navy for the Christmas Island tragedy.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._the_same_questions_it_once_put/#commentsmore


----------



## noco (16 December 2010)

Mofra said:


> So they were a people within their own country?
> Exactly the same as the many tribes who live under the loose definition of country that make up modern Afghanistan. Of course, I'm not sure semantics are coming into it if you want civilians to fight against the Pashtun-dominated Taliban (ignoring the fact that a militia of poorly trained civilians would be anhialated against any sort of well-trained and armed force).
> 
> 
> ...




So are you saying, if Australia was invaded by a foreign country, Australian citizens consisting of our indigenous people, who have so many different tribes, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Prodestants, Greenies, Chinese, Italian and any other naturalized Australains form other countries  should not be conscripted into the Australian Army? We are now a multicultural country with a lot more differerent races and cultures than Afghansitan will ever have. Do you see Chinese, Australians or any other multi cultural races living in Afghanistan. 
I think your argument has been shot to pieces.


----------



## sails (16 December 2010)

Agentm said:


> i think the story in this is why no action from the navy?
> 
> the boat imho should have been intercepted, the naval boat was in eyesight of the refugee boat. you cant tell me they had no idea the boat was there.
> 
> ...





Could it be the naval boat was already full of passengers from the last boat intercepted?

These boats have been coming in steadily for quite a while - the media seem to have chosen not to report the frequency of the arrivals.  When the number of boats peaked during Howard's time, it was constantly headline news.  It seems strange that the mainline media have been so silent about this.

Here are a few reports with the help of google - I doubt it covers every boat arrival though:

12th Nov 2010: Boat stopped carrying 39 asylum seekers

17th Nov 2010: Asylum boat carrying 118 stopped

27th Nov 2010: Three more asylum seeker boats arrive with 100 people

30th Nov 2010: Border authorities have intercepted a boat carrying about 63 asylum seekers north of Christmas Island.

2nd Dec 2010: Boat carrying 100 people stopped near Christmas Island

11th Dec 2010:  BORDER authorities have intercepted two boats carrying more than 100 people near the Ashmore Islands.

Below is a chart and a spreadsheet show clearly how the boat arrivals have severely increased in the last couple of years under labor's border policy (or lack of).  And this information *only includes data to 23rd Sept, 2010*.  There have been more arrivals since then.

It is sad that it takes a tragedy such as this with unnecessary loss of life to become headline news again.  I sincerely hope the government will toughen up on their border policies to prevent people smugglers profiting in this way and endangering the lives of other people in their flimsy boats.








http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm#_Toc233686296

and



> In 2008, Kevin Rudd's immigration minister Chris Evans softened the policy - and the rhetoric - yet again. The supposed humanitarian case has won, but now asylum-seekers are rushing our borders again, with *190 boats and 9188 people* intercepted since Evans's move.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...m-seekers-at-bay/story-e6frg6z6-1225961715172


----------



## Sean K (16 December 2010)

Mofra said:


> That is a story in itself - boats are normally intercepted earlier and the people transferred to another vessel for passage onto the Island, or towed away for dangerous areas.
> 
> The two RIBs deployed had no chance of interception/recovery.



We probably know the moment they leave Indonesia actually.

There will be some serious questions asked within I feel.


----------



## Happy (16 December 2010)

noco said:


> How the worm has turned. Beasley and Faulkner accused the Howard Government for the loss of life on the Siev X in 2001 but the lefties will protect Gillard and Rudd by blaming the Navy for the Christmas Island tragedy.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._the_same_questions_it_once_put/#commentsmore




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8184067



> …
> 
> "We should be bringing people from Indonesia ourselves," Ms Curr said.
> "Why do we force them into the boats? We know there are people there - 2500 ... we could handle these people with ease."
> ...




I’ve seen these comments will come one day more than ten years ago.

Why stop there?

Maybe Australian Government should set Illegal Refuge Pick Up Stations in all countries that are likely to have people wishing illegally come to Australia?


----------



## noco (17 December 2010)

It has become a mute point in all political circles at this stage to remain silent on the tragedy at Christmas Island, but Andrew Bolt raises a valid point, "how long it go on without some action". 


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...time_to_say_these_policies_kill/#commentsmore


----------



## Mofra (17 December 2010)

noco said:


> So are you saying, if Australia was invaded by a foreign country, Australian citizens consisting of our indigenous people, who have so many different tribes, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Prodestants, Greenies, Chinese, Italian and any other naturalized Australains form other countries  should not be conscripted into the Australian Army? We are now a multicultural country with a lot more differerent races and cultures than Afghansitan will ever have. Do you see Chinese, Australians or any other multi cultural races living in Afghanistan.
> I think your argument has been shot to pieces.



If this argument made any coherent sense or was in any way related to the issue of asylum seekers I would respond to it.


----------



## Mofra (17 December 2010)

sails said:


> It is sad that it takes a tragedy such as this with unnecessary loss of life to become headline news again.  I sincerely hope the government will toughen up on their border policies to prevent people smugglers profiting in this way and endangering the lives of other people in their flimsy boats.



Would make far less difference than actually working with Indonesia to process applications faster from there - successive governments have made policy ****-backwards to try and make it politically palatable. 
The Regional Processing centre is a good idea for the long term but would take years to implement. Workign with Indonesia would be much faster to setup and would cut the supply to the peopel smugglers at the source.


----------



## noco (17 December 2010)

Mofra said:


> If this argument made any coherent sense or was in any way related to the issue of asylum seekers I would respond to it.




It certainly is related to asylum seekers and by your own admission, you don't have the answer.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2010)

We can't blame the Navy for failing to detect and stop this boat in bad weather. The Navy is woefully under-manned. It is so bad that they have to almost close down during the Xmas period. It would be difficult for a female sailor, with children, working from home (whatever that means) to monitor a boat on the high seas.



> A more feminised navy is working beautifully, as long as you don’t mind it closing shop when the babysitter doesn’t show:
> 
> 
> NAVY chiefs battling a staffing crisis have taken the unprecedented step of ordering a two-month shutdown over Christmas, and have told personnel with child-care problems that they can work from home.
> ...



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...back_and_attack_us_when_the_babys_in_day_care


----------



## pilots (17 December 2010)

Happy said:


> Change of Government?




I think you will find that this is the end of J Dillard, the back room boys that RUN the Labour party are not happy after seeing her get booed on the Oprah show, now with this as well, her days are over, who is next in line?????


----------



## sails (17 December 2010)

Mofra said:


> Would make far less difference than actually working with Indonesia to process applications faster from there - successive governments have made policy ****-backwards to try and make it politically palatable.
> The Regional Processing centre is a good idea for the long term but would take years to implement. Workign with Indonesia would be much faster to setup and would cut the supply to the peopel smugglers at the source.




Mofra, if that would solve the problem, that's great.  As long as they have their papers to prove who they are and that they don't have nasty criminal histories.  

Maybe then P&O could do runs between Indonesia and Australia with the successful applicants who have been properly checked out..  Would likely be cheaper than paying people smugglers and much safer too.  

Drowning is a terrible way to die and everything should be done to stop the smugglers from making these risky trips possible to unvetted people.

However, I'm not sure that this current government is suitable to set up such a scheme as they seem to struggle to get anything right - confidence is slipping daily, IMO.  Setting up another "committee" smacks of yet another cop out and ducking for cover.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2010)

pilots said:


> I think you will find that this is the end of J Dillard, the back room boys that RUN the Labour party are not happy after seeing her get booed on the Oprah show, now with this as well, her days are over, who is next in line?????



She was booed on the Oprah show?  Really?  By Oprah's American fans, or a local Australian audience?  Do you have a link to this?



sails said:


> Setting up another "committee" smacks of yet another cop out and ducking for cover.



Agree entirely.  By seeking to include the Opposition in her committee, she is seeking to dilute her responsibility.  The Opposition are quite right imo to have nothing to do with it, thus preserving their right to hold the government to account.

Rob Oakeshott has today been very critical of this 'committee', saying that any information should be made public as it comes to hand and there is no need for it to be filtered through a committee.  He quoted a rumour which he says is circulating widely that the government actually ordered the Navy not to see this boat, thus ensuring the disaster that did occur.

That sounds a bit far fetched, but perhaps it's possible.  Certainly the government seems totally impotent to alter the flow of boats, to the increasing anger of much of the electorate, and I suppose they could figure a few dead asylum seekers are an appropriate sacrifice if their political capital were to improve as a result of fewer undertaking the risky voyage.


----------



## pilots (17 December 2010)

Julia said:


> She was booed on the Oprah show?  Really?  By Oprah's American fans, or a local Australian audience?  Do you have a link to this?
> 
> 
> Agree entirely.  By seeking to include the Opposition in her committee, she is seeking to dilute her responsibility.  The Opposition are quite right imo to have nothing to do with it, thus preserving their right to hold the government to account.
> ...




I would think it was the Australians, was on the radio here in Perth.


----------



## -Bevo- (17 December 2010)

Julia said:


> She was booed on the Oprah show?  Really?  By Oprah's American fans, or a local Australian audience?  Do you have a link to this?





The Aussie's booed her lol, can certianly hear it at 3:05 in link below.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/if_gillard_is_booed_even_by_the_oprah_crowd


----------



## sails (17 December 2010)

Julia said:


> She was booed on the Oprah show?  Really?  By Oprah's American fans, or a local Australian audience?  Do you have a link to this?




Here's a YouTube video of it on Andrew Bolt's blog:  If Gillard is booed even by the Oprah crowd…

The boos can be heard on the video from around 1:00 as Gillard walks on to the stage.  Ted Baillieu was much better received by the crowd and then you can hear the boos again around 3:00 when Gillard takes the mic and  speaks with those dreaded handsignals... 

EDIT: You beat me to it, Bevo - got a phonecall while typing...


.


----------



## Macquack (17 December 2010)

sails said:


> Here's a YouTube video of it on Andrew Bolt's blog:  If Gillard is booed even by the Oprah crowd…
> 
> The boos can be heard on the video from around 1:00 as Gillard walks on to the stage.  Ted Baillieu was much better received by the crowd and then you can hear the boos again around 3:00 when Gillard takes the mic and  speaks with those dreaded handsignals...
> 
> ...




Firstly, Andrew Bolt is a cat.

Secondly, if you consider that video to be booing Julia Gillard, you are way to soft and are showing your obvious bias.

Granted, the crowd's reaction was cool, *because they were there to see Oprah not Julia Gillard.*


----------



## namrog (17 December 2010)

Simple, it's the Australian way.....

I can't remember seeing an Australian prime minister not booed, when introduced to a regular crowd, it's just the done thing, and certainly something to be expected from a nothing better to do Oprah crowd...!


----------



## sails (17 December 2010)

Macquack said:


> Firstly, Andrew Bolt is a cat.
> 
> Secondly, if you consider that video to be booing Julia Gillard, you are way to soft and are showing your obvious bias.
> 
> Granted, the crowd's reaction was cool, *because they were there to see Oprah not Julia Gillard.*




lol - OK here's the video again directly from YouTube (not Andrew Bolt)
And it is the *soft* border policies that have a lot to answer, IMO.

Yes, we do have our biases - that's what makes politics interesting.
Hopefully, biases for the good of Australia.

Oh, and Ted Baillieu didn't appear to be booed at all - how do you justify that?

[YouTube]5pCNrJgV0C4[/YouTube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pCNrJgV0C4


----------



## noco (17 December 2010)

Lets get back on track for what this thread is all about folks. What has Oprah Winfrey got to do wth asylum seekers?
This Prime Minister of ours has no idea how to lead this country with any crisis that occurs no matter the magnitude of the problem. In trying to  organise  a bipartisan inquiry into this tragedy is an admission of not knowing what to do and is trying to shelve some of the responsibility onto the opposition and independants. It's time she took charge. It would appear after having made so many errors in her first 100 days, she has lost confidence in herself to make hard decisions and should resign.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aster-in-trouble/story-fn59niix-1225972558338


----------



## Julia (17 December 2010)

-Bevo- said:


> The Aussie's booed her lol, can certianly hear it at 3:05 in link below.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/if_gillard_is_booed_even_by_the_oprah_crowd



Thanks, Bevo.  That's just amazing.  Absolutely rude of the audience of course but indicative of their feeling towards her.



Macquack said:


> Firstly, Andrew Bolt is a cat.
> 
> Secondly, if you consider that video to be booing Julia Gillard, you are way to soft and are showing your obvious bias.



Nothing to do with Andrew Bolt, Macquack.   Judgement is made purely on the video which clearly demonstrates the crowd's dislike of Ms Gillard.



namrog said:


> Simple, it's the Australian way.....
> 
> I can't remember seeing an Australian prime minister not booed, when introduced to a regular crowd, it's just the done thing, and certainly something to be expected from a nothing better to do Oprah crowd...!



What absolute nonsense, namrog.   If you really believe this (and I don't remember ever hearing a PM booed like that in my almost 20 years in Australia), put up some links to demonstrate what you assert.

It is not the 'Australian way' to be rude to our leaders, unless the people feel very strongly indeed.

Probably Ms Gillard should have anticipated that this was an Oprah-focused crowd and stayed away.  Silly woman.  She has attempted to associate herself with what a section of the public perceive as a success story, and it has hugely backfired on her.  Serves her right for such superficial behaviour.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2010)

Julia said:


> What absolute nonsense, namrog.   If you really believe this (and I don't remember ever hearing a PM booed like that in my almost 20 years in Australia), put up some links to demonstrate what you assert.
> 
> It is not the 'Australian way' to be rude to our leaders, unless the people feel very strongly indeed.




Its a traditional thing for Australian sporting crowds.



> Some 50,000, mainly fellow Queenslanders, at the cauldron of the common man and woman, Lang Park, gave Rudd the biggest boo of his life at Friday's NRL season opener between the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys.



http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opi...t-of-lang-park-20100316-qcnj.html?comments=30

Rudd was still riding high in the polls at the time.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 December 2010)

noco said:


> Lets get back on track for what this thread is all about folks. What has Oprah Winfrey got to do wth asylum seekers?
> This Prime Minister of ours has no idea how to lead this country with any crisis that occurs no matter the magnitude of the problem. In trying to  organise  a bipartisan inquiry into this tragedy is an admission of not knowing what to do and is trying to shelve some of the responsibility onto the opposition and independants. It's time she took charge. *It would appear after having made so many errors in her first 100 days, she has lost confidence in herself to make hard decisions and should resign.*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aster-in-trouble/story-fn59niix-1225972558338




Totally agree with that last sentiment...

In the meantime, the desperate gummint's Spin Doctoring Dept has been ordered into overdrive to deflect criticism of the PM & her lackeys by mounting a media blitz that appears to be foisting all blame for the incident on the Mystery Smuggler. 

That's right. It was all HIS fault. HE knowingly sent these unfortunates to their demise. It had NOTHING to do with our Honorable Ministers at all, at all .....

Yep, I smell a Mass Media Spin Storm brewing.....


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2010)

Bob Katter gets it right. (for a change)

"So until you can clearly indicate, '*You can't get in*', they will keep coming".

While there is a demand for the smugglers services, they will provide it. It's called Supply and Demand. It's like the drug trade. The only way to stop it is to cut off the demand, or provide an alternative service.


----------



## namrog (18 December 2010)

Calliope said:


> Its a traditional thing for Australian sporting crowds.
> 
> 
> http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opi...t-of-lang-park-20100316-qcnj.html?comments=30
> ...




Thanks Calliope, glad to see someone's awake, happens all the time....

Obviously Judge Julie  doesn't look at too many grand finals, melbourne cups, or other mostly sporting occasions where pollies make a token appearance, in an attempt to show that they can connect with the common man, or in this case, ride on the coat tails of someone elses success... 

I'm not saying she didn't deserve to be booed,  just that it's not that unusual...  

Sorry for sidetracking the thread, what really matters is the tragic loss of innocent life. So many people dying, why  ? ...


----------



## Julia (18 December 2010)

namrog said:


> Obviously Judge Julie  doesn't look at too many grand finals, melbourne cups, or other mostly sporting occasions where pollies make a token appearance, in an attempt to show that they can connect with the common man, or in this case, ride on the coat tails of someone elses success...



Um, it's Julia, not Julie.
You're right.  I don't look at sport.
But this wasn't a sporting occasion.  However, your point that she was there wanting to associate herself with all the positivity of Oprah's visit is well made.  I'm just astonished that - especially in the presence of the revered Oprah - an Australian audience would be so badly mannered.

And if the booing was so commonplace, as you suggest, why was it so widely commented on across the media?


----------



## namrog (18 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Um, it's Julia, not Julie.
> 
> I'm just astonished that - especially in the presence of the revered Oprah - an Australian audience would be so badly mannered.
> 
> And if the booing was so commonplace, as you suggest, why was it so widely commented on across the media?




Oh, erm, sorry Julia.

I'm just as astonished, that an Oprah audience was so well informed,  !!   maybe that's why as you say , it was so widely commented on...! 

But when you think about it, and after listening on the news to some of those interviewed that had attended the Oprah show, it was fairly obvious to me at least, which side of the political divide most were likely to have came from ?,  so i do agree the booing was certainly louder than you would normally expect....

But none of this helps resolve the real issue ..


----------



## noco (18 December 2010)

namrog said:


> Oh, erm, sorry Julia.
> 
> I'm just as astonished, that an Oprah audience was so well informed,  !!   maybe that's why as you say , it was so widely commented on...!
> 
> ...




Geez, don't tell me Oprah is seeking aslyum too. I thought this thread was about Asylum Seekers Crash on Christmas Island.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2010)

It's Gillard's lax asylum policies that created the need for people smugglers.


----------



## noco (18 December 2010)

The hypocrisy of the the Labor Party and their Green Mates over Asylum Seekers is well known when Andrew Bolt warned Rudd and Gillard on several occassion of what could happen if they allowed the continuation of people smuggling.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/dd/


----------



## Julia (18 December 2010)

A letter to the "Weekend Australian" today offers the following suggestion:



> The UNHCR can render such trips pointless by a simiple stroke of the pen.
> It need only amend the refugee convention to include a clause "that the country in which an individual seeks asylum will not be the country in which that person is ultimately legally resettled".
> 
> Adequately funded safe havens would remain guaranteed and the ultimate destination would be determined by the UNHCR, according to need and duration of wait.




This seems a fairly sensible idea.  What do others think?

You'd imagine it would stop those people who will travel through multiple countries and include perilous ocean voyages to come all the way to Australia if they knew there was no guarantee they would be admitted to this country.

Regarding the 'soft line' offered by the Greens et al, and highlighted by Michelle Grattan's non-comments, it's notable that none of these people have any answer when you ask them how the people who are sitting patiently in UNHCR camps, waiting their turn, following their orderly application to come here, will be feeling when these asylum seekers who have refused such orderly application are in fact admitted to Australia ahead of them.


----------



## bellenuit (19 December 2010)

Julia said:


> This seems a fairly sensible idea.  What do others think?




It has merit, but not as a hard and fast rule.  Often the country that a refugee seeks asylum in is the most appropriate country for that person to settle in for cultural and other reasons.  For example, Burmese fleeing to Thailand, North Koreans to South Korea etc. 

I think a better solution would be to allow signatories to the convention on refugees to have no obligation to accept refugees that arrive through channels unacceptable to that country (unsolicited by boat in the case of Australia). They should be allowed return the boat to the port of departure.  There are countless issues even with such a solution, but ultimately unless the solution is acceptable to the host country, there is a real chance that many countries will withdraw completely from the convention if the problems worsen.


----------



## tothemax6 (19 December 2010)

First of all, poor guys. Would be a bad way to go.
But I don't see why there has to be debating about 'the government' when something like this happens. Its like saying we should have debates about what role the government had when somebody ate a bad piece of cheese.
If the governments policy is 'you are not welcome to enter Australia unless you apply and we agree that you can live here', and this policy is clear, that is the best that can be done. If the policy is blurry like 'if you are seeking asylum you can come here', people will attempt the voyage. If the policy is 'anyone can cross the border', then the policy is 'Australia doesn't exist'. The only thing that legitimately delineates nation-states is demographic discontinuities. And if anyone can cross the border, then the border is just a line on a piece of paper and the discontinuity doesn't exist.


----------



## DB008 (19 December 2010)

Calliope said:


> Bob Katter gets it right. (for a change)
> 
> "So until you can clearly indicate, '*You can't get in*', they will keep coming".
> 
> While there is a demand for the smugglers services, they will provide it. It's called Supply and Demand. It's like the drug trade. The only way to stop it is to cut off the demand, or provide an alternative service.




Great point. Unless the government does something, the boats will keep on coming.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution


----------



## joea (19 December 2010)

Prior to the 2007 election, the policy of the Labor party was well known to the overseas countries.
I can clearly remember the Coalition who were in government warning of thousands of people coming to Australia if Labor got into government. Actually 10,000 to be exact.

The Labor government ignored everything the sitting government had to say. If fact
Labor said with great authority that the coalition policy was too tuff.

Well ye all, Labor was voted into power with that asylum policy they made available prior to the election.

So why is it not the people who voted Labor in with their asylum policy not to blame for all these problems.

Gillard is now trying to pull the opposition into some deal to resolve the problem.
Well what she is trying to do is spread the blame over all major parties. 
Abbott has declined the offer.

Gillard is a devious politician. The Australians have seen her true side, and it will be up to the Australian people to resolve the current problems, in all Labor policy's.
Her exposure on wilkileaks says it all. In time she will "implode".

As Forrest Gump said " and that's all I got to say about that"
Cheers.


----------



## sails (19 December 2010)

DB008 said:


> Great point. Unless the government does something, the boats will keep on coming.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution




Danny, the chart you have inserted is only up to  21 July 2010 and so doesn't include the steady increase since then.  The boat arrivals have since exceeded Howard's peak (I posted an article on this at ASF a few weeks ago).

However, the chart clearly shows that the Howard's pacific solution worked.  Why on earth labor would want to mess with something that worked so well is beyond me.  Unless they are hoping for extra labor votes.  It's about the only thing that makes any sense.

There are clearly loopholes in labor's soft border policies that could allow anyone to destroy their papers and be entertained at the expense of taxpayers whether or not they are genuine refugees or not.


----------



## sails (19 December 2010)

Below is from an article dated 17th Dec, 2010 and so is possibly a reflection of the current situation.  It clearly shows the huge increase in boat arrivals with labor's seriously softened border policy.

It is terrible that a tragedy such as this has finally brought the issue back into the media radar.  Surely, this should have been addressed months ago as the number of boat arrivals were escalating weekly, highlighting the fact that labor's changes to the Pacific Solution were absolutely not working.  This was a preventable accident, IMO.



> In *2001, 43 boats carried 5516* asylum-seekers here
> 
> In 2002, there was one boat and one asylum-seeker
> 
> ...





Full story here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-wedge-on-boats/story-e6frg71x-1225972364702
(bolds are mine)


----------



## Julia (19 December 2010)

sails said:


> Danny, the chart you have inserted is only up to  21 July 2010 and so doesn't include the steady increase since then.  The boat arrivals have since exceeded Howard's peak (I posted an article on this at ASF a few weeks ago).
> 
> However, the chart clearly shows that the Howard's pacific solution worked.  Why on earth labor would want to mess with something that worked so well is beyond me.  Unless they are hoping for extra labor votes.



And there you have it, Sails.  The government is trying to recapture the votes they lost to the Greens, hence the 'be kind to asylum seekers' stance.  Their difficulty is, however, that this philosophy puts offside much of their core voter base which is moving to the Opposition.

She has created for herself an impossible situation with this alliance with the Greens.


----------



## sails (19 December 2010)

Julia said:


> And there you have it, Sails.  The government is trying to recapture the votes they lost to the Greens, hence the 'be kind to asylum seekers' stance.  Their difficulty is, however, that this philosophy puts offside much of their core voter base which is moving to the Opposition.
> 
> She has created for herself an impossible situation with this alliance with the Greens.




And even if the motive is for more labor votes, will there eventually be a new political party which will suit those who do not wish to assimilate and will ultimately move the votes away from labor?  Probably no definitive answer at this stage...

One would imagine that A/seekers would continue to vote for labor in the shorter term while it gets them in here.  Then they are conveniently paid to multiply courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer.  

We all know how minor parties can hold a lot of political clout with a little balance of power. 

I would think our policy makers should be studying the effects of certain migrant infiltration in the UK and Europe to see what is really going on instead of looking at the short term vote count.  That is, if they really want the best for Australia.


----------



## sails (19 December 2010)

This is exactly what some of us have suspected and now confirmed by the UN:

*Send detainees home, says UN*



> AUSTRALIA'S immigration detention system is being clogged by growing numbers of rejected asylum seekers who should be sent home, the United Nations refugee agency has warned.
> 
> UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle said *large numbers of people now coming through the asylum system in Australia were not refugees* and ''the challenge is how to find fair and humane and effective ways of allowing them to leave this country to go home''.




(bold and underline is mine)


----------



## Julia (19 December 2010)

sails said:


> I would think our policy makers should be studying the effects of certain migrant infiltration in the UK and Europe to see what is really going on instead of looking at the short term vote count.  That is, if they really want the best for Australia.



 Where on earth did you get such a fanciful idea that our politicians are actually motivated by what is best for Australia?
They are simply motivated by their own political aspirations.  To consider otherwise is to truly be deluded, Sails.


----------



## gav (20 December 2010)

sails said:


> This is exactly what some of us have suspected and now confirmed by the UN:
> 
> *Send detainees home, says UN*
> 
> (bold and underline is mine)




I can't believe it, for once I actually agree with the UN.  Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming...


----------



## sails (22 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Where on earth did you get such a fanciful idea that our politicians are actually motivated by what is best for Australia?
> They are simply motivated by their own political aspirations.  To consider otherwise is to truly be deluded, Sails.




Yeah, you are right, Julia.  What was I thinking...lol...


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2011)

*DEFENCE Minister Stephen Smith has ruled out using the military to restore order on Christmas Island after violent protests. *

Three times this week, Australian Federal Police have used tear gas to quell protests by up to 300 asylum seekers, angry over delays in processing their claims

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...nd/story-e6frfku9-1226024110735#ixzz0iVbYGwZf


----------



## breaker (18 March 2011)

Imagine if we did it their country


----------



## Calliope (18 March 2011)

breaker said:


> Imagine if we did it their country




At least we now know the solution to the Christmas Island problem. These people will never be law abiding citizens. The should all be returned to their home countries.


----------



## Mofra (18 March 2011)

breaker said:


> Imagine if we did it their country



We wouldn't be locked up - Australia is in the international minority in locking up people without charge. 
Pakistan has over 2 million Afghan refugees. We whinge about a few thousand


----------



## sails (18 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> At least we now know the solution to the Christmas Island problem. These people will never be law abiding citizens. The should all be returned to their home countries.




I agree.  Their very actions of violence show that they are not worthy of citizenship in this country. To burn the facilities provided for them is insane. 

On the other hand, the really genuine refugees are generally very grateful for any help they can get. And, sadly, these genuine refugees are made to wait for years in camps while these paperless and violent queue jumpers take their places.  Not that saying that all are violent, but the violent ones should not be eligible for citizenship, IMO.

Surely there should be a hard line for those who show such contempt for our country, however, this labor government seems like a tiger without any teeth and seems incapable of any sort of policy unless it's fleecing the people for more taxes, IMO.

Ms Gillard promised prior to the election that EastTimor would be the solution to stop the boats and that there would be no carbon tax in her government.  Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, she had no intention of keeping either of those election promises, but they possibly got her enough votes so she could hobble over the line with a couple of independents who apparently cheated their electorates...

Is there anything about this government that isn't deceitful?


----------



## Calliope (18 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> . We whinge about a few thousand




Especially when we get the dregs as this mob obviously is.


----------



## sails (18 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> ... We whinge about a few thousand




Mofra, if these were peace loving people, there wouldn't be all this anger.  

But really, in all honesty, would you want several hundred of these men coming to live in your suburb?  Doesn't it bother you that Ms Gillard has plans to place potentially violent people into our communities where families currently live - near our schools possibly endangering our kids??? 

I think Ms Gillard is running out of all credibility and these issues on Christmas island are only reminding people of her pre election promises that she would stop the boats with East Timor and then did not follow through and, instead, started bringing them to mainland suburbs.


----------



## Whiskers (18 March 2011)

sails said:


> Mofra, if these were peace loving people, there wouldn't be all this anger.
> 
> But really, in all honesty, would you want several hundred of these men coming to live in your suburb? Doesn't it bother you that Ms Gillard has plans to place potentially violent people into our communities where families currently live - near our schools possibly endangering our kids???
> 
> I think Ms Gillard is running out of all credibility and these issues on Christmas island are only reminding people of her pre election promises that she would stop the boats with East Timor and then did not follow through and, instead, started bringing them to mainland suburbs.




Yeah, I have to agree.

I have some empathy for refugees generally, but if you or I destroyed buildings and attacked Police like this we'd be charged and likely jailed. 

In any case we'd likely have a criminal conviction that would make it very difficult for us to gain entry to some other countries let alone gain employment.

The technique for training dogs and humans is simple; reward good behavior, ignore undesirable behavior, sanction bad behavior promptly and emphatically... ie just as a dog will not respond to training gets put down, humans who refuse to respect Common Law(s) have to have their privileges removed and or incarcerated for the protection of the rest of community.

If those who get violent and destructive are automatically and immediately expelled, the message would soon get around that threats, violence and damage will just get you a swift one way ticket from whence you came. Some will test the limit, but that will just serve as a continuous reminder to them and an efficient way to quickly process and shorten the cue.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2011)

breaker said:


> Imagine if we did it their country






Mofra said:


> We wouldn't be locked up - Australia is in the international minority in locking up people without charge.



Could you provide some back up to that statement?


> Pakistan has over 2 million Afghan refugees. We whinge about a few thousand



The point is rather how rapidly they are increasing in numbers.  Of course we in our geographically isolated situation will have fewer than those crossing the porous borders of the northern hemisphere.

My main objection is the fact that the government has admitted that with all the asylum seekers arriving by boat (this number now exceeds those arriving by air), the Dept of Immigration is so busy processing these people that they are unable to process those who have applied for orderly immigration via UNHCR and have often been waiting in camps for several years.

Yet we have these violent people who were attempting to injure police and security staff by throwing rocks and other improvised weapons at them, and you are suggesting they're desirable additions to our community????





Whiskers said:


> Yeah, I have to agree.
> 
> I have some empathy for refugees generally, but if you or I destroyed buildings and attacked Police like this we'd be charged and likely jailed.



Mr Bowen has said he is considering whether charges will be laid.   However, it's a pretty long bow between making such a comment in a news grab and actually doing it.  My bet is that they will get no punishment.  And thus, even more people who refuse to apply via the formal channels will be encouraged to come here, where all you have to do is arrive, then if you don't feel you have been admitted to the wider community as quickly as you'd like, then hey, just try to injure some security and police personnel.

I'd like to see them sent back and as soon as possible.

We wouldn't tolerate this sort of nonsense from our own citizens.


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, I have to agree.
> I have some empathy for refugees generally, but if you or I destroyed buildings and attacked Police like this we'd be charged and likely jailed.
> 
> In any case we'd likely have a criminal conviction that would make it very difficult for us to gain entry to some other countries let alone gain employment.




These rioters are are probably criminals in their own countries. We have enough home-grown criminals without importing other countries misfits.


----------



## breaker (19 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> We wouldn't be locked up - Australia is in the international minority in locking up people without charge.
> Pakistan has over 2 million Afghan refugees. We whinge about a few thousand




Maybe you could have them round for a barbie


----------



## noco (19 March 2011)

breaker said:


> Maybe you could have them round for a barbie




I say send the bloody lot back to where they came from on a 747 and load up with geniune refugees who enter with correct procedure; passports and ID's.


----------



## pixel (19 March 2011)

breaker said:


> Pakistan has over 2 million Afghan refugees. We whinge about a few thousand
> Maybe you could have them round for a barbie



and


noco said:


> I say send the bloody lot back to where they came  from on a 747 and load up with geniune refugees who enter with correct  procedure; passports and ID's.



 The difference is: Pakistan doesn't guarantee those 2 Million welfare payments, legal aid ad infinitum, and other taxpayer-funded perks. Pakistan expects them to work for a living and respect the laws of the land. Pakistan doesn't listen to idealist do-gooders in their own country - if indeed they have many. 
Even when our Minister hints at the need to pass a "good character test", everybody knows that won't be really a hurdle; there'll be enough taxpayer-funded lawyers and psychologists that find excuses why these rebels became violent rioters. Just as they find excuses why they "lost" all proof of identity.


----------



## nunthewiser (19 March 2011)

Mmmm.

Riots and attacks on our people.

spitting on our hospitality and our provision of a safe haven


Rubber bullets, ziplock ties and free ride home i say.


----------



## noco (24 March 2011)

What an unholy mess the Gillard/Rudd Labor Government has got themselves into.
According to reports, some Afghan asylum seekers have never lived or have not lived for a long time in Afghanistan.
Gillard said she would process illegal imigrants in East Timor??????????? Problem is she forget East Timor would have the final say on the matter. Gillard said there would be no new detention centres to be built in Australia. Now Darwin is about to be saddled with the biggest in their back yard. 
I mean to say, does this irresponsible Labor Government  really know what they are doing?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aten-sovereignty/story-e6frgd0x-1226026996052


----------



## trainspotter (24 March 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> Mmmm.
> 
> Riots and attacks on our people.
> 
> ...




In a body bag hopefully. This is getting out of control.


----------



## -Bevo- (24 March 2011)

noco said:


> I mean to say, does this irresponsible Labor Government  really know what they are doing?
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aten-sovereignty/story-e6frgd0x-1226026996052




Going by this Governments track record I thought you would already know the answer to that one Noco.
I never believed they were here to escape from persecution, send them all back and find some real refugee's the ones that live in camps that don't have 10k for a boat ride here.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 March 2011)

-Bevo- said:


> Going by this Governments track record I thought you would already know the answer to that one Noco.
> I never believed they were here to escape from persecution, send them all back and find some real refugee's the ones that live in camps that don't have 10k for a boat ride here.




I have much sympathy with the plight of Refugees. Australians have a long history of giving a fair go.

This mess has been engineered by the present ALP/Green government, allowing rich middle class migrants to queue jump, in a dangerous exercise via Indonesia.

Howard was able to stop it by assertive placement of processing areas offshore.

Do not blame the refugees.

Blame Gillard, the Australian Labor Party and their Green mates.

And they only do it out of two rationales.
1. To destabilise the orderly process of legal migration of people who are overwhelmingly anti Green and Right of Centre in voting intentions.
2. God knows, the ALP/Greens are muppets after all.

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (24 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Do not blame the refugees.
> 
> .
> 
> gg




Bollocks.

They are spitting on MY hospitality I have provided them.


stick to the basket weaving.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 March 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> They are spitting on MY hospitality I have provided them.
> 
> ...




Calm down mate. I have done knit one pearl one with me granny, but never progressed to a basket.

My point is that if you set up a system whereby desperate people can queue jump, then they will.

So they cannot be blamed.

Its the Guvment, Julia, Bob and co.

Vote them out mate, I'll never basket weave.

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (24 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> .
> 
> My point is that if you set up a system whereby desperate people can queue jump, then they will.
> 
> ...




they have jumped the queue by arriving here ........that i can live with

what annoys me is the destruction , abuse , whinging, bitching, violence and general DISRESPECT shown to MY country by these w@nkers whilst we are providing a safe haven and shelter plus food, education etc etc whilst they wait to be processed and allowed to join this great country.

yes they are to be blamed. 

personally think fly the ungreatful turds back and leave them on the runway.

i embrace new additions /cultures to this great land but NOT when im disrespected and abused for helping a brother up.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 March 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> they have jumped the queue by arriving here ........that i can live with
> 
> what annoys me is the destruction , abuse , whinging, bitching, violence and general DISRESPECT shown to MY country by these w@nkers whilst we are providing a safe haven and shelter plus food, education etc etc whilst they wait to be processed and allowed to join this great country.
> 
> ...




agree with you totally. You basket weaving sob.

agree.

gg


----------



## sails (24 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ...
> 
> Its the Guvment, Julia, Bob and co.
> 
> ...




Any suggestions on how to get them to call an election?  

I doubt the GG will help because of her son-in-law.  But then, what's the point of having a GG if she/he is so closely aligned with the government?  

If she wasn't so personally involved, maybe she could organise a royal commission into labor's lies on stopping the boats and carbon tax fib.  Both these issues are major and are upsetting a large number of voters.

Except those, of course, who seem to just blindly defend anything labor dishes up.  But then, as long as they are "compensated" from carbon tax and don't have violent illegals in their suburb, they will probably keep defending no matter how irrational labor policies may be or how much these policies may hurt their fellow Aussies...


----------



## trainspotter (25 March 2011)

*Henderson boat builder Strategic Marine has won a $5 million Australian Federal Police contract to supply three high-speed patrol vessels to help Indonesian police fight people smuggling through Australia's northern waters.*

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bu...strategic-marine-wins-5m-afp-vessel-contract/

Israeli gun ships would be better.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

noco said:


> What an unholy mess the Gillard/Rudd Labor Government has got themselves into.
> According to reports, some Afghan asylum seekers have never lived or have not lived for a long time in Afghanistan.
> Gillard said she would process illegal imigrants in East Timor??????????? Problem is she forget East Timor would have the final say on the matter. Gillard said there would be no new detention centres to be built in Australia. Now Darwin is about to be saddled with the biggest in their back yard.
> I mean to say, does this irresponsible Labor Government  really know what they are doing?
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aten-sovereignty/story-e6frgd0x-1226026996052



Greg Sheridan has served it up well in that article.

Can The Australian smell blood ?


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

sails said:


> Any suggestions on how to get them to call an election?



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-tax-deal-revolt/story-fn59niix-1226027728392

Is that what the Greens want too ?


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> ...what annoys me is the destruction , abuse , whinging, bitching, violence and general DISRESPECT shown to MY country by these w@nkers whilst we are providing a safe haven and shelter plus food, education etc etc whilst they wait to be processed and allowed to join this great country.




Yes, when you consider that that the Rudd/Gillard governments welcomed them with open loving arms, even to the extent of providing a welcoming escort to the Christmas Island sanctuary.

They have been provided with everything they ask for, and in return all we ask for is them be be patient.

The strange thing is, that if foreigners *fly* in, and can't prove that they are not here seeking work, then they are sent back on the next plane. And they have passports. One of the problems with sending the illegals back is that they don't have passports, and their *own* countries won't accept them without passports.


----------



## sails (25 March 2011)

Here's a new twist.  Is this Julia's idea to trick the boat people to save millions on free legal representation?  I suspect that boat people will wise up to this and refuse to disembark in future, so this is only a short term fix for labor, IMO.

Full story from the Australian: Remote beach drop-off strips asylum-seekers' legal rights 

The last paragraph from the above link:


> Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison accused the government of being misleading. "While boasting that bringing people to the mainland would not risk a court challenge, they then took the Broome-bound asylum-seekers for a beach excursion on Ashmore Reef, to establish footfall outside the migration zone," he said.


----------



## nunthewiser (25 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yes, when you consider that that the Rudd/Gillard governments welcomed them with open loving arms, even to the extent of providing a welcoming escort to the Christmas Island sanctuary.
> 
> They have been provided with everything they ask for, and in return all we ask for is them be be patient.
> 
> .




and exactly the same with the howard/liberal guvvermint if your one eyedness could see that far.
it hasnt been a "party" factor on this disrespect and spitting on australia, it has been a general bloody thing no matter where they have been placed ..woomera, christmas island ..

bollocks i say 

respect our hospitality or get a rubber bullet up the bum and a free ride home i reckon

no matter who the guvvermint is


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> bollocks i say
> 
> respect our hospitality or get a rubber bullet up the bum and a free ride home i reckon
> 
> no matter who the guvvermint is




..............+1


----------



## noco (25 March 2011)

sails said:


> Here's a new twist.  Is this Julia's idea to trick the boat people to save millions on free legal representation?  I suspect that boat people will wise up to this and refuse to disembark in future, so this is only a short term fix for labor, IMO.
> 
> Full story from the Australian: Remote beach drop-off strips asylum-seekers' legal rights
> 
> The last paragraph from the above link:




Geez and here I was thinking they stopped at Ashmore Reef for a pee and a barbie.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2011)

The government are denying there was any political motive in the going ashore, and assures us that it was for 'operational reasons'.
  Yeah, right.

Their continued insulting of the population with their spin is incredible.
Further, with this nonsense and the capitulation to the asylum seekers following their rioting and setting fire to the buildings at Christmas Island, they are simply increasing the resentment in the community about the privileged treatment of these people who have failed to make application to come here in the conventional manner.

I'd like to see them all sent back at least to Indonesia where they can then join the queue behind those who have been waiting for years.


----------



## drsmith (5 April 2011)

This might be as regional as it gets.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...open-in-tasmania/story-fn59niix-1226033937113


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> This might be as regional as it gets.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...open-in-tasmania/story-fn59niix-1226033937113




To the best of my knowledge Wilke hasn't complained before about detention centres, but perhaps it's getting a bit too personal with this one opening in Tasmania.  It makes a difference when these things happen in your suburb or in a suburb close to your own home.  Too easy for pollies to remain detached when it doesn't affect them personally, IMO.

Wonder if Bob Brown will invite his new neighbours over for a barbie...


----------



## sinner (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> To the best of my knowledge Wilke hasn't complained before about detention centres, but perhaps it's getting a bit too personal with this one opening in Tasmania.  It makes a difference when these things happen in your suburb or in a suburb close to your own home.  Too easy for pollies to remain detached when it doesn't affect them personally, IMO.
> 
> Wonder if Bob Brown will invite his new neighbours over for a barbie...




Did you even read the article and what he says in it? Your post is full of it dude.



> “I have long opposed mandatory detention anywhere and this facility will be no different,” Mr Wilkie said in a statement.
> 
> “These are people who have knocked on Australia's door seeking asylum and it is wrong to cage them behind wire, whether it be in Pontville or Christmas Island.
> 
> ...


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

sinner said:


> Did you even read the article and what he says in it? Your post is full of it dude.




Glad you enjoyed my post...

He might have said he has long opposed mandatory detention anywhere, but he's been pretty quick to speak out quickly on this one.  Did he make similar comments about the other detention centres in WA, SA and Darwin - and so promptly?

I don't feel like looking it up, but if he has been entirely consistent, then my apologies...


----------



## sptrawler (5 April 2011)

People waiting for access to Australia through the normal channels must be wondering if they wouldn't be better served by going to Bali on a holiday and catching a boat over.
If Wilke wants to do away with detention centres and mandatory detention maybe he could do away with the border protection system all together. We would save a fortune and have enough workers to go around in no time.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

On "PM" (ABC Radio) this evening there was an item about the small town near Hobart where an upgrade of some existing facility is going to house 400 single male asylum seekers.

The Mayor of this metropolis got a little carried away with his sense of hospitality toward his potential guests and has suggested they could be taken on lovely bus trips to the local wildlife park where they could make friends with the various unsuspecting animals.

It seems his constituents were rather less than enthusiastic about such a proposition.

Let's hope that instead, the Mayor might consider taking some disadvantaged Australian citizens on such a pleasurable outing.  Might give them some relief from their homeless, mentally ill misery.


----------



## sptrawler (5 April 2011)

I am sure my mum ,79 years old would love to have some of the money being spent on these illegal imigrants spent on improving her lot. Both her and my father payed rent to the government on accomadation in outback W.A that these people would not accept. Even myself in the early 80's had to pay $60 a week for an asbestos and tin house in Exmouth with nothing but ceiling fans. Now I am supposed to subsidise people. Give me a break. Now the Government is telling me I am selfish


----------



## dutchie (6 April 2011)

Interesting figures:

“On Budget Night, 105,000 Australians are homeless. There are positive commitments in this Budget to suggest this group of marginalised Australians have not been left out in the cold once again. However there is much work yet ahead to reduce this number.”
Media release from Homelessness Australia (after 2009-2010 Budget)

“The $130.5 million in Commonwealth funding in 2010/11 for new homelessness initiatives to be implemented under the National Partnership on Homelessness will contribute to reducing the personal and social costs of homelessness”, Homelessness Australia’s Chairperson, Narelle Clay said.     (May 2010)


Extrapolation     $130,500,000/105,000= $1250 per person per year


Tasmanian Project
(6 month project)

$15million – upgrade housing
Food, clothing etc for 400 (for 12 months) @ $50/person/day= 400x 365x $50 = $7.28 million*
Staff wages estimate   15@ $50,000 (for 12 months) = $750,000*

Total Cost = $23 million (approximate)

Extrapolation     $23,000,000/400 =  $57,500 per person per year

*adjusted to annual figures for comparison


----------



## Julia (6 April 2011)

Dutchie, your calculation miserably sums up the priorities of this pathetic government.


----------

